“Jacqui” “Smith”, described as a “Home” secretary, is re-proposing what we have feared all along.
If criminals and other chappies, such as “terrorists”, are plotting stuff, then it’s not our problem. There is no moral burden on us, non-suspects, to have to prove our innocence, in ways such as “not having communicated with suspect X”, or “not having accessed “suspicious” websites”, or “not being found by mobile phone records to have been in place Y at time T”.
The Remittance Man has gone into the timeline in more detail than i have done.
The way to not have a war on terror, and thus not have to use such a spurious war (which you can’t have anyway, it’s tautological) as an excuse to put a Police State in place, is to have had the right foreign policy for the last 100-odd years instead of the wrong ones.
Failing that (and it’s failed, yes) the West ought to have looked better ot its own defence against all sorts of marxist and pre-capitalist millenarian rubbish, not just “militant” “Islam”. Regarding Islam, I’m still not really clear that there’s any other approved type, in default of “deeply respected and globally-famous Imams” saying otherwise. I’m also not entirely clear that Islam is a religion in the logical sense – although sean Gabb is on public record as saying “Islam is a fine religion” (see and try googling “Libertarian Alliance + Putney Debates”, I can’t momentarily find the link) and I remain to be convinced, but that’s an argument for another day.
No: if the British State wants to monitor everybody, all the time, and store the “product” as the stuff is called, then it will have to make a better case than it possibly aiding in detection of supposed “crimes”. Crimes I always thought were against someone’s life, liberty or property. In the theoretical absence of socialism 9devoutly to be wished) most crimes are property crimes; there is even today, despite the almost complete absence of firearms, relatively little murder (try surviving in Venezuela today under Huggy-the-Chav) and even this State is still not in the big league yet when it comes to depriving people of their liberty. I cannot see this measure as but a sledgehammer to crack a nut, unless of course there is some subtext? Like pan-national surveillance of everybody, all the time?