Peter N

I think that they are confused by and frightened of the technology involved. Worse still they are afraid to admit their lack of understanding and are trying to be seen as forward thinking in order to avoid being accused of holding the advance of technology back.

They are incapable of discussing the technology and so they nod their heads and stroke their chins whilst being terrified of putting up the hand and asking the simple questions like "why?".

They have completely missed the single most basic point of the whole debate. Why should any delivery company be allowed to open and read the content of any communication regardless of the nature of that content or the method of delivery?

Once you remove the technological aspects of the internet it all boils down to system for delivering that is no different in any aspect from that undertaken by the Royal Mail. There is no difference in value between the content of a website and the content of my subscribed magazines. Both are delivered to my home at my request and I do not expect the Royal Mail to open the packet and read the magazine before they deliver it. In fact, if they did so they would be breaking the law.

The subject or content of the magazine is irrelevent and it would not be a defence for the Royal Mail to claim that the magazine didn't contain any personal details that identify me nor would it be a defence if the magazine was "free" copy or was otherwise available in the public domain.

When I read the information on a website I send a request to the website and the website agrees to send me the information. They are fulfilling an order and the ISPs only involvment is in their contractual obligation to deliver that order.

Take the technology smoke-screen away and even an MP should be able to see why this form of spying must not be allowed in a civilised country without the specific intervention of court and only then with the the most compelling reason to justify such action.