:00:00. > :00:00.Life on Mars. In the sci-fi horror film Life is all what it seems? Mark
:00:00. > :00:11.Kermode will fill us in on The Film Review.
:00:12. > :00:15.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be
:00:16. > :00:20.With me are Caroline Frost, entertainment editor
:00:21. > :00:22.of the Huffington Post and parliamentary reporter
:00:23. > :00:33.The Metro leads with the Home Secretary putting pressure
:00:34. > :00:36.on internet companies over access to encrypted messages in the wake
:00:37. > :00:40.The Guardian quotes opposition politicians, who say that
:00:41. > :00:48.Amber Rudd's demand is unrealistic and disproportionate.
:00:49. > :00:52.The Telegraph's also covering that story and says Amber Rudd is furious
:00:53. > :00:54.that the attacker's whatsapp messages are being kept secret.
:00:55. > :00:57.One of the main stories in the FT is the police clampdown
:00:58. > :00:59.on anti-corruption protests in Russia.
:01:00. > :01:01.The Express says that millions of families are facing
:01:02. > :01:03.major council tax increases from next month.
:01:04. > :01:05.The Times says Britain risks signing worthless
:01:06. > :01:07.trade deals because ministers are failing to recognise
:01:08. > :01:10.The Mirror's lead features the missing girl
:01:11. > :01:12.Madeline McCann as a former detective claims someone
:01:13. > :01:18.The paper says David Cameron's Downing Street was part of a cover
:01:19. > :01:31.We'll look at some of the different coverage of this issue over WhatsApp
:01:32. > :01:39.and why you can or shouldn't be able to access messages sent on that
:01:40. > :01:45.platform after what Amber Rudd said today. Rudd unrealistic says the
:01:46. > :01:48.Guardian to allow access to WhatsApp, the Home Secretary refuses
:01:49. > :01:52.to rule out an encryption law after the attack but she wants to appeal
:01:53. > :01:56.to the companies to do the right thing and inshore messages can be
:01:57. > :02:00.accessed. Yes, which as you can imagine is her preferred option
:02:01. > :02:05.because if they can that means you don't need all that legislation. The
:02:06. > :02:09.problem is one of their unique brands is their privacy, they are
:02:10. > :02:12.boastful about the fact users around the world can send these very
:02:13. > :02:16.private messages, and in this day and age when we can look into all
:02:17. > :02:21.corners of the Internet, and there's all this chat and spin about state
:02:22. > :02:25.intrusion, it's a big deal for them. Obviously this need for security has
:02:26. > :02:29.come along and many people would think it beats it in this day and
:02:30. > :02:33.age when our personal safety is at risk. She is hoping very much that
:02:34. > :02:37.they will do the right thing and the problem is, as we touched on
:02:38. > :02:41.earlier, is whether they can. One of the things is they say it is
:02:42. > :02:45.encrypted at either end and the chances are, even their own in-house
:02:46. > :02:49.technicians can't access those messages, so it's case of people
:02:50. > :02:55.being prepared to access bones and what you. Critics have said is there
:02:56. > :03:00.a need for this and the practicalities of imposing it on a
:03:01. > :03:04.global scale. The concern is if you provide a backdoor way to access
:03:05. > :03:08.these messages, anybody could do it if you have the know-how, whether
:03:09. > :03:12.your intentions are good or bad. Absolutely. In the UK if the
:03:13. > :03:17.government said in the UK you can't use end to end encryption or it has
:03:18. > :03:19.to be designed with a back door so security services can access it,
:03:20. > :03:24.there's the problem that other actors may want to do that and
:03:25. > :03:28.there's the problem of what that says internationally. It's the
:03:29. > :03:32.British government you can trust us, we are a good government, we're not
:03:33. > :03:35.a bad government. I have some sympathy with why WhatsApp sticks to
:03:36. > :03:44.its opinions but there's a stronger argument for some of the issues
:03:45. > :03:48.around and Publication than this one, WhatsApp are reducing to hand
:03:49. > :03:53.over these messages -- around Google. I would argue why we have
:03:54. > :03:57.become so attached to an app that didn't exist over three or four
:03:58. > :04:00.years ago and people are thinking they need industrial level
:04:01. > :04:06.encryption to their mates about where they are meeting for the pub.
