Spell Chucking

diff --git a/daniel-zeichner-20150511.txt b/daniel-zeichner-20150511.txt
index 44108fc08e4c66e99ea86c02f94ed71e5e586313..90ee16af5be2496288ebb7b8bb1f2f4518c8c9de 100644 (file)
--- a/daniel-zeichner-20150511.txt
+++ b/daniel-zeichner-20150511.txt
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ place upon t he benches of the Opposition.  I hope that you will
 quickly find your feet and come to a good working relationship with
 both the other Opposition members and those of the Government.
 
- Looking forward I fear that there is going to be a lot of rightous
+ Looking forward I fear that there is going to be a lot of righteous
 business for you as a member of the Opposition.  Many of these issues
 are things that I have observed you campaigning about in the run-up to
-the election and hence I expect you need no further encouragment in
+the election and hence I expect you need no further encouragement in
 those areas.  There are however two matters of Conservative policy
 that I would like to encourage you to support, and in which as a
 former IT professional you may find yourself one of the more informed
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ members of the opposition.
  Firstly there is the matter of the Communications Data Bill,
 popularly known as the "Snooper's Charter".  No sooner had the
 Conservatives been shown to have got a definite majority than Theresa
-May was informing the BBC that she intended to pursude this bill in
+May was informing the BBC that she intended to persuade this bill in
 the coming session.  This bill is purported to restore to the
 intelligence services capabilities that have been eroded by the
 emergence of the internet as a common communications mechanism.  This
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ this information upon request.
 2. Much of this data is not currently captured and many of the
  companies involved have no experience in controlling and safeguarding
  sensitive data of this nature; many of these companies will likely be
- the targets of opportunistic and targetted hacking attacks. This will 
+ the targets of opportunistic and targeted hacking attacks. This will 
  significantly increase the risks to the public at the hands of the 
  criminals involved; both as a result of being able to pinpoint their
  locations and movement patterns, and also because the data involved
@@ -50,13 +50,13 @@ this information upon request.
  reveals our our tastes, preferences and social connections.
 
 4. In theory the bill does not cover the content of communications;
- however it is not in practice easy to seperate content and
+ however it is not in practice easy to separate content and
  "envelope".  For instance if I were to visit
  https://naked-redheads.xxx/ or https://www.support-fox-hunting.org.uk/
  then it would be fairly clear what the content I was accessing was.
  For that matter the leftmost part of a URL, after a ?, is sometimes
  used as part of the "envelope" and sometimes conveys content data
- (e.g. if I search for "who is daniel zeichner" then my computer will
+ (e.g. if I search for "who is Daniel Zeichner" then my computer will
  make a request for https://www.google.co.uk/?q=who+is+daniel+zeichner .
 
 5. The procedures for accessing the data as outlined in the bill are
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ this information upon request.
  taken at that time found that about half of those polled thought this
  would be bad value for money, and only 12% thought it would be good
  value.  In the light of point 6 above one has to wonder if a £1.8
- billion investment might be better spent in personel for the Police
+ billion investment might be better spent in personnel for the Police
  and Security Services.
 
 9. This approach won't work at all where so-called "darknets" like
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ this information upon request.
 
 
  Secondly we have the worrying policy proposed by David Cameron in
-January; following the Charle Hebdo murders he asked "In our country,
+January; following the Charlie Hebdo murders he asked "In our country,
 do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we
 cannot read?" and proposed that it should become illegal to use
 encryption that the Security Services can't break.  It seems to me
@@ -109,13 +109,13 @@ that there are two major objections to this policy:
 1. There's no such thing as a cryptographic backdoor that only one
  person knows.  There are billions of pounds spent yearly trying to
  find holes and insecurities in cryptographic systems and when such a
- thing is found it is rarely made publically known, but instead
+ thing is found it is rarely made publicly known, but instead
  exploited by the actor who found it.  In addition if it is plausibly
  expected that a system does have a backdoor then traditional criminal
  or espionage mechanisms can be used to reveal it; such as blackmail
- or bribary.  
+ or bribery.  
 
-2. David Cameron does not appear to have appreciated the quanity of
+2. David Cameron does not appear to have appreciated the quantity of
  pervasive strong encryption in use by ordinary Britons daily.  This
  morning so far I have used strong encryption in the course of: