Specificity is important in the context of these issues coming up in the digital world. Insofar as how consent is obtained by social media sites and so forth is rapidly changing concepts.
I understand the legislation needs to be nimble to that rapidly changing concept. I don't see anything in what either myself or Ms. May have proposed that would create some kind of unintended consequence down the road. The wording is vague enough when you look at things like the information that has been posted and broadcasted only to a selected audience. This can mean many things that you're not cutting it off.
Quite frankly, if anything, rejecting the amendments exacerbates the concerns that have been raised by many, including myself and Ms. May, over the course of the study of this bill.
If we don't want to have that in the definition, then what objective are we trying to achieve? I don't want to question anyone's intent, or the comportment of different agencies, so if everything is on the up and up as we're being reassured it is, then let's adopt wording that apparently meets the spirit of the law in the bill, as has been evoked by the other side.
I don't think there's any harm in doing that, if that's what everyone thinks is happening anyway.