:04:07. > :04:10.I'm not sure that is necessary. Whether you gain these extra
:04:11. > :04:13.privacies by accident or design, once you've got then, many people
:04:14. > :04:18.will say you shouldn't have to give them up. Winning them back over
:04:19. > :04:23.becomes a big deal. Maybe that's the case and maybe 30 years ago we will
:04:24. > :04:27.look at the Wild West we allow the Internet to become, and we have
:04:28. > :04:30.allowed it to become an open market with little regulation and control.
:04:31. > :04:34.Perhaps people will look at the start of the social media age and
:04:35. > :04:39.look at the way we didn't regulate it as absurd. We know many
:04:40. > :04:44.politicians have said the market will dictate everything. It could be
:04:45. > :04:49.in this day and age post trauma, people feel strongly enough to be
:04:50. > :04:54.hunting down an equivalent WhatsApp mechanism that doesn't have this
:04:55. > :05:02.encryption. If there's a boy boycott them WhatsApp will have to do
:05:03. > :05:06.something. Markets don't make decisions about this. Companies are
:05:07. > :05:10.making announcements about their business model and our government is
:05:11. > :05:14.saying can you talk to us, instead of saying we are going to legislate
:05:15. > :05:23.and close down your business and fine you. The Sun is campaigning on
:05:24. > :05:27.this. That is the Sun's view, the headline implies it is, it may not
:05:28. > :05:35.be, it may be paraphrasing what the security services have been saying.
:05:36. > :05:40.They can't decode encrypted messages, though, going back to the
:05:41. > :05:43.initial point. Maybe I have misunderstood the technology, maybe
:05:44. > :05:46.WhatsApp are lying saying their technicians can't access these
:05:47. > :05:52.messages or see other people's messages. They haven't done this to
:05:53. > :05:57.create a hiding place. They've developed something and said it's
:05:58. > :06:01.nothing to do with us what it is used for, if people send messages as
:06:02. > :06:06.terrorists. I understand that but as time goes on it becomes more
:06:07. > :06:11.intolerable. You hear two things from these companies, one is it has
:06:12. > :06:15.nothing to do with us, we just provide the platform, that is
:06:16. > :06:19.unacceptable. Then they say we believe in the first Amendment, and
:06:20. > :06:26.my response is you're in the UK, not the US. The issue with WhatsApp,
:06:27. > :06:32.they are not a publisher like YouTube or Google. They are device,
:06:33. > :06:36.they are an app, they are thing, we use it merrily because we can do
:06:37. > :06:41.group messages and phone calls and send snaps. It has made life easy.
:06:42. > :06:45.It makes you wonder, a wise friend always says to me, if you can't work
:06:46. > :06:49.out what the product is, you are the product and I have been happily
:06:50. > :06:54.using WhatsApp for a long time and it makes you wonder, who am I
:06:55. > :06:59.helping? It is very new to me, you just pick up the phone! On the Sun,
:07:00. > :07:08.defiant daughter revealed, daughter revealed, the daughter of Khalid
:07:09. > :07:12.Masood, whose name is Tegan, who defied his orders it says. I don't
:07:13. > :07:15.want to break any journalistic competences but when it says
:07:16. > :07:20.something has emerged that means it was in the Sunday Times yesterday.
:07:21. > :07:26.If you want to know about it it is all there. Looking in the Times,
:07:27. > :07:30.ices uses terror attack to sign up YouTube recruits, Google fails to
:07:31. > :07:36.stop deluge of propaganda videos -- Isis. What is the evidence that
:07:37. > :07:44.recruitment has taken place despite just the videos -- and not just the
:07:45. > :07:47.videos? The hundreds of foreign fighters in Syria is the evidence.
