Privacy International has raised concerns that oversight bodies were not aware that GCHQ or MI5 were allegedly sharing people's social media data with foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The charity claims that GCHQ accessed this information by gaining access to private companies' databases. IT Pro understands that Facebook and Twitter do not provide governments with direct access to user data.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) now oversees the intelligence agencies' activities, after subsuming both the the Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office, and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Both these latter bodies, the charity said, were unaware that UK intelligence agencies were sharing massive databases of people's information with foreign governments, law enforcement and industry - potentially for decades.

Inappropriate and uncontrollable sharing with industry third parties may still be ongoing without proper oversight, the privacy campaign group added, saying that there are contractors who have system access rights that could allow them to enter the intelligence agencies' systems, access and extract data and then cover their tracks.

The charity said it has since seen letters from the IPCO raising concerns about the role of private contractors who are given administrator access to the data. The body was worried that there were no systems in place to prevent the misuse of this data by the contractors.

A GCHQ spokesperson said to IT Pro: "We have always operated within the law, co-operated fully with oversight regimes, and all our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate."

The information the agencies hold is stored in large databases but it remains unclear what data they have, with Privacy International's documents only revealing broad categories like "biographical details", "financial activities", "travel data" and "legally privileged communications".

The group revealed a tranche of documents detailing the data-sharing activities yesterday, and is in Southwark Crown Court until Thursday to uphold its challenge of the UK government's access to private company and/or organisation databases.

The case is a continuation of the charity's challenge to spy agencies' access to data, being heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IBT). The IBT previously made a landmark ruling that spy agencies had unlawfully collected communications data between 1998 and 2015 after Privacy International's challenge.

The UK government claims that there are effective safeguards in place around data sharing, which Privacy International disputes. Furthermore, the charity will question the government's evidence after the IPCO flagged that part of the government's evidence includes a misleading GCHQ witness statement. The statement details that the former commissioners were briefed about the agencies' use of information on private company and/or organisation databases. The IPCO stated the commissioners were never made aware of this.

Millie Graham Wood, solicitor at Privacy International, said: "The intelligence agencies' practices in relation to bulk data were previously found to be unlawful. After three years of litigation, just before the court hearing, we learn not only are safeguards for sharing our sensitive data non-existent, but the government has databases with our social media information and is potentially sharing access to this information with foreign governments.

"The risks associated with these activities are painfully obvious. We are pleased the IPCO is keen to look at these activities as a matter of urgency and the report is publicly available in the near future."

The IBT ruled last month that a case brought against the UK's spy agencies last month over the legality of mass surveillance should be taken to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This means the ECJ will have the final say on whether the UK's collection of bulk communications data, granted under the Investigatory Powers Act, is legal.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IBT) has ruled that a case brought against the UK's spy agencies over the legality of mass surveillance should be elevated to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The decision means that the ECJ will have the final say as to whether the UK's collection of bulk communications data, granted under the Investigatory Powers Act, is legal.

Privacy International, the UK-based privacy and online rights charity, first brought a case against MI5, GCHQ and MI6 in 2014 in an attempt to strike down the ability for agencies to use blanket hacking warrants, a key element of the Investigatory Powers Bill.

The group previously argued that the collection of bulk communications data (BCD) had no basis in UK law, and that spy agencies had breached articles eight and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the rights to privacy and free speech.

Since then, numerous cases have been heard relating to the legality of mass surveillance, which often includes the collection of personal web histories and mobile communications.

Privacy International lawyers argued last week that UK citizens were subject to some of the most wide-reaching surveillance, and that the right to privacy, guaranteed by the constitution, should limit the powers of security agencies.

Friday's decision, in a battle that has seen rulings in favour of both sides of the argument, will see the case referred to the ECJ, stating that "both parties either agreed or saw the necessity for a reference to the Grand Chamber, and the need for it is, we suggest, obvious from this judgment".

Part of the court's responsibility will be to consider a case brought against the agencies in December 2016 by Labour MP Tom Watson.

