This a little overblown, as the right in terms of immediate interception has always been there in times of emergencies. There is nothing new here, it is old news, only brought to the forefront, by an order of codification. The real issues behind this are twofold, the first is that other than in extreme situations, like intercepting hazardous materials in the post, the breach of human rights far outweighs any potential security benefit. So gradually we destroy our lives, to gain a minor improvement, the net effect is always downwards into a police state. The classic we will protect you, by locking you all in a police cell. The second issue is that of abuse; all security services abuse their powers, it comes with the territory, it is the way they are, always pushing the envelope. This abuse adds further pressure to a downward spiral of rights curtailment, until you find yourself in individual cells much quicker. These are the two reasons we need be careful here, and that should put us on our guard. There is no doubt that sometimes security services need to act balancing the rights of some against the rights of others, without time for a judicial hearing. But these should be to clear immediately manifesting situations, not intelligence fishing trips, They should also be open, accountable and held to account harshly, when abuses occur. I honestly doubt, given our current state of corruption, whether we are even close to be able to leave a further security Pandora out of its box. I would suggest we start to show that we can implement a true independent group with teeth that could oversee this scheme well, before we try to push the envelope any further. We also need educate the public, that 100% safety means 100% control, so don't ask for one and not expect to get the other. If we want freedom, then sometimes some will have to pay the price. Freedom doesn't come for free, there is no free lunch! Security will always sell you security, they never sell control!