Reply to post:

""Last week's attack has highlighted the need for a proper public debate on this issue."

Ben Wallace - for Amber Rudd, I assume.

"Because what we want to do is collect information this year so that next year we can have an adult conversation in this country."

James Comey

I would be fine with said 'public debate' - or even Mr Comey's 'adult conversation' - if either had the right subject. But, for me, that subject is _not_ 'should we be allowed to insist that technology providers give us some magic back door only we will be able to use, like, _evah_, and Bad Folks won't ever be able to find out.'. Mathematics, in the context of _that_ question, has already spoken, and a debate has no purpose.

No - for me, the subject of that 'debate', that 'conversation' should be something like 'are you, the people, both willing and happy to accept that you should not be permitted any privacy, any discreet communication (because anything we do Bad Folks will find out how to do) to try to reduce the risks of terrorism/ other threats. By the way - your chance of being impacted by those threats has been independently and verifiably assessed as (insert number here).'

Somehow I don't see them asking the second question though - they'll carry on with the first one. Sigh...