@JohnAskew: The issue I have is with the blanket nature of it. Before, if criminality was suspected, a warrant is applied for through a magistrate, and the courts are there to protect you.
Pretty much everyone knows that you don't say anything distasteful if you want to be accepted as a visitor in America. I think the government there has done quite well with the way they enforce the law, yet they don't use any of these sweeping powers that are being proposed. What this new legislation proposes is that they can side-step this safeguard and use it at whim. They are not even proposing that this will reduce terrorism or prevent any other heinous crime. The fact that has has not been a terrorist bombing surely shows that this is unnecessary. Why should anyone know where I go to when I am on the computer if it is legal, this is what freedom is, is it not?
I could wear transparent trousers that would show my purple mankini - I have a liking for them as underthings - and though I have nothing to hide, why should everyone be allowed to see? Why not stipulate that all houses should have glass walls, as we have nothing to hide, unless you are a criminal/felon with drugs or weapons? It is indeed more helpful to have transparent accommodation in this instance, but surely there are other ways that require similar if not identical effort that at least ensure that I don't have to air my dirty linen in public?
The state has to draw a line at some stage with the ability computers allow them to control their citizens, and at the moment it is saying it recommends transparent clothes for everyone, startling with "boxers" for blokes and "knickers" for ladies all the way to your shoes and trousers, "if you have nothing to hide" is not a valid enough reason to erode ones privacy in such a manner.
(I was joking about me wearing mankinis BTW)