If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill.

As it happens, they do want to change the status quo, by making clearly acceptable for authorities to eavesdrop, something that was, er, technically illegal before, despite them doing it anyway.

So instead of punishing spooks for breaking the law, they're changing the law. Easy, innit?

Just strictly on this point, sometimes bills (or parts of bills) are introduced to clarify existing law. It may be a matter of subtle semantics, but this is often what is meant when it is claimed that a bill will not change the law.

So yeah, what they really need is a change, because current law is very clear that what they do is illegal.

And article 8 has an ill-specified "national security" exemption. http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-in...

Here, the definition of "telecommunications provider" seems (to my understanding) so broad as to cover any provider of an online service, paraphrasing section 193:

"Communication" is "anything comprising speech, music, sounds, visual images or data of any description" and "signals serving either for the impartation of anything between persons, between a person and a thing or between things or for the actuation or control of any apparatus."

And a "telecommunication service" includes "any case where a service consists in or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications transmitted".

Section 189 titled Maintenance of technical capability allows the Secretary of State to make obligations on telecommunication services including (paraphrasing again):

* relating to apparatus * relating to the removal of electronic protection applied by a relevant operator to any communications or data * relating to the handling or disclosure of any material or data

in addition to requiring them to "provide facilities or services of a specified description"; the specification apparently being deferred until notice is served on the service provider.

Conversely, the Secretary of State is required to consult before serving a "technical capability notice" and section 190 lays out a number of considerations for the Secretary of State including "technical feasibility", "likely cost", "likely benefit" etc.

But other than these apparently very weak constraints, it appears to provide carte blanche for the Secretary of State to demand new technical capabilities of any service provider for the warranted access and interception of any user data they store or transmit.

  (a)to monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions and to obtain and provide information derived from or related to such emissions or equipment and from encrypted material; and

  (2)The functions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be exercisable only—
    (a)in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom; or
    (b)in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; or
    (c)in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime.

May lead to "implement backdoors and ban unknown ciphertext"

It's already being planned, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10498280