"This Bill would create a detailed profile on each of us which could be made available to hundreds of organisations to speculatively trawl and analyse. It will all but end on line privacy, put our personal security at risk and swamp law enforcement with swathes of useless information."
This raises an important point, that too much information can be as dangerous as too little. Even the security services think so. They have officially stated:
"We can currently collect (whether itself or through partners …) significantly more than it is able to exploit fully… This creates a real risk of ‘intelligence failure’ i.e. from the Service being unable to access potentially life-saving intelligence from data that it has already collected." (See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36469351)
In a recent poll commissioned by Liberty, 90% of people questioned thought the powers of interception should only be used in a targeted way against suspected criminals or risks and the Lords may support this view. We shall have to wait and see.
The basic issue is: Can the Government be trusted with dystopian levels of surveillance and knowledge of all the citizenry? Clearly it can't and this is not just paranoia.
Events in America, Britain and France have proved beyond peradventure, that despite the trappings of civilised democracy and denials, dark forces embedded within government, have and are, prepared to sacrifice people in fraudulent 'terrorist' events.
It could not be clearer on 9/11, but 7/7 and the Paris attacks prove it too. Nor can we be sure that powers provided for one laudable purpose, will not be used for another disreputable one. This has been demonstrated too many times to need listing.
Given that the whole 'terrorist threat' from 'Muslim extremists' used to justify the measure, is either fabricated or created by the west itself, we should all with one voice state clearly, we do not wish our privacy and freedoms to be jettisoned so easily and comprehensively.
We have been abused and deceived by our own organs of government for long enough.
What is required is a REFORMING PARLIAMENT neither 'left' or 'right', dedicated to cutting back the secret state and reestablishing and reinforcing principles of DEMOCRACY and personal liberty with entrenched positive rights of privacy from government snooping and interference.
The integrity and sovereignty of the country must be protected against those that wish to damage or undermine it. Despite the dangers, it convinces me that our political dalliance with the EC should end and a parliament elected to represent the true interests of all the people, not just the rich, which seems to be the case, needs to be elected.
Corbyn has proved that the electorate, particularly the disenfranchised young, can be reengaged and activated by honesty and idealism. What is required is a simpler and more environmentally friendly and self-sufficient Britain that trades on its innovation and optimism as it once did.
In short, one that we can trust not to snoop unnecessarily. One which will protect us from terrorist events, not create them.