Data retention question
bdm at fenrir.org.uk
Thu Jul 17 13:39:57 BST 2014
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:10:46 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <53C6F21D.7050205 at talkunafraid.co.uk>, James Harrison
> <james at talkunafraid.co.uk> writes
> >> Because all the issues have been aired at length for some time. Not
> >> just since April but in the debates surrounding the 2012 comms data
> >> bill.
> >So future debate is irrelevant and we should give up, they've made up
> >their minds because the issue's been talked about enough? This
> >specific bill must be fine as a result?
> Future debate is important, and the bill could be changed (either
> more or less stringent rules, obviously). But it doesn't have to be
> done as a spectator sport in the chamber, with MPs giving up the
> other work they were already booked to do that particular afternoon.
It would be extremely sensible to make all the changes *before* the
bloody thing gets it 3rd reading wouldn't it? This way we get bad law
that may well not be revised or made to conform to the ECHR for some
time, not to mention the Home Office's apparent desire to keep every
citizen in a locked metal box.
More information about the ukcrypto