:07:48. > :07:52.The government in terms of legislation is on a stronger footing
:07:53. > :07:57.here. These tech companies will say they believe in freedom of speech,
:07:58. > :08:01.very nice, but in this case you are a publisher, we are all journalists,
:08:02. > :08:05.if we published hard-core pornography in a newspaper the
:08:06. > :08:07.police would come looking. There are regulations around standards and the
:08:08. > :08:13.government needs to assert itself now. They had to cajole and persuade
:08:14. > :08:17.these companies to take trial sex abuse images off their platforms,
:08:18. > :08:22.they had to be convinced of that. I think the government needs to be a
:08:23. > :08:26.lot harsher with Facebook... Sorry, with Google over YouTube and say if
:08:27. > :08:30.you don't start shutting this down, we will start shutting you down and
:08:31. > :08:33.the issue is these companies have vast revenues, they don't want to
:08:34. > :08:38.pay to regulate their own content. It would be time consuming and a
:08:39. > :08:42.difficult thing to do. They don't want to do it so they say first
:08:43. > :08:46.Amendment rights, nothing to do with us. Mark Zuckerberg has used the
:08:47. > :08:51.same argument because of the delay in regulation in the Facebook world.
:08:52. > :08:57.Brexit negotiators and risk rushing into harmful trade deals in the
:08:58. > :09:02.Times. Steve Wilcock from the School of economics, the LSE, helping civil
:09:03. > :09:06.servants get ready for these investigations. He is really saying
:09:07. > :09:11.that this idea of no deal is better than a bad deal, a great soundbite
:09:12. > :09:16.but Theresa May is taking issue with that. He is taking issue with that.
:09:17. > :09:19.It's interesting what he is saying about trade deals, what the
:09:20. > :09:24.government is saying, as soon as we leave the EU we will be able to do
:09:25. > :09:29.quick trade deals with the US, China, Australia and the. He is
:09:30. > :09:32.warning against the political expediency saying we can get this
:09:33. > :09:36.done in two years or 18 months will produce bad trade deals -- and New
:09:37. > :09:41.Zealand. Trade deals take as long as they take. The government is keen to
:09:42. > :09:45.give off the impression that as soon as we leave trade deals will be done
:09:46. > :09:49.across the piece and he is warning it could be more complex and you
:09:50. > :09:58.need to be more wary and ring into a trade negotiation with the Trump
:09:59. > :10:03.White House and the big factor is time -- entering into. When you look
:10:04. > :10:09.at the trade deals the WTO has been involved in, they go for years. I
:10:10. > :10:14.think they are not looking at the size of the EU. We have talked about
:10:15. > :10:17.how it has been fractured by the UK removing itself, but it remains an
:10:18. > :10:22.enormous trading mechanism. People will say we will be fine, and it
:10:23. > :10:27.just seems to me as though the message is Brexit will work at any
:10:28. > :10:31.cost and we will make anything... It can't be seen to fail. If we're
:10:32. > :10:36.going to leave the EU we have to make Brexit work one way or another.