The subsequent ruling by the ECJ said that powers afforded by the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, the previous UK law governing the collection of data, were unlawful. It also added that data collected in bulk should only be accessible for the purposes of detecting and preventing serious crime.

The IBT also ruled in October 2016 that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6, through the use of BCD, had breached UK privacy laws and illegally collected data between 1998 and 2015 - this only applied during that period, however, prior to the agencies publicly announcing the tactic.

However, Friday's ruling did acknowledge the importance of surveillance for UK spy agencies, adding that BCD was "essential to the protection of the national security of the United Kingdom". It also said that applying the Watson decision to UK law "would effectively cripple the security and intelligence agencies' bulk data capabilities".

"We welcome the tribunal's recognition that collecting bulk personal data and communications data are vital national security capabilities," said a government spokesperson, speaking to the Guardian. "As litigation is ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment further."

The case will now decide whether EU laws apply, particularly the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines political and social rights into EU legislation. However, the tribunal decided not to expedite the case, and it is therefore likely that it will be several years before a decision is made by the ECJ, beyond the date set for the UK to leave the European Union.

Amid government attempts to regulate the internet more closely, privacy campaigners yesterday debated how to balance privacy and data protection with regulation.

Legislation like the Digital Economy Act and the Investigatory Powers Act show the government's actions to monitor people's web activity more closely. Many civil organisations, such as Liberty and the Open Rights Group, have fought against these new laws, which they believe restrict citizens' digital freedoms. In the debate, three individuals from different organisations gave their opinion on internet regulation in general.

Clive Stafford Smith, a lawyer at human rights organisation Reprieve, told attendees of Lush's Creative Showcase that he does not believe in regulation at all.

He disagreed with the government's stance on backdoors to encryption after prime minister Theresa May and home secretary Amber Rudd repeatedly attacked messaging encryption. Previous versions of the Investigatory Powers Act had proposed backdoors to encryption, but this was eventually dropped from the bill that passed Parliament in late 2016. Stafford Smith said:"[It's] monumentally stupid to agree with Amber Rudd and Theresa May that 'you have nothing to hide so why should you care?'"

Stafford Smith stressed that the UK should protect people against the abuse of their personal information.

Renate Samson, from privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said there needs to be some form of regulation as the internet "is a parallel, a mirror of our lives", but argued that the government has overstepped its authority with the Digital Economy Act, which will change how our data is shared with government departments to allow ministers to share citizens' personal information without permission.

Samson said citizens don't have the same protections online as they do in the physical world, and said: "Now we need to start having those protections."

Nikki Maksimovic, who works at search engine Ecosia, said that internet regulation exceeds all geographic borders, but differs greatly from country to country. "China is doing one thing, Russia is doing another thing" she pointed out. "How do you start to come to an agreement?"

She added: "It's really difficult to talk about legislation and maybe, going smaller, what can Europe do?" Maksimovic pointed to Estonia, where each citizen has an online identity called an e-Residency. "You basically have your identity and can't be defrauded. You're connected to the government in a way that is secure and works pretty well. They will open source all this technology and are kind of fighting for the rest of Europe to follow suit and it's not really happened."

Samson claimed that the UK's Government Digital Service (GDS) had engaged with the Estonia model for a really long time "and yet they didn't appear brave enough to adopt it".

She underlined that there was a risk, since you need an identity number, but the reason why it wasn't adopted was because the government "are required to inform you of every time they access your data, and why. And our government aren't brave enough to do that".

The High Court has granted human rights charity Liberty the green light to challenge the Investigatory Powers Act, also known as the Snooper's Charter.

Liberty will contest the mass collection of everybody's communications data and internet history, which it believes breaches British people's rights.

The act compels telcos and ISPs to retain and hand over logs of everybody's emails, phone calls, texts and entire web browsing history to state agencies to store, data-mine and profile at will.

The European Court of Justice issued a judgement last December in a separate case brought by Tom Watson MP, represented by Liberty lawyers. It ruled that the same powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) the previous law governing UK state surveillance were unlawful. Liberty launched its challenge in the wake of this decision.

