The thing is, the exemption isn't relevant in the way that it seems to be. Sure, on the surface, it looks like a carve-out that exempts them from the bill, and

The thing is, the exemption isn't relevant in the way that it seems to be. Sure, on the surface, it looks like a carve-out that exempts them from the bill, and we boo, but let's take a step back and consider what the exemption actually reveals. Will it prevent their data from being collected? No. Do warrants magically seal data away from human eyes? No. Will contractors and administrators and bored people with access on the job have access? Yes. Therefore, does it actually protect them from the force of the bill? Not really. Sure, the police couldn't use bulk collected data in a case against an MP without the PM's say-so, but what's to stop Boz Admin selling their porn history to a newspaper? Nothing. No, what is actually relevant about the exemption is the breathtaking naivety and shortsightedness of those in power when confronted with something they don't fully comprehend revealed by its existence. If they actually understood the Greek fire they're playing with they would not have passed the legislation. It's up there with a president-elect saying "it's visually important for me to...", plainly echoing what a spin-doctor adviser said to him, equally revealing the small minds behind the great Oz. The crushing nature of a surveillance state comes only in a small part from centralised orchestrated action. Most of it is crushingly mundane - an officer wants to boff your wife, so you are a pedophile and you divorce. The soviet's daughter got mud on her dress at your garage so the place is shut down for code violations, and mysteriously the soviet's son is running the place next week. Your neighbour who works at equifax doesn't like your face so your credit score goes down. The more centralised the truth is the easier it is for dirty hands to rewrite it.