Snoopers in High Places
The UK government has a long history of keeping an eye on its citizens, once through opened letters, now through digital surveillance. Over the years, it has passed several laws that expand its powers to monitor what people do online, all in the name of safety, security, and catching criminals. But critics say these powers go much further than most people realise.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, better known as the Snoopers’ Charter, is one of the biggest. It allows authorities to intercept people’s communications if they have a warrant and even collect massive amounts of metadata - information about who contacted whom and when. Internet companies must store records of websites people visit for up to a year, and the government can order tech firms to help them access data or systems. In theory, there are safeguards like judicial approval, but many see them as weak.
Before that came the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which gave public bodies broad authority to spy on communications, use informants, and conduct covert surveillance. Other laws, like the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, required telecom companies to keep communication records so police could access them when needed. Even HMRC can demand financial data during investigations.
More recent proposals take this even further. The now-stalled Data Protection and Digital Information Bill would let the Department for Work and Pensions ask banks to monitor benefit claimants’ accounts for ‘suspicious’ activity. Critics say this could mean ordinary people having their transactions scanned automatically, which is mass surveillance by algorithm.
Another major step is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which sets up Digital Verification Services. These are meant to make it easier to prove your identity or age online, but they could also tie your personal information to more and more of your online life, from banking and healthcare to social media and shopping. The more data that is linked, the easier it becomes to track someone’s digital footprint.
Then there’s the Online Safety Act 2023, which puts heavy responsibility on social media and messaging platforms to detect and remove illegal or harmful content. That includes things like terrorism, child sexual abuse material, and hate speech. But one controversial idea is that even encrypted messaging services could be forced to scan private messages for such material, potentially weakening encryption altogether. Supporters call it necessary for child protection; privacy advocates call it dangerous.
Across all these laws, the pattern is the same: more data collection, more sharing between agencies, and more pressure on companies to watch what users do. The justification is usually ‘national security or ‘protecting the public,’ but once these systems are in place, they rarely stay limited to their original goals. The Parliament Act was passed to limit the powers of the Lords in cases of ‘vital national emergency.; Tony Blair used it to force through a ban on fox-hunting.
From intercepting letters centuries ago to scanning emails and social media today, governments have always found reasons to pry. The technology has changed, but the instinct remains the same, and so does the question: how much surveillance is too much?
Madsen Pirie