Investigatory Powers Bill faces legal challenge from privacy groups

Liberty, Open Rights Group and Privacy International mulling court action

The Investigatory Powers Bill (IP Bill) lacks in proportion and a provides the state with unnecessary powers to monitor citizens, according to privacy groups who are preparing to take the government to court over the matter.

The IP Bill, better known as the Snoopers' Charter, was passed by the House of Lords last week following a final debate examining various amendments. It will therefore become law within weeks, legalising a number of secret service activities that were ruled unlawful only in October.

It will require internet and telecoms companies to store comprehensive records of websites visited and phone numbers called for 12 months, and to enable police, security services and many other public sector bodies to access those records on demand.

It will also provide the security services with the legal power to bulk collect personal communications data, and give police and security services the explicit power to hack and bug computers and smartphones. Most of these powers will only require the approval of the home secretary.

The IP Bill already been criticised by the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, which described it as "intrusive and "draconian".

"It defies common sense," Silkie Carlo, policy officer at human rights organisation Liberty told the LA Times. "We are very, very resolutely in opposition to mass surveillance, which can never be considered proportionate or necessary in a democracy."

Carlo said Liberty was "gearing up" for a fight and intends to mount a legal challenge, saying the bill is "ripe for challenging."

The organisation has launched a campaign, dubbed "No #SnoopersCharter", of which more than 8,000 people have already joined.

"The Home Secretary claims this will make us safer - it won't. Mass surveillance is ineffective in preventing serious crime," the campaign website reads.

"Mass surveillance overwhelms our security services with irrelevant information on all of us, distracting them from finding the real criminals. The Government ignored the evidence that we need targeted, not total surveillance."

Renate Samson, chief executive of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, echoed Carlo's remarks, saying that the bill keeps us less safe than ever.

"Encryption keeps us safe online. This bill weakens that," he said. "When a company has more than 10,000 users, the [British government] can ask them to build capacity to see what people are doing on there.

"Long term, with crime increasingly happening online, and cyber crime becoming more of an issue, the ability of any law to create vulnerability in the online world actually keeps us less safe."