Bradley Young grew up in Stroud and is studying politics at the University of Leeds. He hopes to become a journalist.

LAST week, in the aftermath of the Westminster attacks, The Sun ran the headline What Side Are You On WhatsApp?

This was in response to the tech giant’s refusal to create a back door for government officials to access encrypted content.

The Sun appeared to be supporting Amber Rudd’s argument that WhatsApp was putting profits before the public good.

However, this dichotomy between bad communications companies and good anti-terror legislation is about as nuanced as Donald Trump’s knowledge of nuclear energy.

The antagonism towards WhatsApp sits against a backdrop of ever-increasing government surveillance.

The Investigatory Powers Act became law last year, allowing the Government to hack private equipment and bulk collect communications data.

Last month, there were revelations that GCHQ were interfering with all manner of devices with the ability to turn on recording devices.

What is most infuriating is how inefficient this is.

Importantly, the effectiveness of these measures for fighting terrorism and cybercrime is doubtful as the problem simply will mutate and move on.

Customers would simply move to less accountable providers based abroad. Cyber-criminals are not the only ones likely to misuse such decryption. In America, where extensive anti-terror legislation has been active for some time, a Cleveland police officer was recently found to have unlawfully used anti-terrorism powers to access the private phone records of journalists and a solicitor.

To allow the Government to ban, or have access to, encrypted information puts Orwellian trust in the state.