Obama doesn't care about Net Neutrality, it's a political move to attempt to look good.

If Obama really cared about Net Neutrality, he wouldn't have waited until he lost both houses & thus any chance of pushing his own legislation through Congress.

Now that Obama & the Dems no longer have the power to determine the legislative agenda, he can pretend to want Net Neutrality without loosing the support of all the MAFIAA contributors in Hollywood.

Woosh. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever how different the UK terrorism risk is to that of the US. You've never visited the UK, never studied the risks, have no idea what the populations at risk are or how many UK/French/American citizens are fighting for ISIS at present but you'll just pull theoretical fuzzy risk evaluations out ouf your ass.

The subject is UK Justice & terrorism risks. You have no knowledge of the subject & nothing intelligent to say so just shut up.

None of your mundane threats are shutting down public transport, causing massive disruptions in public life or getting politicians scared enough for their reelection that they completely reorient government policy. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about & nothing intelligent to say.

What "figures"? "Figures" you pull out of your ass are only "real" to you; boy-child. No references, no reality.

Before denigrating public fear, you need to experience some. I suggest trying to council rape victims. Given your track record here, you're bound to say something like "I've never been raped but I've read statistics that say that...". Their reaction to your drivel will at last give you an idea how stupid your arguing from ignorance is & how debilitating public fear can be.

You know this how, oh ignorant one? Yeah, that's right, you don't, all you know is how to fart while exclaiming "smells like roses".

You have to be abysmally ignorant to think that England's courts have anything to do with America (I'll assume the USA because the ignorant often conflate the two terms) but that's neck beards for you...

As for thinking that ISIS isn't a clear and present dangerous threat, well yet again you display ignorance. The influx of people with western passports (that being the UK, France & even the USA For the ignorant) being trained by ISIS who then return (or are sent back) to the west are the most dangerous threats inside our countries. The USA has been lucky up to now to have avoided attacks on this vector. France, where I live, hasn't, nor has the UK.

I was in Paris during the series of bombings in the Metro in 1995 & my future wife was close enough to the Champs-Élysées bomb to feel the shockwave. I was in the UK during the Tube bombings in 2005. I remember the disruptions to normal life. Even though I, like most people never felt enough sense of personal danger to change how we lived our lives, the shutdown of services like the metro/tube/busses will effect you.

You, on the other hand, cower behind those who are attempting to protect you and are well enough protected by them to ignorantly criticize the work of authorities in countries far away. Your theoretical statistics mean nothing to people with something you do not possess: experience.

Because ISIS, Putin, the London tube bombers & co are all so cute & cuddly.

Ah, so you're one of the fuzzy bunny crowd, criticizing those who are protecting him from the cruel reality he refuses to admit exists. There can be no useful debate with people of your ilk unable or on willing to live in the real world.

Neckbeard indeed...

Then what is it then? From TFA, the "outrage" is that MI5/6 must not be able to spy on journalists or lawyers.

Yes they are hypocrites, which means that their right to spy on everyone is justified & the outrage on being sped upon is fake. You cannot have it both ways.

A more nuanced & thus truer position than that of the karma whores. Too bad you were unwilling to take the karma hit & posted AC...

See my reply to Tanshin. Justice, Freedom & Security are not absolutes as you two are claiming at present.

Ah, a believer in absolutes...

So, "Freedom is more important than Security" without any qualifications, is it? How just is it when my freedom to take or do anything I want trumps your security?

The USA was fortunate to have founding fathers that were more astute. Ben Franklin did not say "Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", he said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". You need to learn that without qualifiers, your statements play well to the mods but are completely meaningless IRL.

You have no interest in "how much secure is an unjust and non free society" because you live in a society that unlike you, understands the importance of those qualifiers that you denigrate by ignoring them.

So you're willing to live in a world with organizations like ISIS that will kill you without any means of your government defending you, just so you can get your fix. Good to know.

I never said that the world was perfect, just that journalists & lawyers cannot become magical invisibility cloaks for people looking to hide from mi5/6.

Uproar? No. Criticism by a few, yes but without the weight of government and given that press criticism in both counter examples was magnitudes less.

Besides which, you're wrong. In the case of French monitoring, it was the government (the DGSE) monitoring it's own citizens. When the interior minister was queried on it in parliament, his answer was "yes we do the same data collection as the U.S., but given that France has no law against it, it's legal. The resulting 2 lines in the newspaper & lack of criticism by the press & lack of follow up prove my case.

Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries, it is what they must do. It is the sharing of that information to Law enforcement agencies which may be pushing boundaries, but much depends on the country, who is doing the Data Collection & who is targeted:
US agencies collecting data on French Citizens: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the French Politicians & Press.
French agencies collecting data on French Citizens: French Politicians state "we have a law that authorized that". Press says nothing.
US agencies collecting data on German Politicians: Unacceptable! Beyond the pale claimed the German Politicians & Press.
German agencies collecting data on US Politicians: German Politicians: Shhhhhhh... Press says nothing.

See a pattern?

So, according to you, National Intelligence organizations (specifically MI5/6) should give magical invisibility cloaks to spies & terrorists as soon as they get a 2 year journalism degree or pass the Bar?!? That's clearly just as much demagoguery as Shakespeare's "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." and just as workable.

No. French ISP users generally have control over whether the hotspot is publicly shareable or not. My experience is with Free but the other French ISPs should be comparable. People that want to use the hotspots of other users have to explicitly activate sharing on their box as this is how they obtain the username & password needed to pass through the captive portal on the public SID. Users that do not share their bandwidth turn off the public hotspot, but lose the ability to use the hotspots others on their ISP have made available.

The bandwidth available to the public SID is throttled so that public users cannot swamp the home users. While there have been problems in the past with french ISP's deliberately letting the links with youtube fill up as a negotiating technique to get Google to cough up money this hasn't been a problem in a long time. My 31.98€ per month fiber optic Freebox is faster & cheaper than just about any other ISP.