I think that line was actually a lot worse than that, in particular: >"with potentially life and death consequences that go beyond day-to-day internet security

I think that line was actually a lot worse than that, in particular: >"with potentially life and death consequences that go beyond day-to-day internet security." So this is setting up "counter-terrorism" as some sort of special thing far beyond "day-to-day internet security". But the whole problem is that day-to-day internet security absolutely can involve life-safety issues. Lots of vital infrastructure SCADA is on the internet and ludicrously exploitable. Internet monitoring is now used for all sorts of medical scenarios as well. Even in business settings like hospitals we've seen ransomware and the like cause major damage, but lots of individuals make use of internet devices to empower their ability to have the elderly stay at home longer for example, monitoring for falls or other issues. And even with "just" finance, if someone's small business is destroyed and everyone laid off, that can cause plenty of dangerous ripples. If anything, I'd say terrorism is near the bottom of my list of threats to my own life and those close to me, right along lightning strikes. Sure, they do happen, and taking some basic transparent precautions is reasonable. But it gets lots of attention precisely because it's rare. Like, the entire point of it is right there in the name, to terrorize people into doing damage to themselves that the attacker could never manage alone. Terrorism is an expression of weakness, not strength.