Ů��С��Ƶ

In the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London, the Prime Minister Theresa May has again called for new laws to regulate the internet, demanding that internet companies do more to stamp out spaces where terrorists can communicate freely.

“We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed,” she said. “Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide.”

Her comments echo those made in March by the home secretary, Amber Rudd. Speaking after the previous terrorist attack in London, Rudd said that��end-to-end encryption in apps like WhatsApp is “completely unacceptable”��and that there should be “no hiding place for terrorists”.

Yet most experts agree that these repeated calls to be tougher on technology are poorly thought through. Undermining cryptography simply could not work.

The arguments against banning encryption are well rehearsed, but worth repeating. Encryption is not just a tool used by terrorists. Anyone who uses the internet uses encryption. Messaging�� apps, online banking, e-commerce, government websites, or your local hospital all use encryption.

A ban on encryption would make it impossible to do anything online that relies on keeping things private, like sending your credit card details or messaging your doctor.

Even if governments were willing to sacrifice their citizen’s online privacy, any sort of ban would be futile anyway. Anyone with a little technical know-how could write their own code to encrypt and decrypt data. In fact, the code to do so is so small��

Shut the door

Another way to get rid of May’s “safe spaces” that has been mooted is to give security services special access to encrypted messages, so-called back doors. Again this is impractical.

If a “master key” was created that allowed security services to bypass encryption it would immediately become a target for hackers. Anyone feeling hostile could focus their efforts on cracking the master key, and in doing so would not just get access to one person’s data, but everyone’s.

What’s more, despite members of the government once again insisting on the need to ban or bypass encryption, we still have no details on how they plan to achieve it.

“Theresa May’s response is predictable but disappointing,” says����at the University of East Anglia, UK. “If you stop ‘safe places’ for terrorists, you stop safe places for everyone, and we rely on those safe places for a great deal of our lives.”

Last month New Ů��С��Ƶ called for��a greater understanding of technology among politicians. Until that happens, having a reasonable conversation about how best to tackle extremism online will remain out of reach.

“The internet is a convenient scapegoat – and a distraction from the awkward questions that might otherwise be asked about things like foreign policy and arms sales,” says Bernal.

Read more:��

Why breaking encryption is a bad idea that could never work

How 2016’s war on encryption will change your way of life

��WhatsApp enables encryption and ramps up for government fight