This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/world/europe/GCHQ-director-tech-companies-militants.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
British Intelligence Official Says U.S. Tech Companies Offer Terrorists ‘Networks of Choice’ British Intelligence Official Says U.S. Tech Companies Offer Terrorists ‘Networks of Choice’
(about 5 hours later)
LONDON — One of Britain’s highest-ranking intelligence officials on Tuesday castigated the giant American companies that dominate the Internet for providing the “command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals” and challenged the companies to find a better balance between privacy and security.LONDON — One of Britain’s highest-ranking intelligence officials on Tuesday castigated the giant American companies that dominate the Internet for providing the “command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals” and challenged the companies to find a better balance between privacy and security.
Robert Hannigan, the newly appointed director of GCHQ, Britain’s electronic eavesdropping agency, also said that young foreign jihadists in Syria and Iraq had benefited from leaks by the former American intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden. The statements were made by Robert Hannigan, the newly appointed director of GCHQ, Britain’s electronic intelligence agency. They were among the most pointed in a campaign by intelligence services in Britain and the United States against pressure to rein in their digital surveillance following disclosures by the American former contractor Edward J. Snowden.
Mr. Hannigan’s harsh charges came in an opinion article published on Tuesday in The Financial Times, the British newspaper. GCHQ, which stands for Government Communications Headquarters, operates closely with the British domestic security service, MI5; the overseas intelligence service, MI6; and the National Security Agency in the United States. In the wake of those leaks, technology companies have grown increasingly reluctant to comply with government surveillance programs. That, along with the increased use of sophisticated encryption products and regulation around the world intended to bolster the privacy rights of individuals, has led to intelligence officials asserting that the reaction to the leaks by Mr. Snowden is harming national security by allowing terrorist groups to communicate freely for recruitment, fund-raising and planning.
Mr. Hannigan’s comments, calling for “a new deal between democratic governments and the technology companies in the area of protecting our citizens,” seemed to urge a reappraisal of the balance between civil liberties and national security. Mr. Hannigan, in an opinion article on Tuesday in the Financial Times, singled out the Islamic State, the radical group also known as ISIS or ISIL, as one “whose members have grown up on the Internet” and are “exploiting the power of the web to create a jihadi threat with near-global reach.”
“Privacy has never been an absolute right,” he said, “and the debate about this should not become a reason for postponing urgent and difficult decisions.” In a speech two weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, said that the “post-Snowden pendulum” had “gone too far.” On Monday, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, took a less confrontational approach, telling an audience of students and faculty members at Stanford University that “a fundamentally strong Internet is in the best interest of the U.S.”
He directed his remarks particularly at the Sunni militants of the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, who have spilled from Syria into broad sections of neighboring Iraq in an often-brutal campaign to create an Islamic caliphate. Increasingly encrypted products and services are “a challenge,” Admiral Rogers said. “And we’ll deal with it.”
The group, he wrote, “is the first terrorist group whose members have grown up on the Internet.” But he also pushed for better sharing of information between the intelligence community and private technology companies. Legislation that would set up a formal information-sharing system has stalled in Congress in the face of objections from the private sector.
“They are exploiting the power of the web to create a jihadi threat with near-global reach,” he continued. “The challenge to governments and their intelligence agencies is huge — and it can only be met with greater cooperation from technology companies.” “It is unrealistic to expect the private sector to withstand the actions of nation states,” Admiral Rogers said. “I think it is also unrealistic to expect the government to deal with this all by itself. ”
This is not the first time that European government officials have asked some of the world’s largest technology companies, including Google and Facebook, to help in the fight against extremists. Technology companies, which harvest customer data for commercial uses, reacted cautiously on Tuesday, generally seeking to avoid any role that would make them agents of government intelligence gathering.
In October, European government officials met with senior executives from several companies like Microsoft and Twitter to discuss how terrorist groups were using social media networks to spread their messages across the Internet. “It’s such a slippery slope with these types of requests,” said Stefan Weitz, director of search at Microsoft. “If you say yes to one request, more will inevitably start to come in. At what point do you stop?”
After the meeting, the companies and policy makers agreed to organize future discussions about how to handle the potential online threat, though no concrete steps were announced. Technology companies continue to cooperate with governments in some ways. In Britain, for example, government agencies have regular contact with Google and its YouTube subsidiary, and can get expedited responses when they raise concerns about terror recruitment videos or images of beheadings, often resulting in quick action to take down the content in question.
