Friend is right that it could damage confidence in the net if there was a feeling that vast amounts of information were being hoovered up and sieved in order to locate the odd item used for criminal purposes. That power should be used in a targeted way. Without breaking any of the confidences that are in the letter that the Minister kindly sent us, one of the key points is that the level of interception is important when it comes to the cost and the technical complexities of providing an intercept capability. I am not sure that they will have the necessary concentration of the mind, and if the interceptors do not have a proper sense of their responsibilities, interception could become expensive and burdensome for internet service providers. I think my hon.
Friend makes an important point.
If there was a gung-ho attitude among interceptors, it could overload the interception capability. It is also likely that the internet will become an even greater force for communication than it is presently. Certainly, stock market investors feel that it will become a widely used method of communication. The question of recklessness has come up over the years in the courts, and there are classic judgments on the subject. I shall cite Lord Diplock, who touched on this in the Lawrence case.