The British parliament this week gave the green light to new bulk surveillance powers for police and intelligence services that critics have denounced as the most far-reaching of any western democracy.
The Investigatory Powers Bill would, among other measures, require websites to keep customers' browsing history for up to a year and allow law enforcement agencies to access them to help with investigations.
Edward Snowden, the former US National Security Agency contractor turned whistleblower, said the powers "went further than many autocracies".
"The UK has just legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy," he tweeted.
The bill, the first major update of British surveillance laws for 15 years, was passed by the House of Lords and now only needs rubber-stamping by Queen Elizabeth II.
Prime Minister Theresa May introduced the bill in March when she was still interior minister, describing it as "world-leading" legislation intended to reflect the change in online communications.
It gives legal footing to existing but murky powers such as the hacking of computers and mobile phones, while introducing new safeguards such as the need for a judge to authorise interception warrants.
But critics have dubbed it the "snooper's charter" and say that, in authorising the blanket retention and access by authorities of records of emails, calls, texts and web activity, it breaches fundamental rights of privacy.
Rights organisation Liberty has challenged the legislation at the European Court of Justice, arguing it is incompatible with human rights law, and a judgement is expected next year.
"The passage of the Snoopers' Charter through parliament is a sad day for British liberty," said Bella Sankey, the group's policy director.
"Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the state has achieved totalitarian-style surveillance powers –- the most intrusive system of any democracy in human history.
"It has the ability to indiscriminately hack, intercept, record, and monitor the communications and internet use of the entire population."
Jim Killock, executive director of digital campaigners Open Rights Group, warned the impact of the legislation would reach beyond Britain.
"It is likely that other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance powers," he said.
The bill also reinforces existing encryption powers, allowing officials to ask technology companies to provide content where it is deemed "practicable", although firms fear it may open the door to further demands on the sector.
Explore further:
UK surveillance law overhaul sparks privacy row

gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2016I am going to send him your name.
It is so we are more safe, . . . right?
dustywells
5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2016gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2016I do not. Let him stay in the South, where it makes them feel wanted.
Here is my position:
Spying on The People did not save Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. The SAVAK did not save the Shah, and the KGB did not save the Soviet Union. The DINA, the STASI, and others have revealed the future of our own government agencies which consider The People to be suspects in their own nation.
Any government that does not trust its citizens deserves NO TRUST OR SUPPORT from those citizens.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2016I have no idea how to stop it. When I served in a Federal Criminal Grand Jury for 24 months, I came out fearing the government, then corrupted by Dubya Bush. Well, Comey is still in there, doing the work of Trump and Putin.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2016It seems that you are being very careful how you up & down vote. You see how the anti-Trump crowd in your neck of the country are rioting in the streets & you imagine that for so long as you are perceived as being anti-Trump that the protesters will stay away from your driveway?
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2016No riots here, "Benni". We are organizing to legally get you and Trump and Putin out of our lives.
Trump just paid $25,000,000 to dodge jail for his "university" fraud. He is your kind of guy.
koitsu
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2016Were you expositing the same thing about getting Obama out of our healthcare issues such as, keeping doctors & plans we already like? Got an opinion about these? No? Yes?......I know, you won't answer questions like these because you want to placate the liberal bias reflected in such deeply personal issues as these, this way you hope to keep the Stumpy mental state at more than arms length from your house which you wouldn't need to worry about if you hadn't told him where you live.
xponen
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2016Since nobody is helping law-enforcer, then I believe this bill deserve its approval. Compare this to the FBI vs Apple case; FBI had to pay $1million to unlock those iPhone in addition to Apple bringing his case against FBI to court... this is unsustainable.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2016thexfile
5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2016xponen
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2016Who is the "government"? the government is made up of your choice of representatives that you choose to represent you in the parliament or congress. They are doing their job that you entrusted them to do, they represented you... this bill, for example, is a revision of previous draft that was rejected because of intrusion of privacy. The fact is; society need this bill, and you can take comfort that the process of democracy in the parliament or congress will protected you right. Okay?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2016h20dr
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016rrrander
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2016Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2016Unless there would be probable cause severe enough to have priority over your privacy.
This is the achilles heel of democracy. Separation of powers or Trias Politica as described by Montesquieu is essential.
The UK is an imperfect implementation of that principle. It has no constitution, the head of state is head of the church and head of the army at the same time and the function is hereditary, as are other important political functions.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2016I blame it on Republican stupidity. After all it was Bush who created chaos in Iraq and by this set off the present disaster. He also maintained an illegal surveillance program, and this will continue now that the Tea Party is in charge of the CIA.
I hope that European leaders will now see that Europe has to take charge of its own security, defence and destiny.
The end result is chaos and waste.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2016The end result is chaos and waste.
I hope that European leaders will now see that Europe has to take charge of its own security, defence and destiny.
