The information commissioner today expressed concern at a proposed government database recording the entire country's telephone and internet use, calling it "a step too far for the British way of life".

Richard Thomas, who heads the government's privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), said there was a grave danger of the police and security services prying into "more and more aspects of our private lives".

There had been too many recent examples of personal data being gathered and collated by officials without proper parliamentary scrutiny or public debate, Thomas said today at the launch of his office's annual report.

At the same time, the ICO announced it was serving enforcement notices against Revenue & Customs and the MoD following recent cases of data mismanagement, obliging them to explain what improvements have been made.

It emerged in November that Revenue & Customs had lost 25m child benefit records on unencrypted discs sent by courier. Early this year the MoD said 600,000 people's personal details had been lost when a laptop was stolen.

Today, Thomas argued that every time a new database was launched the government must consider "the impact on individuals' liberties and on society as a whole".

He added: "Sadly, there have been too many [privacy] developments where there has not been sufficient openness, transparency or public debate."

Thomas – whose office warned last year that Britain was "sleepwalking" into a fully fledged surveillance society – said he had grave doubts about the mooted communications database.

Under the proposals, which could become part of the new data communications bill, telecoms companies and internet service providers would be compelled to hand over details of every phone call made, email sent and minute spent on the internet by the public.

The information would be stored for at least 12 months and police, security services and other agencies across Europe would have access to the database with court permission.

"I am absolutely clear that the targeted, and duly authorised, interception of the communications of suspects can be invaluable in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime," Thomas said.

"But there needs to be the fullest public debate about the justification for, and implications of, a specially created database – potentially accessible to a wide range of law enforcement authorities – holding details of everyone's telephone and internet communications.

"Do we really want the police, security services and other organs of the state to have access to more and more aspects of our private lives?"

Other recent examples of new information sources being collected without proper debate were the expansion of the DNA database and the centralised collection of data from number plate recognition cameras, he added.