The London Financial Times published an interview Robert Hannigan, the new head of Britain's intelligence agency GCHQ. Mr. Hannigan stated that the American women Companies technology should work better together to fight terrorism, in partnership with governments rather than working against the intelligence services in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations.
The article had as a central theme, address the growing threat posed by ISIS.
Hannigan, who has been in charge of the GCHQ intelligence service since last year, said that in order to combat the new terrorist threat, "better arrangements are needed to facilitate lawful investigation by the security services compared to those currently in place."
He pointed out that as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Web, there should be a "new agreement" between governments and technology companies "in the field of protecting our citizens."
To this end, he said, GCHQ is "happy" to be taking part in the privacy debate in the digital age, although "privacy has never been an absolute right", especially in the wake of the growing threat from ISIS.
It is not surprising that the intelligence officer considers that violation of international law to protect the privacy of millions of people is not so important.
Hannigan's observations clearly come to conflict with a fundamental European principle: the protection of private life is an inalienable right for all residents of the 28-member states of the Union.
It seems that the tech companies are fighting back, although we're not entirely sure, as governments and intelligence agencies are very good at applying pressure. In a cat and mouse game of the US government with the Silicon Valley, played on the back of the consumer, the winners are definitely not us. Secret services know very well how to blur the landscape, that's their job after all. GCHQ's Hannigan's statement is quite encouraging for the public, but also for companies seeking to restore their name. Where is the truth? No one knows. However, speaking of Mr. Hannigan and rights, everyone has the right to debate, but they do not have the right to protest on basic issues of international law.
