Re: Cautiously optimistic
>> This is vastly better than previous Bills, and based on May's statement I am cautiously optimistic
> Speak for yourself, government lickspittle.
Hmmm, a good start to your argument.
> This is the sort of behaviour that for years we've known to be the province of totalitarian regimes like East German and North Korea. I don't need to read 200+ pages of poorly written rubbish to know that this is a mad, bad and stupid idea, from mad, bad, and stupid people.
Nice to see evidence for your argument - you have an opinion and don't need any facts to support them...
> If that pasty faced rich boy and his boot faced home secretary thinks they are going to solve anything by spying on the entire population, then it only shows even more what a pair of vacuous twerps they both are. I don't want my government spying on me and everybody else just in case the police, taxman or bunglers of local government think it might be useful. I don't buy all this "terrible, terrible threats" nonsense that the security services peddle.
You don't like the current government. Okay. Neither do I, but that's not relevant. Interesting that you don't think there are any threats whatsoever, and appear to believe there are never any cases where interception would be needed. I'm a tad astonished, given the many many cases were intercept has proven vital, but ho hum...
> I don't believe it to be the case, but if not being able to spy on my computer use hinders the plods, maybe that's the price of freedom.
I agree a balance is needed. But your extreme position is broadly speaking no different to that of someone who believes we should spy on everyone all the time just in case they may commit a crime (note: that _isn't_ what the draft bill is asking for)