While the act received Parliament's approval last year, Liberty contends that the government failed to provide evidence that surveillance of everybody in the UK was lawful or necessary. It added that whistleblowers and experts warned that the powers would make it more difficult for security services to do their jobs effectively.

Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, today said the organisation was "delighted" to have been granted permission to challenge the law.

"It's become clearer than ever in recent months that this law is not fit for purpose. The government doesn't need to spy on the entire population to fight terrorism. All that does is undermine the very rights, freedoms and democracy terrorists seek to destroy," she said.

"And as increasingly frequent hacking attacks bring businesses and public bodies to their knees, our government's obsession with storing vast amounts of sensitive information about every single one of us looks dangerously irresponsible."

The human rights organisation can also apply for a cost-capping order, which, if granted, the case will be listed for a full hearing in due course. The High Court has also allowed Liberty to seek permission to challenge three other parts of the Act once the government publishes further codes of practice, or by March 2018 at the latest.

Its challenge is being crowdfunded via CrowdJustice, raising more than 50,000 from the public in less than a week in January to exceed an initial target of 10,000.

Over 200,000 people signed a petition calling for the repeal of the Investigatory Powers Act after it became law late last year.

Pushing through major new spying powers will be the immediate priority of the Conservative government if it wins next month's election, according to The Sun. The Tory party will aim to push a vote through Parliament that will allow the use of controversial Technical Capability Notices (TCNs) to force telcos, ISPs and social networks to hand over details of users' communications, unnamed government ministers told the publication. The use of encryption by technology companies has been a hot-button political issue for some time, but has been exacerbated by recent terrorist attacks such as the terrorist attack in Manchester on Monday night.

"We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in," an anonymous official said. "The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Tech companies employ encryption to protect user data from hackers and identity thieves, but politicians have argued that it also provides terrorists with a hidden, untraceable method of coordinating strikes. This has led to multiple calls for encryption technology to be weakened or outright abolished, particularly from the current Conservative government. First provisioned for in the Investigatory Powers Act last year, the Technical Capability Notices (TCNs) would compel communications companies like telcos, ISPs and social media providers to hand over details of users' communications upon request from government or the security services. As with other powers detailed in the Act, each separate order would need to be approved, with a warrant signed by a Secretary of State and a senior judge.

However, as secondary legislation their use requires Parliamentary assent, after already going through a board of industry representatives and a four-week consultation that wasn't advertised to the public.

Under the proposed rules, the government will be able to intercept communications "in near real time". It also effectively bars companies from using end-to-end encryption in their products, as it requires that they "remove electronic protection applied... to the communications or data". In order to use TCNs, however, the government would have to pass further legislation through Parliament, offering more detail about how the powers would work in practice. The regulation will take the form of a Statutory Instrument, which means that Parliament can only approve or disapprove it, without allowing for any alterations or amendments. A draft version of the legislation was circulated among some of Britain's major telcos earlier this year, and was subsequently leaked by digital privacy campaigners the Open Rights Group. The government also recently completed a hurried four-week consultation on the powers, which is one of the last legally-required stages before they can be put to a vote. The vote will have to wait until after the general election, however, as Parliament is currently dissolved in advance of the general election. The new powers face strong opposition from digital rights campaigners, who argue that it impinges on citizens' privacy and affords the government the power to conduct Orwellian mass surveillance. "It is worrying to hear that in the wake of these attacks, the Home Office wants to push ahead with proposals to force companies to weaken the security of their products and services," the Open Rights Group said in response to the news. "Our core concern is that using TCNs to force companies to limit or bypass encryption or otherwise weaken the security of their products will put all of us at greater risk." "These will seem like narrow issues compared with Tuesday's events. And that is true. The wider issue, however, is that we as a society do not react to these events by emulating our enemies, by treating all citizens as a threat, and gradually removing British values such as the rule of law, due process and personal privacy."

The UK government has drawn up details of its surveillance powers and put them out for a secretive consultation without letting the public know.

The government wants to give itself the ability to monitor British people's communications and force UK firms to include encryption backdoors in their products. Under the proposed Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2017, telecoms providers must allow the government to simultaneously spy on one in 10,000 of their customers at any time.

