Britain has been accused of trying to impede data protection reforms that would make it more difficult for spy agencies to get hold of material online.

The European parliament is planning to vote on a new, unified law for EU member states in the next few weeks, but activists fear Britain is deliberately obstructing the path to new legislation.

Speaking at an international conference on data protection in Warsaw on Thursday, the UK information commissioner, Christopher Graham, said the first draft of the proposed regulation was "too dirigiste". Britain was "not interested in regulation that is a to-do list".

The first draft of the new general data protection regulation was presented on 25 January 2012. Following the revelations about the extent of US and British surveillance from Edward Snowden, one German commissioner said there was an urgent need for regulation.

However, the British view is that the disclosures have merely highlighted how differently European countries feel about online privacy, which will make it harder to reach any compromise.

"The Snowden revelations have showed us how important it is that we reach a compromise," said Peter Schaar, Germany's federal commissioner for data protection and freedom of information. "There is a real need for an international regulatory framework. For once, the Americans are as concerned about this as we are in Germany."

But a British source said "data protection law used to be a Rubik's cube", and after Snowden it had become "a Rubik's cube on steroids".

The standoff between Britain and other EU countries has several dimensions. Broadly, there is nervousness in the British government about a new piece of legislation that would transfer more power from Westminster to Brussels. More specifically, there is a disagreement over enforcement. Britain's view is that by not leaving any room for discretion, controllers will be forced to fine even small transgressions, for example by inexperienced startups.

"If you have inflexible regulation, you overclaim and lose authority. Less is more," said Graham at the conference.

Other European countries are seen to favour a stricter punitive system, which would set out clear guidelines. This month in Brussels, the EU commission's director for fundamental rights and citizenship, Paul Nemitz, had implicitly criticised Britain for "bickering and wanting changes" to the guidelines.

As well as the disagreement over data protection regulation, European states are at odds over the future of "Safe Harbor", a policy agreement established between the US department of commerce and the European Union in November 2000 which enables companies to transfer data between the two countries irrespective of different security standards.

In the wake of the Snowden disclosures, Viviane Reding, the European commission's vice-president, said: "The Safe Harbor agreement may not be so safe after all," and she ordered an assessment of the deal by the end of the year.

In July, German data commissioners called on Angela Merkel to suspend Safe Harbor, though at the Warsaw conference this week Germany seemed to row back from such demands, asking merely for reform of the programme.

Other countries in the EU, including Britain, see Safe Harbor as a useful mechanism by which to boost European regulation with tough US jurisdiction.

"What keeps Google awake at night," said one source, "is European regulation and FTC [federal trade committee] enforcement."

Data protection activists hope that Europe will use the pending revision of Safe Harbor and the negotiations over a new EU-US trade deal as a bargaining tool. But they fear the momentum gained by the Snowden revelations is being lost.

• The standfirst on this story was amended on 27 September 2013 to remove an incorrect reference to the UK information officer