Amber Rudd’s assault on privacy can’t go unchallenged [OPINION]

Support us and go ad-free

Home Secretary Amber Rudd appeared on the BBC‘s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday 26 March. The topic of conversation was the terror attack in London on 22 March. In response to it, Rudd believes that state surveillance has to be intensified.

Rudd is in agreement with Marr when he says that WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption is “completely unacceptable”. She says “there should be no place for terrorists to hide”, and that platforms such as WhatsApp are a haven for terrorists to communicate “in secret”, since police and security services can’t read their messages.

But what appears to be a call to effectively prevent future acts of terror is actually an argument against privacy. And it doesn’t hold very much weight.

No place to hide

One issue with Rudd’s argument is that, even if WhatsApp did agree to put a stop to its end-to-end encryption, she can’t persuade every tech firm to do the same. Other apps (such as Signalrecommended by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden) offer even better privacy for users than WhatsApp.

In a post-Snowden world, people are now deeply concerned about their privacy. There is a demand for secure communication. So even if Rudd could persuade WhatsApp to change its policy on end-to-end encryption – or even if every app with end-to-end encryption disappeared today – a new one would soon emerge.

A similar thing happened when, in 2013, the FBI shut down the online black market Silk Road. If you cut one head off the hydra, two more will grow. So we saw the emergence of Silk Road 2.0. And when that was shut down in 2015, Silk Road 3.0 was later launched.

It’s near impossible for authorities to eliminate online underground markets. The demand will always be there. The original Silk Road was the most popular virtual marketplace for drugs. But when it was shut down, many others appeared. Now, there are around 51 dark net markets.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

If WhatsApp no longer offered secure messaging, criminals would use something else. Rudd’s argument about not giving terrorists anywhere to hide seems intuitive. But getting companies such Facebook and Google to change their privacy policy will not bring an end to, or even reduce, the option of secure communication.

Surveillance doesn’t protect against lone attacks

Also central to Rudd’s attack on privacy is the notion that heightened state surveillance can prevent attacks like the one that took place in London. The attacker, Khalid Masood, reportedly used WhatsApp seconds earlier. But security agencies can’t see what he said. A knee-jerk reaction to this fact may be that, if only we knew what he said, this could all have been prevented.

But hindsight is 20/20. Masood was not on a terrorism watch list. Lone attacks like this simply can’t be anticipated in the way that we want them to be. A piece in VICE back in 2014 argued that lone wolf terror attacks would be used to justify more state surveillance. Yet the Nice massacre on 14 July 2016 shows that increased snooping doesn’t protect us from lone wolves. Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer, said that the NSA and GCHQ “are not targeting the right people”. Indeed, we don’t necessarily need more surveillance, just better targeted and more effective surveillance.

And Jack Rice, a former CIA officer, pointed out that “it is almost impossible to stop an inspired attack that is low-tech”. ‘Low-tech’ here refers to the weapons used in these lone attacks, such as knives and vehicles.

The risk presented by lone terrorism is real and serious. But such attacks are still extremely rare. It’s natural for fear, anxiety and horror to follow such an atrocious incident. But we should be careful about letting the emotional charge of this attack make us more sympathetic to Rudd’s argument. This lone terror attack is appalling. But it’s not nearly as terrifying as a government that doesn’t care about privacy.

Get Involved!

– Check out more articles from The Canary on privacy.

– Support the Open Rights Group and Privacy International.

Featured image via Flickr

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed