Second draft of £1.8bn Communications Data Bill is delayed until end of March

One of the main areas of concern is that of retaining data, but Hough believes that even with the latest draft the government has made it clear that it may not be able to publicise exactly what types of data are to be retained "for national security reasons".

But on the flip side, Hough believes that the security of data that is being transferred from ISPs would also be under scrutiny, as it could mean an increase in criminal activity online.

"All of the data is to be held in one place at one time – where this will be, where the data is going to go, who is it going to go to; the government has a track record of not looking after data security," he said.

"As an ISP, we make sure the data is encrypted and it goes through data security procedures, but once it leaves our domain we would have no control over it," he added.

There was also a lack of detail explaining the finances behind the proposition. The government claimed the bill would cost about £1.8bn over 10 years but would benefit the UK economy by £5bn to £6.2bn over the same period. 

However, there was no explanation as to how the government calculated any of the figures involved.

The public

Home secretary Theresa May has claimed that without the bill there is a "serious and growing risk that crimes enabled by email and the internet will go undetected and unpunished".

And Hough believes the public are the ones who should be consulted more than anyone and is surprised that the government hasn't aimed to do this.

He added that there will be a lack of awareness among the public on what the bill will exactly entail, and suggested that many of the UK's population won't have anything to hide, but those that do will find a way of doing so – meaning they could escape being caught out by the bill.

Without the bill, Zen's Andrew Saunders admitted that the ISP does not currently hold historical data of its users, but if a court order is put through it can track that users' online activity.

Hough believes the government does not need the historical data to gauge criminal activity, and that, as the draft stands, the government is trying to cover up other use cases for such data.

"There has been a lot of criticism from people on whether it is just an excuse for music downloads to be tracked, or for local authorities to be able to know what is put into your waste bins. The Home Office was quick to discount this but I haven't seen anything at all that allays those fears. They need to be very prescriptive on what data is going to be captured and at the moment they are not, as they are using the excuse of national security," he said.

The law

Aside from retention of data, Hough believes the key fear is of the involvement of third-party companies like Facebook and Google that do not reside in the UK.

"The use of third-party services like Gmail, for example, is a big concern for how the government will obtain co-operation with them on this. They said they would clarify this in the next draft. I know the Austrian government has rejected a similar proposal under EU law, which could be another stumbling block," he said.

One firm that would not co-operate is Wikipedia. It's founder Jimmy Wales said Wikipedia would encrypt all connections with the UK if the plans to track internet, email and text use become law.

Hough believes that, after the next draft is published, the bill could be passed within 18 months through judicial processes and parliamentary scrutiny.