With this particular legislation, it is very clear to me why it is bad. I am able to articulate to people that regardless of who proposed or supported the idea,

With this particular legislation, it is very clear to me why it is bad. I am able to articulate to people that regardless of who proposed or supported the idea, it is not a good idea to keep information on my family and friends, such as where they move, who is in their social networks, what topics they search the web for in the privacy of their own home. I feel that it is empowering to explain why it is not a necessary or proportionate response to place the entire country under surveillance on the off chance one of us was to plan a terrorist related offence. I can also explain clearly why this is something which will result in all lay people being monitored, but none of the technical savvy people who actively try and circumvent the retention scheme using a mix of offshore VPS + VPN + tor + whatever other technology helps them. As beefsac said, this is a policy which will likely have support from the two major parties. I encourage all people who oppose this particular legislation to explain to their friends, families, co-workers, etc the ramifications of mandatory data retention - without mentioning a particular party. I'm aware that discussions about legislation such as this often end up in name slanging and partisan comments. However I think it is very important to debate these things with a clear head. As much as possible when discussing politics and legislation, I try to refrain from referring to any specific party or politician. I fear that if I do, I'm allowing people to attack my argument by saying "of course you'd say that, you leftist greenie" or "of course you'd say that, you right winged conservatist". Lets play the ball, not the man. FYI - I've already contacted my local MP - the first time I've felt the need to do so. I await his reply. Edit: grammar