[8][9] The powers and intent of the Bill were preceded by plans under the last Labour administration to improve access to communications traffic data, under the Interception Modernisation Programme.
Under the new bill, any organisation that interacts with users and produces or transmits electronic communications could be compelled to collect and retain information about them, even if it is entirely irrelevant to their business needs.
According to Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism Charles Farr, formerly of MI6, so-called "black boxes" – DPI – probes are not the "central plank" of the 2012 Communications Data Bill.
[21] The Mastering the Internet system was described in 2009 by The Register and The Sunday Times as the replacement for scrapped plans for a single central database, involving thousands of DPI "black boxes" at ISPs in association with the GCHQ base in Cheltenham, funded out of a Single Intelligence Account budget of £1.6 bn, including a £200m contract with Lockheed Martin and a contract with BAE Systems Detica.
[22] In 2008 the black box infrastructure was operated by Detica, which had been expected to win additional contracts for its proposed expansion in the Communications Data Bill 2008.
[3][24] The BBC reported that the Home Office stressed that the bill was intended for targeted surveillance rather than "fishing expeditions", but quoted opponent Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch: "The filtering provisions are so broadly worded and so poorly drafted that it could allow mining of all the data collected, without any requirement for personal information, which is the very definition of a fishing trip."
Open Rights Group campaigner Jim Killock told the BBC that officials 'would be able to build up a complex map of individuals' communications by examining records of "their mobile phone, their normal phone, their work email, their Facebook account and so on",' which 'could compromise journalistic sources, deter whistleblowers and increase the risk of personal details being hacked'.
The aim of this is to ensure our law enforcement agencies can carry on having access to the data they find so necessary operationally in terms of investigation, catching criminals and saving lives"[24] Though the bill had been mentioned in the context of terrorism and child sexual abuse, the powers could be used against minor crimes such as fly tipping.
[27] A survey by YouGov, commissioned by Big Brother Watch, found that 71% of Britons "did not trust that the data will be kept secure", and half described the proposal as "bad value for the money" as opposed to 12% calling it "good value".
He added, "If the UK introduces draconian legislation that allows the Government to block websites or to snoop on people, which decreases privacy, in future indexes they may find themselves farther down the list".
[31] The current legislation allows ISP providers to retain information on clients for business purposes with a maximum time limit of 12 months.
Experts have made it clear that weakening or banning encryption would be extremely dangerous and damaging to the safety of the economic Internet environment and could have great repercussion on the information stored online and how it is used.
[35] Recently published Independent Review of Terrorism Legislation calls for UK to adopt the judicial authorisation as it is practised by other developed democracies.
[36] There is a concern that No 10 will disregard the request for the reform of the oversight and the call for independent judges handling the sign off in the cases of highly intrusive surveillance.