Proposals in the UK's imminent Snooper's Charter, which would allow police and security forces access to everyone's Web browsing history, have been dropped, according to The Guardian. In a statement, "senior sources" in the UK government apparently said that "rather than increasing intrusive surveillance, the [Investigatory Powers] bill would bar police and security services from accessing people’s browsing histories," and that "any access to internet connection records will be strictly limited and targeted." The Guardian also claims that other controversial options for the Investigatory Powers Bill, due to be published on Wednesday, have been shelved.

These include the suggestion that companies would be restricted or perhaps banned from using encryption, and the requirement that UK telecoms would have to capture and store Internet traffic originating from US companies in order to allow UK intelligence agencies to access them even if the companies refused to hand over the data.

However, as many experts have pointed out, neither idea was feasible: online business would become impossible without encryption, and end-to-end encryption means that storing traffic from US-based companies would be largely useless anyway.

These facts raise the possibility that the UK government's latest "climbdown" is actually nothing of the sort; rather, it would appear that the UK government has been feeding journalists exaggerated stories of what might be the Snooper's Charter, so that it could then appear to back down graciously in the face of the inevitable outrage those ideas generated.

By doing so, it could claim to be listening and responding to criticisms, as well as allowing it to present its real plans to increase surveillance substantially as being "moderate" in comparison what it might have done. As Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, told The Guardian: "It’s a traditional Home Office dance first to ask for the most outrageous, even impractical, powers, so that the smallest so-called 'concessions' seem more reasonable."

It is unlikely that those more extreme ideas would in any case have made it through both Houses of Parliament. For one thing, some Conservative MPs have made it clear that they would rebel against any such disproportionate plans, making the bill's passage through the House of Commons uncertain given the Government's narrow majority there. Moreover, as The Guardian notes: "Senior Tories said ministers—bruised by last week’s defeat in the House of Lords over tax credits—feared the plans would face fierce and prolonged opposition in the Lords if the powers were seen to be too draconian."

Chakrabarti said the climbdown is "mere spin," since the UK government had apparently ignored the most important safeguard: for any interception to require judicial authorisation. That's despite the fact that the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation had called for precisely this kind of independent oversight. "Where is the judicial sign-off before our private communications can be collected, hacked and tapped?" Chakrabarti asked. "Where is the move back to targeted surveillance and away from the blanket collection of our private data?"