I often notice journalistic pieces interview people and then use maybe 30 seconds' worth of material from a 20-minute interview. The "expert" could have condemned it in any number of ways until the topic of applying data protection laws came up and she said that companies need to be held accountable (could be about GDPR, could be about snooping laws) which the journalist then quoted, not out of malice but because everyone already condemns it and this is the most interesting statement of the interview
Anyway, so while I don't think we should condemn people based on such a single quoted sentence... I took a look at her website and the latest video reveals at 00:38 that she worked for the UK crime agency, which does sound like the one of the greatest possible conflicts of interest for someone called upon for privacy matters rather than crime fighting. Watching the rest of that interview, she approaches it fairly objectively but (my interpretation of) her point of view seems to be on the side of "even with this backdoor, a warrant needs issuing every time they use it and so there's adequate safeguards and the UK crime fighters and national security people should just get access to anything they can get a warrant for"
Assuming you’ve framed it fairly, that’s a pretty atrocious point of view for someone calling themselves a privacy expert to hold. A privacy expert should know that backdoors are dangerous to privacy even if you trust the people who are supposed to have the keys.
I often notice journalistic pieces interview people and then use maybe 30 seconds' worth of material from a 20-minute interview. The "expert" could have condemned it in any number of ways until the topic of applying data protection laws came up and she said that companies need to be held accountable (could be about GDPR, could be about snooping laws) which the journalist then quoted, not out of malice but because everyone already condemns it and this is the most interesting statement of the interview
Anyway, so while I don't think we should condemn people based on such a single quoted sentence... I took a look at her website and the latest video reveals at 00:38 that she worked for the UK crime agency, which does sound like the one of the greatest possible conflicts of interest for someone called upon for privacy matters rather than crime fighting. Watching the rest of that interview, she approaches it fairly objectively but (my interpretation of) her point of view seems to be on the side of "even with this backdoor, a warrant needs issuing every time they use it and so there's adequate safeguards and the UK crime fighters and national security people should just get access to anything they can get a warrant for"
Assuming you’ve framed it fairly, that’s a pretty atrocious point of view for someone calling themselves a privacy expert to hold. A privacy expert should know that backdoors are dangerous to privacy even if you trust the people who are supposed to have the keys.