Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. For all their rage, the Tories know Qatada is going nowhere fast (Independent)

The dialogue going on in the party’s brain is also a dialogue with the electorate, writes John Rentoul.

2. Ukip has thrown British politics into the most marvellous chaos (Daily Telegraph)

Nigel Farage's party is a problem for David Cameron – but he should avoid a lurch to the right, says Peter Oborne.

3. Xi needs to prove he can deliver (Financial Times)

Even if the leader does embrace an economic overhaul, don’t expect political reform to follow, writes David Pilling.

4. Abu Qatada: holding the line on law (Guardian)

Lib Dem ministers should be congratulated for ensuring that the coalition does not embrace deliberate lawlessness, says a Guardian editorial. 

5. Google's tiny tax bill shows how greedy and ruthless it really is (Daily Mail)

Google is a gigantic parasite that makes a fortune from exploiting the creativity and entrepreneurship of others, argues Luke Johnson. 

6. This disability ruling reveals new depths of political dishonesty (Guardian)

Nobody said, in any of the parties' manifestos, that they would claw money back from the severely disabled, writes Zoe Williams.

7. Reheating Thatcherism won’t save Cameron (Times

Conservatives should look to Heseltine for a sensible — and vote-winning — attitude to the role of government, says Steve Richards.

8. We glimpse in Syria the ghost of wars to come (Guardian)

In the Balkans, outsiders stepped in to finally halt the misery, writes Timothy Garton Ash. But this is a different kind of conflict.

9. The age of austerity is over. Why? It doesn’t work (Independent)

If ever George Osborne wanted an excuse to embrace Plan B this is the moment, says Andreas Whittam Smith.

10. Let’s make more leg room at the Cabinet table (Daily Telegraph)

The growing numbers of ministers and hangers-on crowding into No 10 are hardly conducive to good government, says Sue Cameron.

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