I swapped these two last sentences, but, yes, there is always that risk.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2016Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2016If dividing power among three branches of government is a good idea, how critical is it that we divide god-like power equally among us all?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2016How did we let the conservatives do this to our nation?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2016Hey George K, it's the cities near where you live in which the people are rioting. We know George, don't criticize the rioters near your neighborhood, after all, they have your address & will know where to go next if you call them out for their destructive behavior.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2016The Age of the Hoovers is here: One is in the FBI, and one is going to the White House.
We can expect the same results as last time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2016And as far as the FBI is concerned, you should fear them as they tend to arrest guys like you. But in reality you don't fear much of anything do you? No emotions, no empathy, no conscience. A big hole in your brain where those things are supposed to be.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2016TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2016carbon_unit
not rated yet Nov 20, 2016Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2016del2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2016If you knew any English history at all, you would know that no-one 'met ugly and painful and evil ends' in Buckingham Palace. And I wonder if there would be any objection to spending this amount on refurbishing the White House if that were necessary?
"That leaves the wretched gullible English always under domination of their 'royals'." The 'Royals' have less power that the Presidents of the U.S.A. or Russia. Again, your lack of knowledge is outweighed by your astonishing arrogance and obvious bias.
"If I was an Englishman, I would leave however I could. Even if I had to leave in a small precarious boat, naked, in the middle of the night" And the shore would be crowded with people shouting "Good riddance!"
I have reported you for being offensive.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016del2
not rated yet Nov 21, 2016Buckingham Palace wasn't owned or used by royalty until 1761; it was never used for housing or disposing of prisoners.It wasn't the Monarch's residence until 1837.
Queen Victoria was a constitutional monarch, not an 'absolute type monarch'.
I reiterate: you are biased, bigoted and ignorant.
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016Queen Victoria was neither an absolute nor a constitutional monarch, but a so-called "limited monarch" - her powers were limited, by laws such as the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701, but not clearly defined by a constitution, such as in The Netherlands or Belgium. Most limits on the monarchy in the UK are and were based on tradition, not hard-and-fast laws. If Elizabeth II were to decide to disband parliament today, it would technically be legal, though destructive to the monarchy. Anyway, check your facts before you correct others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2016MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016Well, we have a REAL unwitting agent of Putin taking power now. He is YOUR man, not mine.
imfromcanada
not rated yet Nov 21, 2016The surveillance state may have seriously started under Bush, but to blame it entirely on Republicans is simply wrong. In 8 years, Obama has not only reaffirmed the policies developed under Bush but has expanded them as well. Even after worldwide exposure with Snowden, he's done almost nothing to curb the mass, definitely illegal, surveillance of US citizens. While I don't think he's been worse then Trump will be (definitely not), I nonetheless realize that he's made the status quo even worse when it comes to an individual's right to privacy in today's online world.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016Of course, Trump is trying to make it illegal to discuss his faults, his actions, his motives, his disasters with new laws.
It's National Socialism again! Heil Trump.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016Would you please show some examples of this. TIA.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016Got an apology?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016MR166
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2016gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016I can find lots of articles on this. Want more?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016Our agencies have already been caught spying on our own people. It is the way to own us, through owning our politicians. Get the goods on them, and you own them.
Trump will give the Medal of Freedom to Assange, Comey, and Putin. Ceremony at Titanpointe. Look it up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016gkam
Nov 21, 2016gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016MR166
not rated yet Nov 21, 2016gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2016Scalia also ruled that if you can prove you are innocent of a capital crime for which you were convicted, if your appeals are over, the government can still kill you.
Remember the days before we had the Department of Fatherland Security, before Dubya and his disasters? I do.
Arthur_McBride
not rated yet Nov 22, 2016I am no friend of Empires, particularly the British Empire. But Britain most certainly is a constitutional monarchy. Britain is the type specimen that defines a constitutional monarchy. The requirement for a constitutional monarchy is not a piece of paper called a constitution, all it means is the monarch can not make laws on their own.
And no, the Monarch can not dissolve parliament any longer.
Disclaimer: Here in the Republic, we don't need no stinkin' Queen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2016It's not that as a psychopath you weren't sufficiently immoral, it's just that you weren't sufficiently good at it. Like all the other jobs you lied yourself into and then lost. Like all the infantile crap you try to pass off here.
Osiris1
not rated yet 14 hours agoThomasQuinn
not rated yet 4 hours agoThe very definition of constitutional monarch is that the powers and limitations are explicitly defined in a constitution. Hence the term "constitutional". Only some British monarchists claim the title for Britain on the assumption that an "unwritten constitution" should qualify. This is an a-historical point of view.
And yes, the Queen can formally still disband parliament. It would only result in the immediate explicit abolition of this power, but there is no law barring it now.