Apple and Google Just Attended a Confidential Spy Summit in a Remote English Mansion
At an 18th-century mansion in England’s countryside
last week, current and former spy chiefs from seven countries faced off
with representatives from tech giants Apple and Google to discuss
government surveillance in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s leaks.
last week, current and former spy chiefs from seven countries faced off
with representatives from tech giants Apple and Google to discuss
government surveillance in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s leaks.
The three-day conference, which took place behind
closed doors and under strict rules about confidentiality, was aimed at
debating the line between privacy and security.
closed doors and under strict rules about confidentiality, was aimed at
debating the line between privacy and security.
Among an extraordinary list of attendees were a host
of current or former heads from spy agencies such as the CIA and British
electronic surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters,
or GCHQ. Other current or former top spooks from Australia, Canada,
France, Germany and Sweden were also in attendance. Google, Apple, and
telecommunications company Vodafone sent some of their senior policy and
legal staff to the discussions. And a handful of academics and
journalists were also present.
of current or former heads from spy agencies such as the CIA and British
electronic surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters,
or GCHQ. Other current or former top spooks from Australia, Canada,
France, Germany and Sweden were also in attendance. Google, Apple, and
telecommunications company Vodafone sent some of their senior policy and
legal staff to the discussions. And a handful of academics and
journalists were also present.
According to an event program obtained by The Intercept,
questions on the agenda included: “Are we being misled by the term
‘mass surveillance’?” “Is spying on allies/friends/potential adversaries
inevitable if there is a perceived national security interest?” “Who
should authorize intrusive intelligence operations such as
interception?” “What should be the nature of the security relationship
between intelligence agencies and private sector providers, especially
when they may in any case be cooperating against cyber threats in
general?” And, “How much should the press disclose about intelligence
activity?”
questions on the agenda included: “Are we being misled by the term
‘mass surveillance’?” “Is spying on allies/friends/potential adversaries
inevitable if there is a perceived national security interest?” “Who
should authorize intrusive intelligence operations such as
interception?” “What should be the nature of the security relationship
between intelligence agencies and private sector providers, especially
when they may in any case be cooperating against cyber threats in
general?” And, “How much should the press disclose about intelligence
activity?”
