From: Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org

The reason I think we should think about it is precisely because it's so very badly worded.

Without some informed legal thinking about what exactly the bill is likely to mean in practice, we probably can't know for sure.

Unfortunately, I don't expect informed legal thinking to feature particularly largely in the government push to get this rammed through.

So-far they've had one twerp stand up and, in response to a query on https encryption, say the black boxes planned for ISP datacentres will "just work". And, with all government legislation, they have to provide an impact assessment. According to the Home Office, implementing the Communications Data Bill will have zero carbon impact.

On the legal thinking aspect, I've got that covered with one of my dozen FoIA requests; a submission to the AG's office asking when they were first contacted, what input they provided, and minutes of all meetings related to the draft.

On the "make them look like proper charlies" front, I've asked the Commons, Lords, and Home Office for a spreadsheet of every web page they've accessed since the coalition came to power, with number of hits per page. There's a high probability this may dig up something deeply embarrassing which, from a journalistic viewpoint, makes it worthwhile - as well as pointedly illustrating the deeply intrusive nature of the proposal.

As will come as no surprise, one of my requests is now with the Information Commissioner's Office in the form of a complaint over failure to comply and disclose.

Brian McNeil -- 69/6 Albert Street, Edinburgh. EH7 5LR. SCOTLAND Wikinews, Accredited Reporter. | GSM: +44 (0)788 987 8314 "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."