Investigatory Powers Bill fails to address key flaws raised by critical Parliamentary reports

Government to EXPAND police powers to tap ISPs' mandatory web-records database

As expected, the government has today published its the much-criticised Investigatory Powers Bill, which will expand the powers of the security services to spy on people's web browsing activities.

And the new Bill will almost certainly face opposition from internet service providers (ISPs) who will be required to store people's web browsing records for 12 months - a burden that may force many smaller ISPs out of business.

The government wants police and other security agencies to have the power to tap this database in order to investigate terrorism and other serious crimes. The government has costed the burdens that the Bill will place on businesses at £247m, but it remains unclear who will foot the cost.

Furthermore, rather than watering down police powers to tap these web-browsing databases, Home Secretary Theresa May has proposed expanding them to enable police to access all web-browsing records in specific crime investigations. The original Bill had only specified illegal websites and communications services.

These powers will not need the "double-lock" ministerial authorisation outlined in the original Bill. And May also rejected Parliamentary committees' recommendations not to extend state internet surveillance powers for the purposes of the "economic well-being" of the UK.

May also proposes to expand police computer hacking powers, allowing the National Crime Agency and all major forces, such as the Metropolitan Police, to hack even in cases where it is claimed there is potential "damage to somebody's mental health".

The Bill also proposes making it lawful for the security services to engage in bulk interception of internet traffic, and will provide a framework in which they can legally collect this traffic, which may include personal details, such as emails, bank and medical records.

The Bill will formally legalise many practices that the security services are known to have engaged in for a decade or more following the Edward Snowden disclosures.

However, privacy safeguards have been slightly tightened up in response to a trio of critical Parliamentary reports published over the past couple of months. Furthermore, the government has refuted claims that it was seeking to rush the Bill through Parliament - a move intended to keep the shadow home secretary Andy Burnham onside, which would assure the Bill's passage through Parliament.

There have also been changes made to the proposed surveillance law on encryption in a bid to address widespread technology industry concerns that it would undermine the UK's tech sector. However, the changes will have done little to assuage the concerns of privacy activists and it remains to be seen how the communications and technology industries will react to the new Bill.