The issue with objections to this not having any effect...
..is that not enough people understand the issue, so it needs to be put in terms they might understand.
Now, whilst I support the idea of effective law enforcement, to protect the public and try to keep costs to the exchequer at a reasonable level, I have some concerns about a broad trawl of everyone's data, and mixed views on how far we should allow the various services to go to, well, serve us (although no objection to the principle as I like not being murdered, robbed etc).
If you passed a law saying that if a wanted person was believed to be in a particular parish, that every house in that parish could be searched without further warrant, including during the dead of night by a stealth team of ninja-like officials (so as, considerately, not to wake us) with skeleton keys there might be some disquiet. If you then said that in fact these searches would take place regularly, regardless of suspicion, then people might even tut in disapproval. If you said that searching every house in the country found one alleged paedophile a year, then perhaps more of the public might take a different view of the proportionality of the actions involved.
Similarly if you proposed that everyone walking jauntily down a street could have their pockets surreptiously picked for any document, post-it note or till receipt to be quickly copied and this copy then filed and indexed prior to its return, on the off chance that evidence of criminality might later be revealed then there might even be a sigh of disapproval over the newspaper at breakfast.
On the other hand if the authorities were able to somehow show via regular (and perhaps independently inspected, hopefully to satisfy the distrustful) public reports that they were eliminating things like illegal pornography (and I'll leave the debate on what should constitute this alone here) and the trade in things like fake/dangerous pharmaceuticals by simply tracing the payments, and then having the bank terminating the arrangement with the payment processors, repeat, repeat, repeat etc until solved (or reasonably close) and also similarly stopping the villainy that preys via the internet on the gullible with various scams then there might be a bit more support and acceptance of the need for and practice of widespread trawling of "our" private information.
Working on the peripheries of the finance industry, and being aware of the amount of KYC and AML that is required and in our case complied with, I still find it hard to understand why blatantly illegal material can be purchased via conventional payment cards yet the moment wikileaks became embarrassing some years ago, their ability to accept donations could be terminated in a heartbeat. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/13/wikileaks_visa_victory/ Perhaps the authorities might like to reassure us with visible and understandable results in order to restore the trust that we'd like to have in them, and then work forwards from there.