THESE VITAL SPEECHES

evade detection. Technology companies
focus on privacy and the need to ensure
that for their customers.
They each accuse the other of ignoring
the vital public interest they are
protecting.
The reality is they both have a point.
We all want powerful world class
encryption to keep our data secure.
Encryption is a vital tool in defending
ourselves against cyber crime.
But we have to face the fact that
terrorists and extremists also benefit
from world-class encryption, keeping
their identities and communications
secure too.
There’s nothing new here in principle.
Every modern technological
advance—guns, cars, telephones—has
quickly been used by societies’ enemies.
Intelligence agencies know that
unbreakable encryption can’t be disinvented.
So we find ourselves trying to do
something subtle and sensitive and
incredibly difficult: enjoying the huge
benefits that powerful encryption gives
us, while working to stop our enemies
using this same technology against us.
The big technology companies are
transforming our lives.
We trust these hugely influential
private companies in part because they
are private.
The tech companies have a vital
role—and a unique responsibility—to
play their part in building the security
that keeps us all free and safe.
I think the gap that opened up post-
Snowden is narrowing again.
The next step is for all parties to find
a collaborative way forward to benefit
from the new technology while doing
what we sensibly can to stop terrorists
and others who would do us harm.
That’s the sort of cooperation
between the public and private sectors
that’s needed in free societies where security
underpins our privacy, our private
enterprise and our liberal democracy.
The appalling attacks in Paris show
us exactly what is at stake.
All that sounds fine in general terms
But how to set clear limits on how the
state and its security agencies acquire
data and intercept communications?
Say you don’t trust government
and intelligence agencies. But you also
don’t want to live in fear of further
Paris-style attacks.
You grudgingly accept that the
agencies need to look at Internet data
patterns to try to find and track networks
like the Paris killers.
You sit down to devise tough laws.
You come up with something like this.
• Privacy comes first! Exceptions
allowed only when a minister decides
that an intrusion is necessary and proportionate
• Government computers can search
the world’s data-oceans looking for suspicious
patterns, but specific high-level
authorisation is needed to access and
track actual individuals
• Tight vetting: only honest, trustworthy
people do this work
• Technical alarm bells if operators
run improper data-searches
• We share intelligence with other
governments, but with extreme caution
if those governments have a bad human
rights record
• All this within wider oversight by
MPs and independent judges, and frequent
spot-checks
Checks and balances, counter-checks
and counter-balances, at every level.
The whole system is run by
honourable, hard-working, careful
people—people in fact just like you—
doing their best.
Guess what? That’s more or less what
we have now.
There’s never a good time for these
debates. New laws passed in a rush after
a major terror attack amid white-hot
public anger won’t strike a wise, principled
balance. The key thing is to find
the time to think.
This time David Anderson QC, the
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism
Legislation, has done just that, producing
a magisterial report. The new Investigative
Powers Bill before parliament is
based squarely on his recommendations.
It’s designed to strike a wise, principled
balance, ensuring our privacy, and protecting
our security.
When you put all the powers of the
agencies into one codified legal framework,
the overall package might look
39
ominous, if not alarming.
Do our agencies really need to be
able to do all this?
Some people say that all this state
surveillance did not stop the Paris attacks,
so what good does it do?
There’s a very good answer to that
one.
No goalkeeper has a 100% record.
Even the finest goalkeeper who makes
save after save is beaten by a top-class
shot or a freakish deflection. That does
not make him or her a bad goalkeeper.
Or make the very idea of goalkeeping
redundant.
I don’t want to downplay reasonable
concerns.
But let me put this as bluntly as I can.
Technologies that empower us, empower
our enemies.
You link to anyone in the world. Anyone
in the world links to you.
The good news is that we can track
down people like Jihadi John and ensure
he can no longer brutalise and murder
his captives.
The bad news? You and your family
are only a couple of clicks away from
people who print 3D guns, or make
synthetic drugs. Or from ISIS and Al
Qaeda and paedophiles, all pumping out
disgusting videos and propaganda.
An acute policy dilemma. Is it better
to shut down this ghastly material, even
if you drive it on to new websites and
deeper into the Dark Web? Or should
we accept that this poison is in society’s
bloodstream and quietly watch what’s
happening and who might be infected?
Public servants in the intelligence
and security services face this dilemma
every day.
Your choice as free citizens here tonight
is unambiguous and unrelenting.
You can try to avoid reality. Reality
will not try to avoid you.
You can trust the skill and restraint
of the people working day and night to
protect you.
Or you can pray that the people
working day and night to destroy our societies
don’t hit your town or your family.
Today’s security means working with
technology to guarantee huge areas of
freedom for all of us, by making difficult
compromises on the margins.
CICERO 2016