I wrote yesterday about concerns over the draft investigatory powers bill raised by Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti and City University’s Heather Brooke.

Both avoided using the phrase “snooper’s charter” when speaking at the Stationers’ Hall panel debate, as did I in my report. But the nickname does seem increasingly appropriate.

How else should we describe a bill which, says home secretary Theresa May, will require coffee shops and libraries to store wi-fi users’ data for up to a year?

Evidently, these small-scale internet providers could be forced to hand over customers’ confidential personal data in order to track their web use.

May, under questioning from peers and MPs at the joint scrutiny committee, told them: “I do not think it would be right for us to exclude any networks. If you look at how people do their business these days, it is on the move in a whole variety of settings.”

So communications service providers (CSPs) will be required to retain internet connection records (ICRs) for up to a year. These will detail the services that a device connects to but, supposedly, will not include the users’ full browsing history or the contents of a communication.

Asked if private networks at universities and companies could also be covered by the act, she said: “I don’t think it would be right to exclude any particular type of network.”

In stressing that the powers would not be used for mass surveillance, May said the onus would be on the home office to show necessity and proportionality. And who would decide whether that was justified?

Judicial commissioners, she said. They would operate a “double-lock” authorisation process on intercept and bulk interception warrants in order to prevent intrusive snooping.



But will this judicial oversight provide enough protection? That’s the key worry for journalists who now know that there is nowhere for them to conceal their communications with confidential sources.

Nipping out to a cafe to communicate with a whistleblower will no longer be secure. The snoopers will, even if retrospectively, be able to identify a reporter’s source.

We already know from instances of the police use of the regulation of investigatory powers act (Ripa) - which is far weaker than this new investigatory powers bill - that the authorities cannot be trusted to behave “proportionately.”

When they want to discover how a journalist has obtained information, they may well overstep the mark. Can we journalists really trust judges to restrain the police and security services?