Dating cyber snooper
I can’t speak for you, but I know my answer to that question.
I was sexually and physically abused as a kid, and raped in my early 20s.
Most of us have things in our lives — and in our internet search histories — about which we might be dismayed or even grievously embarrassed if they were exposed to the world.
Yet Amazon, Tesco, Google, Talk Talk and all the rest know almost every detail of our personal lives and habits: who we talk to and fall in love with, where we went for lunch yesterday, what we do on holiday and view online.
They have already gone to war against earlier emergency legislation, arguing it represented a ‘snooper’s charter’, giving the intelligence services, especially the GCHQ surveillance centre, intolerable rights of intrusion.
I have never forgotten a senior intelligence officer saying to me some years ago: ‘Our ability to monitor terrorists’ communications is the only edge we have over them.
In striking a balance between security and privacy, the U. is less frightened of terrorists and more frightened of its own government than is Britain.
GCHQ at Cheltenham has recently opened its closely guarded doors to media visitors because it recognises the need to make the case for its activities not only to Parliament, but to the British people.I recently published a book, The Secret War, about spies and codebreaking in World War II. publisher queried this, saying that in New York some people think he has served the cause of democracy.In its last chapter, I wrote that we should all be grateful that Snowden, the modern traitor, did not work at Bletchley. I responded that New Yorkers can think what they like, but Snowden has dramatically increased the risks we face while diminishing the power of the intelligence services to protect us.In recent years, some have shown themselves grotesquely prejudiced in favour of the rights of terrorist suspects at the expense of public safety.It will also be difficult to involve the Labour Party in oversight.