nomsheep wrote:Freedom is simply an opinion. I'm free to do what I do so I'm happy.

Nom

They want to see what you do on your computer about as much as I do (i.e. not at all).

mwnciboo wrote: Having worked on Government Secure IT systems, they are held together by incompetents and jobsworths so it's only a matter of time.

Well you might be glad to known mwnciboo that there's some severe backlash from this planned legislation and even Butler said it's not a great idea.

Mohamed went on to join other former detainees in a civil claim for damages against the UK
Government, alleging, among other things, complicity in his rendition, detention and torture.
In November 2010, the parties agreed a mediated settlement, the terms of which remain
confidential. The Government made no admission as to liability.

UK government loses confidentiality appeal, MI5 implicated in collusion with torture
The case of determining British involvement (mainly MI5 and MI6) in the unlawful treatment of a UK resident Mohamed by the CIA, was eventually tried at court in 2009 and appealed in 2010. Despite attempts by the foreign secretary, David Miliband to suppress evidence citing such disclosure would harm national security because it was given in confidence by the US authorities, the government lost the case at the high court. On 14 December 2009, Miliband appealed against the six high court judgements ruling, that CIA information on Mohamed's treatment, and what MI5 and MI6 knew about it, must be disclosed. In a case unprecedented, counsel for the Guardian and other media organisations, Mohamed and two civil rights groups, Liberty and Justice, argued that the public interest in disclosing the role played by British and US agencies in unlawful activities far outweighs any claim about potential threats to national security.[48][49]
On December 20, 2009, a U.S. judge, Gladys Kessler, found that there was "credible" evidence that a British resident was tortured while being detained on behalf of Washington. A formerly classified legal opinion, handed down by a judge in the US district court and obtained by the Observer, acknowledges that the US government does not dispute "credible" evidence that Binyam Mohamed had been tortured while being held at "its behest".[50][51]
On January 27, 2010, it was reported that the "United Nations human rights investigators have concluded that the British government has been complicit in the mistreatment and possible torture of several of its own citizens during the "war on terror". Among the cases listed, in which they conclude that a state has been complicit in a secret detention, the authors highlight "the United Kingdom in the cases of several individuals, including Binyam Mohamed.[52]
Wikinews has related news: UK loses appeal to conceal Binyam Mohamed torture
On February 10, 2010 three senior judges, sitting in the Court of Appeal, ordered the British government to reveal evidence of MI5 and MI6 complicity in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, overruling the foreign secretary, David Miliband.[53]
In response to highly critical media coverage, Mr Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, insisted that the coverage of the torture had been “baseless, groundless accusations”.[54] He also said that government lawyers had not forced the judiciary to water down criticism of MI5, despite an earlier, draft ruling by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.[55]
According to the Washington Post the court order forcing the British Government to publish secret memos it received from US intelligence officials will jeopardize future US-UK intelligence sharing.[56] The Washington Post quoted "White House officials" on February 10, 2010, who said the publication: "will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-sharing relationship.". According to The Guardian an anonymous White House officials had told them: "the court decision would not provoke a broad review of intelligence liaison between Britain and the US because the need for close co-operation was greater now than ever."[57]
At the end Mohamed received 1 million UK pound compensation from the British government.[58]