The video will start in 8 Cancel

What is really going on in politics? Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Home Secretary Amber Rudd today insisted again that she doesn't want to ban the encryption method used by WhatsApp, Apple and Facebook.

But in her next breath, she proved she either isn't telling the truth or doesn't know what she's talking about.

"We are making good progress with the companies who have put in place end-to-end encryption, some of them are being more constructive that others but we will continue to build on that," she told the BBC's Andrew Marr.

She indicated frustration that messaging firms won't let the government "break" such encrypted messages for anti-terror investigations - among other things.

Here's why that makes less than no sense.

OK, so what is end-to-end encryption, anyway?

Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

End-to-end encryption means messages can only be decoded by the sender or receiver.

They use a publicly available algorithm to scramble and unscramble the message on the phone itself, rather than the encryption being done by the service provider.

The upshot of this is that Apple, WhatsApp, Telegram and other services that use the technology could not decrypt messages sent through their services if they wanted to.

So when Amber Rudd says she doesn't want to ban it...

(Image: BBC)

She's either not telling the truth, or she doesn't know what end-to-end encryption means.

There's literally no way to offer a 'back door' to messages encrypted in this way. By its very nature, it is impossible.

Would it be so bad if we didn't have end-to-end encryption?

(Image: REUTERS)

Well, it depends on whether you like having your bank account hacked.

Allowing a back door into end-to-end encryption wouldn’t just make it less secure for terrorists - it’d make loads of things you do online every day more vulnerable to attacks from hackers.

This kind of security is not only used by messaging services. It’s used, entirely legitimately, by banks, card companies and healthcare providers to protect users from hackers.

And making them less secure for terrorists makes them less secure for everyone.

It’s a bit like the government telling locksmiths to make everyone’s front door locks less secure so the police can pick them more quickly in an emergency