True, but I'd rather that process happen publically rather than in secret (as would be the default if the Facebook and Google were nationalised). Not that I'm implying there isn't already secret requests for data (if PRISM is to be believed) but at least with the aforementioned being privately owned there is some chance that unlawful / unjust requests for information can be challenged.
It only appears I'm making that conclusion when you selectively quote small passages from my comment. The very next sentence that follows the portion you quoted starts off by saying:
> "Not that I'm implying there isn't already secret requests for data"
I appreciate that you consider it worth reiterating the point about national security since I had only glossed over it. But I don't appreciate you manipulating my comment to suggest that I was ignoring that point entirely when I quite clearly did raise it.
