Tin foil hat
"We have neither "secret" police in the sense meant here or unlimited detention without trial."
Yes we do in both cases.
Stasi would spy on people they deemed subversive to their state. The key elements were that *they* would select and approve their own targets in secret, sans judicial check and public scrutiny. This is exactly what happens under RIPA.
As the spooks put it in that 2006 report, their surveillance would not stand court scrutiny and should be kept out of court cases. [section 113, reason why their surveillance should not be shown in court].
Do you remember we locked up a goth muslim girl recently for making pro Al Qaeda comments? Not for *actions* but for *words*, she was never viewed as a real threat. So careful what you say.
http://www.davidosler.com/2007/11/the_lyrical_terrorist_and_stur.html
And we have unlimited detention without trial via the immigration laws, and of course limited detention without trial has been extended more than required to file the charges. We also have control orders, remember those? Russian had those, you could be banished to Serbia under a political order not to leave there.
The definition of terrorist includes computer crimes, , "seriously disrupt an electronic system...[for a]...a political, religious or ideological cause"" stuff that has zip to do with terror. Ideological cause? You mean like being anti-DRM? The limits that are there are so vague as to be meaningless.
Should Hamas the elected Palestinian leadership be on the list of terrorist organisations? I can't say 'no', that would be ground for surveillance.
We have a big problem here, ACTSA was struck down by the lords, so it should be clear that Blair went beyond any reasonable limits. Just because the rest of his rubbish hasn't been struck down yet, doesn't mean it shouldn't be.