Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Talk of ‘shirkers’ echoes Victorian past (Financial Times)

If for Beveridge the welfare state was a vehicle for social solidarity, this government uses it as a partisan dividing line, writes Tristram Hunt.

2. Assad could still hold power in Damascus a year from now (Independent)

The rebel insistence that Assad’s departure be a precondition for talks is unrealistic since he controls most of the Syrian population, says Patrick Cockburn.

3. The Tories have a moral mission – and David Cameron should say so (Daily Telegraph)

After Labour’s failures, Conservative reforms are about saving lives rather than money, writes Fraser Nelson.

4. US pivot gives Europe an opportunity (Financial Times)

Atlanticist nominations offer the continent a chance to break free of euro-crisis introversion, says Philip Stephens.

5. Britain and the EU: Europe's lost voices (Guardian)

Pro-Europeans should shed their anxieties, says a Guardian editorial. Voices that have been silent for too long need to make themselves heard.

6. Our interests come first, not those of America (Daily Telegraph)

The United States wants Britain to stay in the European Union for its benefit - not ours, says a Telegraph editorial.

7. A long way to go in our response to sex crimes (Independent)

Weaknesses in the police and criminal justice systems are only part of the problem, says an Independent editorial.

8. Grayling takes one step forward, then one giant step back (Guardian)

The reform of the probation services and closing of creaking Victorian prisons are welcome – but the plan for new mega-jails is a disaster, says Ian Birrell.

9. To do or not to do – that is the PM’s question (Times) (£)

If David Cameron wants to win in 2015 he must find a big problem to take on, says Philip Collins. Championing care of the elderly fits the bill.

10. Europe offers the best deal for Britain (Guardian)

Britain's future in Europe must be defined by its national interests, not those of the Conservative Party, says Menzies Campbell.

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