Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. America’s fiscal policy is not in crisis (Financial Times)

The most urgent challenge is to promote economic recovery, says Martin Wolf, not reduce the deficit. 

2. What the latest conflict in north Africa tells us about the meaning of 'war on terror' (Independent)

To try and draw simplistic lines between good and bad will only help those seeking to unify those with ethnic, regional and international grievances, writes Douglas Alexander.

3. Mali: the fastest blowback yet in this disastrous war on terror (Guardian)

French intervention in Mali will fuel terrorism, but the west's buildup in Africa is also driven by the struggle for resources, writes Seumas Milne.

4. Fear of the grey vote has turned politicians into cowards (Daily Telegraph)

Wealthy pensioners must pay their fair share to finance childcare and social care bills, argues Mary Riddell. 

5. Trident will not protect us (Guardian)

Britain can't justify these military cuts without looking at the billions spent on nuclear weapons, says Liberal Democrat armed forces minister Nick Harvey. 

6. It’s not a fight against ‘us’. It’s Islam v Islam (Times) (£)

The new "war on terror" won’t be won by armies, but by helping moderate Muslim governments defeat extremism, says Paddy Ashdown.

7. An African crusade is lunacy when cuts have left us barely enough soldiers to troop the colour (Daily Mail)

David Cameron should not have sent a single British aircraft anywhere near his French counterpart’s rash African adventure, says Max Hastings.

8. Climate change is back on the agenda, at last (Independent)

Warnings of the economic risks of global warming should help focus minds at Davos, says an Independent editorial. 

9. Wars like Afghanistan should never be a theatre for celebrity (Guardian)

Prince Harry may shine as a soldier, but he's just a pawn in a political game – adding celebrity dust to a senseless conflict, says Simon Jenkins. 

10. Whitehall can learn from London 2012 (Financial Times)

The games hold plenty of pointers to effective and successful delivery, writes Peter Riddell.

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