Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo have made an unusual collective submission of written evidence to the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill Joint Committee, in which they criticise a number of key elements of the UK government's proposed Snooper's Charter. They write: "We believe the best way for countries to promote the security and privacy interests of their citizens, while also respecting the sovereignty of other nations, is to ensure that surveillance is targeted, lawful, proportionate, necessary, jurisdictionally bounded, and transparent. These principles reflect the perspective of global companies that offer borderless technologies to billions of people around the globe."

As global companies, the group are particularly worried about the extraterritorial nature of the proposals: "Unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction will create conflicting legal obligations for overseas providers who are subject to legal obligations elsewhere." There are two problems here. First, the five companies are already subject to US law; and second, if the UK government claims it has a right to instruct companies located outside the UK what to do, other nations—including places like China and Russia—will be able to do the same.

To resolve problems of clashing jurisdictions, the US companies suggest: "the Bill should consistently and explicitly state that no company is required to comply with any notice/warrant, which in doing so would contravene its legal obligations in other jurisdictions." In the longer term, the companies suggest "an international framework should be developed to establish a common set of rules to resolve these conflicts across jurisdictions."

The group's views on the contested area of encryption are hardly a surprise: "The companies believe that encryption is a fundamental security tool, important to the security of the digital economy as well as crucial to ensuring the safety of web users worldwide. We reject any proposals that would require companies to deliberately weaken the security of their products via backdoors, forced decryption, or any other means."

One welcome move is to support the right of users to be informed when the UK authorities seek access to account data. "It is important both in terms of transparency, as well as affording users the right to protect their own legal rights." That's not possible if the Internet companies are forbidden from alerting users to what's going on.

As the companies point out: "Even where the Government establishes a need to obtain certain information, it does not necessarily deprive users of other rights they may have, and knowledge of the request is essential to their ability to advance those rights. While it may be appropriate to withhold or delay notice in exceptional cases, in those cases the burden should be on the Government to demonstrate that there is an overriding need to protect public safety or preserve the integrity of a criminal investigation."

Another area where the group have serious worries is the coyly-named "Computer Network Exploitation," which is actually about giving the intelligence services legal powers to break into any system. The companies write: "we are concerned that some of the authorities contained in the Bill, as currently drafted, represent a step in the wrong direction. The clearest example is the authority to engage in computer network exploitation, or equipment interference. To the extent this could involve the introduction of risks or vulnerabilities into products or services, it would be a very dangerous precedent to set, and we would urge your Government to reconsider."

Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo emphasise this concern in their last comment: "There are no statutory provisions relating to the importance of network integrity and cyber security, nor a requirement for agencies to inform companies of vulnerabilities that may be exploited by other actors. We urge the Government to make clear that actions taken under authorization do not introduce new risks or vulnerabilities for users or businesses, and that the goal of eliminating vulnerabilities is one shared by the UK Government. Without this, it would be impossible to see how these provisions could meet the proportionality test."

Alongside this group submission, there were a number of other companies and organisations in the technology field that offered their views on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, including Apple, EE, F-Secure, the Internet Service Providers’ Association, Mozilla, The Tor Project, and Vodafone.

The fact that five rival companies—Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo—decided to come together to make a single submission rather than submitting them individually as others did shows that they regard the threat posed by the Snooper's Charter to transcend those of everyday competition, and that they wish to present a strong, common front against it. They know that the stakes are high: "The actions the UK Government takes here could have far reaching implications—for our customers, for your own citizens, and for the future of the global technology industry." In other words, if the UK lawmakers get the Snooper's Charter wrong, it is likely to have serious negative consequences not just in the UK, but around the world. Let's hope MPs heed the advice and warnings found in the dozens of very varied submissions to the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill Joint Committee.