Tech firms ‘indefensibly’ obstructing justice
Criminals are allowed to abuse platforms and their incriminating data is kept secret, warns watchdog
‘In too many respects, these large, dominant companies’ record is poor and their reputation is tarnished’
SOCIAL media and tech firms have been accused of “indefensibly” impeding police investigations into terrorism and serious crime by Britain’s most senior police watchdog.
Sir Tom Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said the tech companies were not only allowing terrorists, paedophiles and organised criminals to abuse their platforms but were then resisting appeals by police to hand over data that could help catch them.
They were also investing in improving and strengthening encryption technology that made it harder for police and crime agencies to access the information that could bring them to justice, he said.
“I agree with our law enforcement agencies when they say it’s indefensible for internet companies to invest so much money in protecting data from law enforcement,” Sir Tom told The Daily Telegraph.
“There is a handful of very large companies with a highly dominant influence over how the internet is used. In too many respects, their record is poor and their reputation tarnished. If a burglar was arrested with a book in his or her back pocket with all the names of all their contacts on it, the police would have access to that book. What is the difference with a phone?
“There is no difference in principle. And yet, these companies are resistant to allowing the police access to the data criminals put on their devices.
“The steps these companies take to make sure their services cannot be abused by terrorists, paedophiles and organised criminals are inadequate; the commitment they show and their willingness to be held to account are questionable. The internet is a force for evil things going on as well as many beneficial things.”
In a series of high-profile cases, social media sites or messaging apps have refused to hand over data to the police.
Whatsapp cited its “end-to-end encryption” as the reason it would not reveal to police the final messages of Khalid Masood, the Westminster attacker who stabbed Pc Keith Palmer to death in March last year.
In September detectives investigating the murder of the schoolgirl Lucy Mchugh heavily criticised Facebook for refusing to hand over the prime suspect’s password without them having to take lengthy legal action through the US courts.
Cressida Dick, the Met police commissioner, said tech companies should be forced to hand over crucial evidence in criminal cases “within minutes”.
Sir Tom’s criticisms follow calls by Parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) for businesses to withdraw their advertising from social media and tech firms that fail to take down extremist content.
The ISC’S investigation into five terrorist attacks that claimed 36 lives concluded the tech companies’ continued refusal to remove extremist material meant it was time to hit their “bottom line” by persuading businesses to boycott them.
Sir Tom also urged police to make greater use of the latest technology to sift and analyse information in complex cases.
He said: “The police could and should use AI far more to analyse the huge amounts of data held on digital devices. Instruments and technology exist today which can process information far faster.
“Used properly, technology can make policing far more efficient and effective. But technology is not improving the efficiency of police forces at the same rate as in other organisations. In part, this is because the police is still not acquiring the right technology.”