What do you get when you cross a burrito with a drone?

Business as Usual - this week's most unusual business idea.

An unusual little business idea recently highlighted how blinkered governments have been in their deployment of drones in recent years. Invented by three young developers, the Burrito Bomber is a mini drone that tracks customers' locations via their smartphones and drops a burrito into onto their doorsteps. Mini aircraft flying around dropping takeaways out of the sky may seem bizarre and unnecessary but the prospect of using the same technology to deliver food and supplies to remote or war-torn areas is promising.

The founders are ready to launch their idea as a fully fledged business but have been blocked by the Federal Aviation Administration because commercial drones are not allowed. At the same time the use of government-operated armed drones is increasing. As these mini weapons cruise the skies the world over, and the number of drone-related casualties mount up, any focus on the potential good unmanned aircraft can have seems to have fallen by the wayside. 

In the UK over £2bn has been spent on military drones and in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where covert US drone strikes are taking place, the number of civilian deaths by drone currently stands at 1,123 according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. By preferring to focus on the drone as weapon rather than as a humanitarian tool governments have presented this innovative and versatile technology as an object of fear. While glibly presented, the Burrito Bomber presents an alternative reality for drone use. Whether or not governments choose to adopt a similarly positive approach remains to be seen.

Fast food. Photograph: 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