Why do we let protesters dictate energy policy?

Cuadrilla withdraws from oil expansion in West Sussex.

The activists have won. For now. UK based energy firm Cuadrilla announced last night it is to withdraw from its oil exploration in the village of Balcome in West Sussex.

The firm said that the move is based on police advice due to fears that the protesters would soon embark on a campaign of mass civil disobedience at the heavily fortified site.

Cuadrilla has been drilling for oil in the village but has yet to use the controversial fracking technique the No Dash for Gas group are fighting against.

The move to pull out of the site follows a piece by David Cameron in the Telegraph this week urging the country to get behind fracking operations in the UK not just in the desolate north as Tory peer Lord Howell claimed last month.

In the piece, Cameron talks of the cost of bills, the creation of jobs, the money the work will bring to the local neighbourhoods and finally the minimum damage to our countryside, not once mentioning the larger effects the work will have on the environment, outside that which directly affects the human population and over what timescale.

Though the firm has decided to suspend operations for the time being it will has said it will begin drilling for oil as soon as it is safe to do so, betting that protesters will quickly loose interest while there is no work going on.

But while the protesters have managed to get operations suspended for now, is the way they’ve gone about it helping their cause?

When a firm cites reasons of safety for the temporary end to operations in an industry which, more often than not, works in conditions far less safe than the English countryside you do have to wonder whether the campaigner’s means are justifying the end.

It is headline grabbing, sure, and it is entirely possible that people (especially the papers) would not have the same reaction to the issue without the civil disobedience that so often comes with a large scale protest. But on issues which are far less than black and white, such as that of renewable energy and climate change, should we allow protesters to intimidate and restrict legal operations when the far less harmful and threatening channels of protest remain open to them?

A protest sign in West Sussex. Photograph: Getty Images

Billy Bambrough writes for Retail Banker International at VRL financial news.
 

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