Well I apologize for my inadvertant wording. I am having difficulty putting my thoughts to words.

We clearly need to start. However, I think it is important to note that probably all countries, and probably most companies, have already suffered some loss. Few are expending any resources to fix things due to the method used to weigh the costs versus the benefits.

As to a late resolution being better than none, I disagree in some cases. But the reason I disagree is because sometimes a late resolution is too late. Assume a company gets hacked and goes out of business. That they were weeks from deploying a fix is irrelevant. I understand that isn't what you are saying. I assume you mean starting late, as long as you finish prior to any catastrophic event, is better than not starting at all.

The difference between what I tried to say, and what you are presumably saying, is whether starting late is still starting in time to prevent major issues.

If I am saying things wrong, please don't take it as disagreeing with your points. I am not. I am trying to say that sometimes starting late means not finishing at all.

Not sure what you mean by US bias. Snowden clearly showed the US is going too far both internally and externally. However, other countries have been doing the same thing for a long time. I admit to bias against some countries, but certainly not GB.