US press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. Pink slime economics (New York Times)

On Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history, writes Paul Krugman.

2. Energy "independence," after all? (Washington Post)

Getting to Nixon's no net imports is not necessary if most imports come from Canada and other friendly countries. The true foolishness of Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline was to encourage Canada to look elsewhere to sell its surplus oil, says Robert Samuelson.

3. Can Richie Rich get to the White House? (Politico)

David Stewart says the rich are supposed to have the same chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle. He asks: How do the odds work when it comes to entering the White House?

4. Maikel Nabil Sanad draws back the curtain on Egypt's military (Washington Post)

U.S. aid -- especially when granted unconditionally -- simply reinforces the military's position and encourages the persecution of genuine pro-American liberals, writes Jackson Diehl.

5. The politics of going to college (New York Times)

Romney's refusal to promise that he will "give you government money to pay for your college" is a risky approach to courting ambitious lower income voters. Democrats see Romney setting a trap for himself and have already begun to lay the general election groundwork, says Thomas Edsall.

6. Supreme Court should support health care act (SF Gate)

The idea of roping in everyone to pay the health care bills is the center point of the law... It's not a single-payer, government-run system, instead obliging everyone to find coverage, says this editorial.

7. My plan offers a better way than ObamaRomneyCare (USA Today)

Rick Santorum says Republicans need a nominee with the credibility to take on President Obama on an issue vital to voters, and a president who will repeal ObamaCare.

8. An exciting VP? Don't go for it, Mitt (Boston Globe) (£)

For all of the discussion about playing to key states, adding foreign policy experience, or balancing a ticket's ideology, the stark truth is that none of it really matters. In the end, there is only one imperative: don't blow it, says this editorial.

9. Obama's flexibility doctrine revealed (Chicago Tribune)

You don't often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he's seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people, writes Charles Krauthammer.

10. The right budget? GOP wants to kill the "New Deal" (Philadelphia Inquirer)

FDR gave Americans a much better deal. Let's not ditch it now, says this editorial.

The United States Capitol on 19 March, 2012. Credit: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496