Why I placed that Ban Blair-Baiting advertisement

The hate-speech directed at Tony Blair must be countered.

"Bliar is a war criminal and should be tried and executed -- let's bring back castration, disembowelling, hanging and quartering, since he is also a traitor."

This is a more extreme example of the sort of hate-speech being incessantly directed at our former prime minister, which prompted a group of concerned citizens to set up the online petition related to this week's New Statesman ad. Our other worry was that the media would be cherry-picking, distorting and exaggerating anything said at the Chilcot inquiry that appeared to undermine the case for war in Iraq, and therefore Tony Blair's reputation.

And so it has proved to be. Here's a graphic case in point from the BBC's supposedly impartial coverage of Blair's inquiry appearance. In the morning coffee break, the commentator, against a backdrop of hostile anti-Blair banners and placards, blithely referred to previous testimony "that a deal [about regime change] had been signed in blood".

In fact, the witness in question, Sir Christopher Meyer, had merely explained that he wasn't in on the meeting in question, so he couldn't say whether a deal was "signed in blood". Last week's Observer twisted Meyer's words in the same way. I could have provided many instances of such biased reporting had there been more space for this post.

I have looked in vain for mainstream media comment setting the record straight on this vital matter. That is why I felt compelled to take out that advert, as the only way of getting the message across.

Surely there is something badly wrong with our principal channels of communication if the reporting of such an important topic can be so slanted in one direction that those with another perspective have to resort to paid advertising to make their views known.

It has to be put right soon if we are to have a functioning democracy in this country.

Signing the petition would be a first step.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

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