:10:37. > :10:40.Saying a bad deal is better than no deal, I understand why she says it
:10:41. > :10:43.and she says it because her predecessor David Cameron went into
:10:44. > :10:47.European negotiations saying it would be tough, and he came back
:10:48. > :10:51.with nothing, that's why we had a referendum and he lost because he
:10:52. > :10:55.came at it from a position of weakness and not having the vision
:10:56. > :10:59.to say we will leave if we don't get what we want. We should be willing
:11:00. > :11:03.them to get good deals quickly. Of course we should. He is warning that
:11:04. > :11:06.you should do trade deals within a set period because it is politically
:11:07. > :11:10.expedient for you, you should recognise they are more complex than
:11:11. > :11:14.that and if it takes three years rather than two years, it will be
:11:15. > :11:20.better. I think he is saying country above party again. Looking at the
:11:21. > :11:24.Telegraph, GPs failing women, say MPs. According to this article
:11:25. > :11:29.nearly half of women need to visit their GP ten times before being
:11:30. > :11:33.diagnosed with common gynaecological complaints. This is slightly odd
:11:34. > :11:38.because we get invitations at various ages to go for all sorts of
:11:39. > :11:42.checks and tests. I also think that a lot of these conditions that have
:11:43. > :11:46.been referred to are outsourced to different screening centres. I'm not
:11:47. > :11:49.sure if that has somehow been lost in the small print but actually a
:11:50. > :11:53.lot of women are catered for elsewhere. But these big is alone
:11:54. > :11:57.are pretty shocking. Anecdotally, I'm not sure if any of my friends
:11:58. > :12:03.would stand for ten visits before they get told it's maybe not in your
:12:04. > :12:06.head. -- these figures. Some women reported feeling they were going mad
:12:07. > :12:10.after being told there was nothing wrong despite years of painful
:12:11. > :12:17.symptoms. As I would say, if it was a man it would be slightly fewer
:12:18. > :12:20.visits. Although, sometimes it has been argued services for men's
:12:21. > :12:26.health has not been as well advertised and funded as those for
:12:27. > :12:30.women. Men are much less likely to see a doctor, women seek reassurance
:12:31. > :12:34.from doctors more than men and that can lead to serious health problems.
:12:35. > :12:38.As a man, I am really shocked by this and it's another reminder to me
:12:39. > :12:41.of the million ways in which women are treated differently in our
:12:42. > :12:45.society, the million ways they can be discriminated against and it's
:12:46. > :12:49.really good the APPG on women's health, a parliamentary group that
:12:50. > :12:55.has produced the best, the sort of group 20 years ago Tory MPs would
:12:56. > :12:58.have laughed at as people like Harriet Harman pushed forward these
:12:59. > :13:01.agendas, it's now so prominent they can be on the front page of the
:13:02. > :13:05.Telegraph and the work they are doing is taken seriously because it
:13:06. > :13:10.is serious. And it is cross-party? It is. A surprise because so many
:13:11. > :13:14.women are GPs. It's not like it's an old men's club in the centre of
:13:15. > :13:18.London. So little time when you get in to see a GP, the clock is
:13:19. > :13:25.ticking! I don't know whether I have anything to say about this next
:13:26. > :13:30.story. Not that I need to! The Daily Mail, Harry, Prince Harry, and his
:13:31. > :13:39.American actress girlfriend, Meghan, are setting up home together.
:13:40. > :13:43.Discuss. That's interesting! Is it? They are going to be moving into
:13:44. > :13:46.Kensington Palace, reports claim, which is reasonably significant in
:13:47. > :13:50.terms of whether they will actually get together. I would have been
:13:51. > :13:53.surprised if the Royal family would have thought a divorced American
:13:54. > :13:57.actress would have been an appropriate consort for someone
:13:58. > :14:01.already quite close to the throne in terms of in-line for the throne but
:14:02. > :14:06.change and the Queen has changed with them. Prince Harry is not going
:14:07. > :14:13.to be king, is he crazy I have been watching the series about the Royal
:14:14. > :14:17.House of Windsor. If he sets up home with his girlfriend, we know that
:14:18. > :14:22.William and Kate set up house, it was very lovely in the Welsh privacy
:14:23. > :14:27.of Anglesey. We know that Edward did. Anything but another royal
:14:28. > :14:31.divorce, anything. We will wait and see, we wish them well whatever they
:14:32. > :14:36.choose. That's the papers for tonight. Caroline and Tony, lovely
:14:37. > :14:38.to see you. As always, thank you very much. Coming up next, The Film
:14:39. > :14:39.Review.