Matthew Horwood / Contributor

Civil liberties groups have slammed surveillance powers proposed by the government, calling them a "breath-taking attack on internet security" and a "grab" for more surveillance powers.

Leaders of both Liberty and the Open Rights Group attacked proposals that will force communications companies to store all the websites, but not their individual pages, that a user visits for 12 months.


The draft Investigatory Powers bill announced by Theresa May also redefines the parameters and regulations for the use of surveillance by security services.

Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group, said the proposed legislation would "redefine the relationship between the state and the public for a generation" and that the government needed to get it right.

Read next Corporate snitches are using screen monitoring to find and fire slackers Corporate snitches are using screen monitoring to find and fire slackers

Killock argued the bill increased blanket retention of communications data, and gave police forces the ability to "access web logs".

It also gives the state intrusive hacking powers that can carry risks for everyone's internet security Jim Killock , director, Open Rights Group


"However, at first glance, it appears that this bill is an attempt to grab even more intrusive surveillance powers and does not do enough to restrain the bulk collection of our personal data by the secret services," he added. "It also gives the state intrusive hacking powers that can carry risks for everyone's internet security."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said talk of government climb-downs were not realised.

The result she said, was "a breath-taking attack on the internet security of every man, woman and child in our country."

Read next Why the NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app failed Why the NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app failed

Home Secretary May had earlier told the House of Commons that all of the powers defined by they bill were needed for the government to be able to ensure "law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe".


The bill covers five main areas: oversight, interception, communications data, equipment interference, and bulk powers.

The 299 page document published by the government also includes provisions to reform and consolidate existing laws.

In order to see this embed, you must give consent to Social Media cookies. Open my cookie preferences. "It's only communications data" = "It's only a comprehensive record of your private activities." It's the activity log of your life. #IPBill — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 4, 2015

"I am clear we need to update our legislation to ensure it is modern, fit for purpose and can respond to emerging threats as technology advances," the Home Secretary said in a statement. "There should be no area of cyberspace which is a haven for those who seek to harm us to plot, poison minds and peddle hatred under the radar." "But I am also clear that the exercise and scope of investigatory powers should be clearly set out and subject to stringent safeguards and robust oversight, including 'double-lock' authorisation for the most intrusive capabilities."

Read next How to properly secure your Ring camera against getting hacked How to properly secure your Ring camera against getting hacked

Since the draft bill has been published civil liberties and campaigning groups have criticised the measures that are laid out in the legislation. Most of the criticism has focussed on the bill's provisions to collect communications data about individual's use of the internet and also the provisions for bulk data collection.

Amnesty International said: "Surveillance should be targeted, not indiscriminate, and the entire system should be placed under the scrutiny and control of independent judges, not politicians.

In order to see this embed, you must give consent to Social Media cookies. Open my cookie preferences. Some examples of the difference between Internet Connection Records (no warrant) and browsing history (warrant) pic.twitter.com/rDcjNqcTXa — Mikey Smith (@mikeysmith) November 4, 2015

"That’s the only way to safeguard our basic liberties and restore public confidence."

Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web Foundation said that the bill had promised a lot more than it delivered in reality. "Of greatest concern to us is the fact that the Bill seeks to introduce mass surveillance of every Briton's 'Internet connection records' without warrants, which should be something unthinkable in a modern democracy," said the Foundation's CEO Anne Jellema.

Read next The UK’s data sharing deals with Europe are about to get real messy The UK’s data sharing deals with Europe are about to get real messy

Meanwhile Privacy International rebutted May's claim that the bill doesn't add any new powers.

It said: "Existing law does not permit the Government to hack into our computers and retain records of all our internet communications. No other Government in the world has legislated for bulk hacking."

Big Brother Watch said there is a great deal of the draft legislation to be scrutinised and not much time to do it in. Renate Samson for the organisation said: “Requests for retention of internet connection records will provide access to the most detailed data on citizens, not just the who and when of a telephone record, but the what and how of the way we live our lives. "The guarantee of security to this retained data will be critical."

The Home Office counters claims from the civil liberties groups saying that the bill is not about bringing in new powers, and will make authorities "subject to robust, consistent safeguards".


“Nor is the Bill about accessing people’s browsing histories. Law enforcement’s access to internet connection records – which are the services that a device connects to but not the details of web pages visited or the contents of communications - would be on a case-by-case basis and only where it was necessary and proportionate," said a Home Office spokesperson.

“The Government held more than 60 meetings with industry, civil liberties groups and other organisations to inform policy proposals. These groups have been part of the consultation process and we will continue to engage with them throughout pre-legislative scrutiny.”

The next stage for the bill will see it pass through pre-legislative scrutiny where a committee will look at the specific details and recommend changes to parliament.