Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. NHS enemies will declare the service broken. But it is not (Guardian)

Mid Staffs will be used to justify further reforms – and of the very kind that contributed to that horror in the first place, says Polly Toynbee.

2. Gove may have lost a skirmish, but he’s winning the war (Daily Telegraph)

The GCSE setback for Gove is proof that he is daring to try something new, says Fraser Nelson.

3. Leave things to the professionals, Mr Gove (Independent)

The Education Secretary almost managed to make his climbdown on the EBC look like part of a bigger masterplan, writes Melissa Benn. Almost, but not quite.

4. The NHS is run for the staff, not the patients (Times) (£)

It’s not heresy to demand that hospitals treat people like customers, says Philip Collins. More listening would have meant fewer deaths.

5. A case to reset basis of monetary policy (Financial Times)

The current regime is meant to stabilise inflation and help stabilise the economy, writes Martin Wolf. It has failed.

6. Tunisia is no longer a revolutionary poster-child (Guardian)

Tunisia's revolution was held up as a model, writes Rachel Shabi. But rising political violence is a real threat to progress.

7. Held back by the Lib Dems... yet again (Daily Mail)

By wrecking Michael Gove's GCSE plan, the Lib Dems have – once again – blocked a reform this country desperately needs if it is not to become an economic also-ran, says a Daily Mail editorial.

8. Intervention: the US won’t, Europe can’t (Financial Times)

Europeans have caught the bug just as the US has shaken it off – but they lack the means, writes Philip Stephens.

9. Bank of England: Mark Carney's circus (Guardian)

Carney's testimony to Treasury select committee made clear that a classic British evolution is the most that is likely to be on the cards, says a Guardian editorial.

The re-re-naming of Stalingrad and Spielberg's latest film Lincoln are both examples of how we revise our national history to suit the needs of the current times, writes Mary Dejevsky.

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