Computer says no
How exactly are the IPS going to secure this data? That's the question I would like answered first.
Let's assume they have some nous, and they use a hardware one way data tap. But how is the system to be secured after that, and whilst this is not using deep packet data inspection, it still could be used to supply unwanted advertisements or data mining, so what is the penalty for misuse?
How are they going to say the data captured is valid, who is going to witness all this data, which could easily be altered with the flick of a well placed command.
And say, I don't want them to do this, I could just get a server in another regime, and proxy through it (increasing net traffic, and making the environment a little less green). And what is to say the people who are engaged in naughty activities won't think of using a proxying server themselves?
Yet again another dumb law, by the technically challenged that won't solve anything or make the world a better place but instead just acts as potential nuisance and pushes the cost of using the internet up.
Seriously we need an organization for Information Technology in the United Kingdom, we just have completely technologically inept people involved in making IT law in the UK. Where is our writers union?
And frankly the people currently behind all of this should be named and shamed, at the moment it appears to be some nameless faceless committee, we should know what gives them the necessary knowledge to make these alterations to the legal system when it involves information technology.
If it is the home office then it is Jacqui Smith, perhaps not only does she not feel safe when walking the London streets at night, the poor petal feels somewhat intimidated by the internet.
Well Jacqui Smith, your decisions are certainly not inspiring confidence in me that the net will be a better place; after you have mangled it up, dropping wiretaps in left right and center, and compiling spurious data stores of dubious quality all ripe for the picking by the bad guys.