Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Why living costs and the deficit matter (Financial Times)

The party that persuades voters it can deal with both issues will win the election, says Gavin Kelly.

2. We need more homes, not easier mortgages (Times)

Cameron is right to focus on the family but Tories must not be afraid to unsettle the housing market, says Tim Montgomerie.

3. A conservatism is spreading that the Tories can't fathom (Guardian)

The party's neoliberal leaders are out of touch with exactly the kind of values that look likely to define our future, says John Harris.

4. I’m happy for my party to link with the Tories (Times)

UKIP has transformed the Conservatives, writes Nigel Farage. A deal with like-minded MPs makes sense.

5. We can’t afford welfare for disabled people, but apparently we can afford a marriage tax break (Independent)

This marriage tax allowance is nothing more than the state tutting at those who do not meet its expectations, writes Owen Jones.

6. The real reason the left's so livid about tax breaks for marriage (Daily Mail)

Labour's fury with the PM is mere displaced anger that the public's on his side, says Dominic Lawson.

7. A Syrian solution to civil conflict? The Free Syrian Army is holding talks with Assad's senior staff (Independent)

A secret approach to the President could reshape the whole war, writes Robert Fisk.

8. Leaders must speed up on climate change (Financial Times)

Businesses will watch governments to check they understand the IPCC findings, says Nicholas Stern.

9. Ed Miliband in power would be like a turbine on a windless day (Daily Telegraph)

It is astounding that people are falling for the opposition leader’s Wonga-like offer, writes Boris Johnson.

10. This Tory tax allowance is just a marriage of convenience (Guardian)

The party's real motive is to create a synthetic hierarchy of morals, and reward or punish people accordingly, writes Tanya Gold.

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