Tech giants reject GCHQ boss Robert Hannigan's call for deal with government Robert Hannigan is right to highlight the threats that all democratic societies face as terrorist groups become more effective in both manipulating new media to promote their ends and using security and encryption to make their operations opaque to our security services. However, he is wrong to suggest that this is an issue that technology companies are in denial about. As we made clear in our recent tech manifesto, technology firms which we represent have important legal obligations to work with government to help keep the UK safe and secure which they take extremely seriously. A rebellion against Mr Hannigan's comments appeared to be swelling inside the tech industry, as another industry group dismissed the GCHQ chief's comments as "wrong and ill-judged." The Internet Services Providers" Association (ISPA) said disclosures by Edward Snowden, a former CIA contractor, about the ability of the US and British government's surveillance capabilities had exposed the need for "reform." "For this debate to proceed properly, the security services, law enforcement and Government have to be more open and transparent about existing capabilities," an ISPA spokesman said. "The mischaracterisation of the Internet as a "command and control centre" for terrorists is wrong and ill-judged. The Snowden revelations changed the landscape: existing oversight mechanisms were found to be not fit for purpose and there was a lack of accountability. This has to be the starting point for reform. If greater or clearer powers are needed, the case needs to be made via thorough consultation and legislative proposals should be placed in Parliament for further scrutiny. It came as the Prime Minister's official spokesman said David Cameron believed companies "need to do more" to combat abuse of web-based technology by violent and extremist groups. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and a former foreign secretary, said some of the technology firms had an "amateurish" approach to monitoring alleged criminal behaviour. He told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "I think they should recognise that they perhaps have a greater duty than many of them acknowledge to monitor what is happening on their systems." They do that to a certain degree - if they hear of evidence that may imply that a serious crime is about to be committed, they often do inform the police. But their monitoring systems seem to be fairly amateurish in comparison to what they could be. He added: "If you build into your systems methods that prevent the intelligence agencies, even when they have lawful authority, from being able to find out what's actually being said from one terrorist source to another, that is making the problems of protecting the public infinitely more difficult than they would otherwise be." Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said it should not be for technology companies to decide when to hand over data to the intelligence services. He said: "If tech companies are becoming more resistant to GCHQ's demands for data, it is because they realise that their customers' trust has been undermined by the Snowden revelations. It should be down to judges, not GCHQ nor tech companies, to decide when our personal data is handed over to the intelligence services.