Technology companies, however, have previously been vocal that they comply with government demands to hand over information about their users only when they are mandated by court orders. But Mr. Hannigan’s comments, calling for “a new deal between democratic governments and the technology companies in the area of protecting our citizens,” seemed to urge a further reappraisal of the balance between civil liberties and national security. Britain, like many other European nations, has been increasingly concerned about online recruitment of potential fighters from within its borders by Islamic State and other radical groups.
Mr. Hannigan’s statement drew opposition from civil liberties groups.
“It is not for the head of a powerful intelligence agency to wave his arms and expect citizens of a democracy to gladly give up their rights,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research group in Washington, D.C. “His responsibility is to protect their freedoms.”
GCHQ, which stands for Government Communications Headquarters, operates closely with the British domestic security service, MI5; with the overseas intelligence service, MI6; and with the National Security Agency in the United States.
“Privacy has never been an absolute right,” Mr. Hannigan wrote, “and the debate about this should not become a reason for postponing urgent and difficult decisions.”
Technology companies have been vocal in insisting that they comply with government demands to hand over information about their users only when they are mandated by court orders.
Twitter received more than 2,000 requests for information about user accounts from roughly 50 countries in the first six months of 2014, according to a company statement. The number of requests represented a 46 percent increase compared with the same period last year, and more than 60 percent of the requests came from the United States government.Twitter received more than 2,000 requests for information about user accounts from roughly 50 countries in the first six months of 2014, according to a company statement. The number of requests represented a 46 percent increase compared with the same period last year, and more than 60 percent of the requests came from the United States government.
In the past, Al Qaeda and its affiliates, which have broken with the Islamic State, “saw the Internet as a place to disseminate material anonymously or meet in ‘dark spaces,'  ” Mr. Hannigan wrote, while the Islamic State “has embraced the web as a noisy channel in which to promote itself, intimidate people and radicalize new recruits.” In the past, Al Qaeda and its affiliates, which have broken with the Islamic State, “saw the Internet as a place to disseminate material anonymously or meet in ‘dark spaces,' ” Mr. Hannigan wrote, while the Islamic State “has embraced the web as a noisy channel in which to promote itself, intimidate people and radicalize new recruits.”
Mr. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, who fled to Moscow from Hong Kong in June 2013, has since been granted asylum in Russia. His name has become a byword for the disclosure of secret materials, including extensive revelations about cooperation between GCHQ and the N.S.A.
In documents published in January, for instance, the two agencies were shown to be working together on how to collect and store data from dozens of smartphone apps.
The opinion article by Mr. Hannigan referred specifically to messaging and social media sites and apps such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp.The opinion article by Mr. Hannigan referred specifically to messaging and social media sites and apps such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp.
“There is no need for today’s would-be jihadis to seek out restricted websites with secret passwords: They can follow other young people posting their adventures in Syria as they would anywhere else,” he said. “There is no need for today’s would-be jihadis to seek out restricted websites with secret passwords: They can follow other young people posting their adventures in Syria as they would anywhere else,” he wrote.
Mr. Hannigan called on the American companies that operate these social media sites to cooperate more fully with intelligence and surveillance agencies as the more tightly regulated telecommunications companies do. Mr. Hannigan called on the American companies that operate these social media sites to cooperate more fully with intelligence and surveillance agencies, in the same way as the more tightly regulated telecommunications companies do.
“I understand why they have an uneasy relationship with governments,” he continued. “They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly, their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.” “I understand why they have an uneasy relationship with governments,” he added. “They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly, their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.”
“However much they may dislike it,” Mr. Hannigan continued, “they have become the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us. If they are to meet this challenge, it means coming up with better arrangements for facilitating lawful investigation by security and law enforcement agencies than we have now.”
GCHQ is based in a huge building near Cheltenham, west of London.
“To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human behavior on the Internet,” Mr. Hannigan wrote, “it can seem that some technology companies are in denial about its misuse. I suspect most ordinary users of the Internet are ahead of them: They have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation, child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child abuse.”
He continued, “As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the spectacular creation that is the World Wide Web, we need a new deal between democratic governments and the technology companies in the area of protecting our citizens.
“It should be a deal rooted in the democratic values we share. That means addressing some uncomfortable truths. Better to do it now than in the aftermath of greater violence.”