My take on this: Law is - fundamentally - about getting people to the 'right thing' and not do the 'wrong thing', for which they define 'right' and 'wrong', and set penalties for doing 'wrong'. Both Law 1.0 and Law 2.0 do this, in their different ways: but abiding with the law is a matter of free will - a choice to do 'right'. But choosing 'wrong' is always possible - and implies choosing the consequences. What Law 3.0 is about is removing the ability to choose 'wrong' - to remove free will; to make doing 'wrong' not only impossible or the wrong way to think, but - ultimately and literally - unthinkable. And that I find deeply disturbing. While technical means of enforcing limits may make sense, and - subject to safeguards and 'civic hygiene' - might even be mandated, they would seem to me to be a first stage on a slippery slope: how far should we proceed. Would mandatory brain washing ever be considered acceptable? And on the subject of 'civic hygiene' and not trusting the next government (something overlooked by both parties, in how they have legislated), it is fundamental to the British constitution that no government is bound by predecessors, nor can it bind its successors - rather a mixed blessing.