Actually, I believe that the British Government is exempt from the Data Protection Act of 1998 

Shit;...

The right to privacy is considered to be a civil liberty in many jurisdictions. It is in Canada.

 @ yellow comment:

That is not the way your constitution is set up, nor is Canada's Charter of rights and freedoms.  Civil liberties, such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure,were not conceived as technicalities to get the guilty acquitted. They are there to protect people who have "nothing to hide" from being searched for no reason, even if it means some evidence will have to be excluded in the trial of a guilty person.

Well I prefer they listen to our phones and maybe can catch some terrorists, then doing nothing and ending up with a terrorist attack. (They just catch some terrorists in Marocco who were planning a attack against the European headquarters in Brussels so I would like that they do this).


Uk should hold a referendum about this. Like Dogs Rule said it is a basic civil right so the citizens should choose if they want to give it up for more security.

See, I can understand your second point if the searches caused you any actual disconvenience but it (theoretically) should be completely transparent.

Would you rather not have your phone tapped or have a terrorist attack where hundred of people killed stopped? Would you rather have your emails secret or stop a child molester from gaining another victim?

 twest - i agree with Dog. It is eating away at our liberties. 

Lets quote Ben Frankin

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Hm, what was the recent story about all that goverment database information being 'lost'?

But... Source?

 The problem with taking random quotes from random places is they are often taken out of context.  I'm sure that quote is talking about something that doesn't involve trying to actually protect people and prevent horrible crimes.

Like I've said, you can either be stubborn and stick to your guns for absolutely no good reason or you can actually realize that something like that would go a *veyr* long way in stopping crimes like terrorist attacks or people epxloiting children on the internet. 

Obviously it is best to prevent crimes, but it should not be at the expense of the rights of the innocent. That is what your founding fathers envisioned, and while I do not believe a constitution should not be adapted with time, it should be adapted to give people more liberties, not take them away.

I would not say it to the victims of the scenarios you mentionned, but yes I do perfer the certainty of enjoying liberties rather than the possibility that giving away my rights will prevent an event which may or may not have happened either way. And if I really had to say it to their faces, I would.

They can get away with this in the U.K. because people are still subjects to the monarchy.

Yeah I agree with dogs aswell.  I would also like to add that letting yourself lose one liberty is the stepping stone too the loss of another.

+ there is a high probability that this will end up being a failure and a big money pit.