David Cameron’s controversial comments on whether the government should “allow” the use of strong encryption technology for anti-surveillance purposes have been defended by Ed Vaizey, the minister for culture and the digital economy.

Vaizey called for technology firms to “meet politicians halfway” on sensitive issues around privacy and internet safety, rather than react furiously with accusations that politicians do not understand the technology.

He said politicians reflect the views of society and to technology companies must listen. “I know that it’s the fashion for politicians to be self-deprecating and say how utterly hopeless we all are, but just as the challenge was not to elect technologically illiterate politicians, the challenge for the tech industry is also to meet politicians halfway. Politicians do reflect the concerns of society as tech becomes ever more prevalent.

“So the prime minister, I think, is entitled to say: ‘We have a very sophisticated technology industry and encryption and so on… on the one hand I want to promote those industries and I want a successful technology economy, but I also have a duty as prime minister to keep our citizens as safe as possible. And we need to meet somewhere in the middle and talk about this’.”

Vaizey was speaking at a Big Digital Debate event in London organised by techUK, Computer Weekly and BCS – The Chartered Institute for IT, which aimed to give the three major parties a platform to set out their approach to digital issues.

Vaizey suggested that the angry response from technology companies to Cameron’s encryption comments was similar to previous rows over the government’s attempts to introduce internet filters to prevent children accessing inappropriate content online. He said: “I don’t think it’s ever helpful when you say ‘Let’s talk about having family-friendly filters’ for everybody to stand up and scream ‘the government is censoring the internet!’.

David Cameron in 'cloud cuckoo land' over encrypted messaging apps ban Read more

“You’ve got to have a grown-up conversation between the technology industry that is rapidly changing the way we lead our lives and go about our business, and the demos – civil society – about the kind of concerns that brings.”

Vaizey later returned to the theme of privacy, claiming that finding a balance between data protection and “snooping” is another area where constructive discussions between politicians and technology firms are needed. “It should be a sophisticated conversation between the technology industry and politicians, who represent the perfectly legitimate concerns of citizens,” said Vaizey.

“When you talk about data, people get nervous. When you talk about how you’re going to use data, people get nervous. But there has to be this conversation about how data is being used.”

Vaizey was joined at the event by Chi Onwurah, shadow minister for digital government, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman Julian Huppert. The latter criticised the implication that politicians and citizens were faced with a “one-dimensional” choice between security and privacy. “If we get it right, we can actually have better privacy and better security. Better business and better data protection. We’re not at the technical limits of what you can have with either of them,” said Huppert.

“And so we can go in the right direction: if we can move away from this idea that it must be one or the other, which I think is one of the reasons why the discussion has been so difficult, because it’s been people pulling apart.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ed Vaizey, Chi Onwurah and Julian Huppert at the Big Digital Debate. Photograph: Stuart Dredge/The Guardian

David Evans, membership director of BCS, was also on the panel, and agreed with Vaizey that the technology industry could be more constructive in its response to these kinds of debates in the political sphere, citing Cameron’s encryption comments as an example.

“The prime minister was saying something about what he wanted out of the tech industry. It is almost … a moot point as to whether that was the right thing or the wrong thing. It is entirely reasonable for politicians to react to what the nation needs,” said Evans.

“Just as we want politicians to become technically competent, we want the tech sector to become politically competent. The answer is not ‘You’re an idiot, shut up’ The answer is: ‘That may not work quite so well as you think, prime minister, but we get what you want to achieve, and here is a better way of doing it.’ And that, for me, is a much more grown-up conversation around these issues.”



Evans also called for stronger leadership from British politicians in grappling with the implications of new technologies, and their implications for citizens’ personal data – citing this week’s reports that Samsung’s connected TV software might capture and transmit “personal or other sensitive information” through its voice recognition features.

UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’ Read more

He said: “That is in some ways hilarious, and in some ways totally chilling. And as we move in to a more connected world, and the huge proliferation of wearable devices, always-on devices that are going to be processing our information, we simply do not have a good model for how citizens maintain any control.”

The question of more technically-competent politicians came up several times during the debate, with Vaizey, Onwurah and Huppert admitting that a number of their colleagues are far from tech-savvy.

Huppert said: “There is an issue with how technology-illiterate politicians are. I don’t think that applies to any of the three of us, but there are people across the parties who tend to say rather silly things based on not knowing or caring about technological facts.”

He called for technology companies and journalists alike to “put pressure on MPs and candidates from all parties to care about this” in the run-up to this year’s general election, calling for more “selective pressure” to make technological literacy a vote-winning issue.

“People can get elected whether or not they say sensible things on these sorts of issues, and it would be really good to have that pressure so that when somebody says something which is daft, they won’t get votes from a large number of people.”

Digital inclusion may also be a prominent issue in the run-up to the election, with Onwurah accusing the coalition government of letting down communities that don’t have reliable access to the internet and/or the skills to make use of it, from farmers to benefits claimants. She said: “We are still in the position where so many people can’t get online. This government is sanctioning people who can’t sign on online. And their digital inclusion strategy declares that 10% of people will never get online. This is what we want to change: digital inclusion would be a core part of the next Labour government.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Chi Onwurah wants more support for startups out of London. Photograph: Stuart Dredge/The Guardian

Onwurah also called for the Government Digital Service initiative to extend from central to local government, to give people more digital access to local services.

“Being able to renew your driving licence online is nice, but the way government will transform the relationship with the citizen – and also save money – is about social care, it’s about benefits, it’s about housing, it’s about looked-after children,” she said.



“There are really important services out there that remain to be addressed, and that can only be done with local government putting people in control of and in ownership of their own data.”

Vaizey warned that digital inclusion has to be about more than “just talking to your grandchildren on Facebook: it’s about access to benefits and crucial government services”, while Huppert called for it to not be pitched as teaching people to use a computer: “It should be ‘We’ll teach you to do the thing you want to do,’” he said.

Britain’s technology industry also came under the spotlight during the debate, including whether the current government’s strategy has been too focused on London’s “tech city” cluster of startups, starving innovative companies elsewhere in the country of attention and funding.

Onwurah praised the tech cluster in her constituency of Newcastle, and called for government to “reduce barriers so there is support for startups outside London”, but Vaizey denied the accusations that the capital was sucking up the limelight and resources for startups. “Tech city is not just about east London,” he said. “It’s a cluster network of about 22 different cities, from Dundee downwards.”

But the conversation turned to a different challenge: turning these startups – wherever they’re based – into larger “scale-ups”.

Ignite flies the flag for first-time founders and startups beyond London Read more

“In London we still have a real gap to the second stage of investment in startups: the mid-cap investment,” said Onwurah, who was backed up by fellow panelist Julian David, chief executive of techUK. “A great deal has been done for startups,” he said. “British-based mid-size companies is the real issue we need to address, as we get these startups to become scale-ups.”

Huppert took a different angle, suggesting that British startups are not encouraged to take enough risks in order to grow larger.

“You also have to get small companies to fail quickly and easily. There is still a problem in this country: we’re not yet good enough at failure,” said Huppert. “We should make it a low-risk environment to try high-risk things, so you can try something, fail then move on to the next thing.”

David Evans, membership director of BCS, suggested that there was a “leadership vacuum” on data protection that the UK is well-placed to fill, sitting as it does between Europe and the US.