Maybe, or maybe this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/14/pricacy-campaigners-review-snooping-laws http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/14/pric

Maybe, or maybe this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/14/pricacy-campaigners-review-snooping-laws http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/14/pricacy-campai... > Documents leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden have shown that the government relies on vaguely worded provisions in Ripa to justify surveillance programmes such as Tempora. or this: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/07/2119351/author-of-patriot-act-says-he-will-try-to-narrow-provisions-to-prevent-government-surveillance/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/07/2119351/author-... > “I have a big problem because the business records part of the Patriot Act, which is what was used to justify this, was designed for specific investigations,” Sensenbrenner told Fox News on Friday. I guess what I'm saying is that not all slippery slope arguments are wrong, particularly when there are examples showing the opposite has happened. In particular, I'm arguing for a form of the precautionary principle: don't make sweeping changes to the law unless you've really restricted the scope of those changes to exactly what you want to happen. That doesn't seem to be the case in this. It seems more like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991#Criticism_of_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991#Critic...