If the government really wanted to make a difference, it would properly penalise companies that underinvest in security and lose people's information with little to no impact. It would not ask them to increase the data they are holding about individuals. Holding more data about individuals will make subsequent data losses catastrophic to their everyday lives.
The answer to our surveillance dilemma lies in targeted surveillance, a warrant process overseen by the judiciary, an annual parliamentary public scrutiny of the security services, legislated protections for the professional privileges of doctors and lawyers and, most of all, a proper and lengthy public debate void of vague and fear inducing inferences to terror plots and criminal gangs.
There is a risk that a terrorist cell may use WhatsApp to organise a terrorist attack, but equally there is a risk they will use a family car to carry a car bomb or public transport to get to their target. Are we also going to ban public transport and family cars unless the security services have the ability to monitor everyone who makes use of them?
We must have answers. Indiscriminate mass surveillance has an impact that reaches far beyond Amnesty. It threatens the vital work of other organisations and it impacts you. Yes, you! In accepting your government encroaching into your private communications you risk sleepwalking into a surveillance culture.