I know but I can't tell.

You'll have gathered from last Wednesday's post that I'm not too keen on the idea of people's conversations, telephone calls , correspondance etc. being intercepted, but given that this goes on, then it does seem rather ridiculous that where it produces evidence of criminal activity, this cannot be introduced in court. Stranger still is that it appears the main opposition to any suggestion of relaxing this rule comes from the security services themselves, who apparently think that this may force them to reveal their methodology. So if it can't be used to help convict wrongdoers, what's the point in doing it?