Telcos would also have to provide any information the government requests within one working day, and must notify Home Secretary Amber Rudd if there will be any changes to their service, including the development of new services - these will have to be built with the obligations and requirements of the technical capability notice in mind.

Furthermore, telecoms providers must provide backdoors to encrypted data sitting in their services so that the government can access any communications. Telecoms providers must "remove electronic protection applied by or on behalf of the telecommunications operator to the communications or data".

The notice also extends to the postal service, where the government will have the power to "open, copy and reseal any postal item" in order to inspect its contents.

The Open Rights Group leaked the draft yesterday on its website and highlighted that the short four-week consultation had not been publicised to the tech industry or to the public. Under Section 253 (6) of the Investigatory Powers Act, the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consult the public, but instead must consult a small selection of organisations likely to be affected by the proposals.

Concluding on 19 May, responses to the consultation can be sent to investigatorypowers@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.

These measures have passed through a Technical Advisory Board composed of six industry representatives from O2, BT, BSkyB, Cable and Wireless, Vodafone and Virgin Media, alongside six representatives from UK spy agencies and a neutral chair.

Open Rights Group's executive director, Jim Killock, said: "These powers could be directed at companies like WhatsApp to limit their encryption. The regulations would make the demands that Amber Rudd made to attack end-to-end encryption a reality. But if the powers are exercised, this will be done in secret.

"The public has a right to know about government powers that could put their privacy and security at risk. There needs to be transparency about how such measures are judged to be reasonable, the risks that are imposed on users and companies, and how companies can challenge government demands that are unreasonable. Selective, secret consultations have no place in open government."

The Investigatory Powers Act passed through Parliament last November despite facing strong opposition, and received Royal Assent soon after to become an act. However, large parts of it were struck down by the European Court of Justice in February over its bulk data collection plans. It was thought then that the government would seek new ways to reinstate bulk data collection.

IT Pro has approached the Home Office for comment.

Although the new US administration seems adamant to repeal a law which prevents ISPs from selling user data, that hasn't stopped said users from creating new ways to frustrate the process.

One person in particular has come up with a way of flooding an internet history with random Google searches, preventing ISPs from accurately profiling customers habits.

The website, which is dubbed "Internet Noise", acts like a signal jammer, throwing ISPs off the trail as they seek to sell user data to advertisers, or draw insights from the things you typically search for.

'Internet Noise' is still in development, currently hosted on github

"I cannot function in civil society in 2017 without an internet connection, and I have to go through an ISP to do that," said Dan Schultz, programmer and inventor of Internet Noise, speaking to Wired.

Schultz regards the tool, which is still in its early stages of development, as a "digital protest", but reminds users it does not encrypt their search traffic like a VPN might.

In order to frustrate ISPs, Schultz googled the "Top 4,000 nouns", creating a list of terms that is then used to randomly to open five new browser tabs when a user clicks "Make some noise".

The search is repeated every ten seconds, opening new search tabs each time. Within minutes a user's search history is awash with random LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Wikipedia searches about anything and everything. The automated website works in a similar way to the recently banned Google Chrome plugin Adnauseam.io, which randomly clicked on website adverts to disrupts the model of targeted advertising.

These sorts of tools are fairly rudimentary in their design, as any smart algorithm will be able to spot the random search terms as fake based on the short time the system stays on each page. But what they do represent is a growing feeling that if internet users are unable to prevent the harvesting of data for cash, they can at least make it as difficult as possible.

29/03/2017: Congress votes to roll back US internet privacy rules

The USA has come another step closer to removing privacy protections for residents of the country.

Overnight, the House of Representatives voted 215-205 in favour of repealing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that prevent ISPs from selling their customers' data without their consent. Having passed through both houses of Congress, all that is required now is the president's signature.

The current FCC rule, which came into force just days before President Trump was voted into office, requires broadband providers to get their customers' express permission to sell certain types of data, and web records, to advertisers.

According to the Financial Times, the Internet and Television Association, the members of which include the USA's largest cable countries, said removing the regulation would "[restore] consumer privacy protections that apply consistently to all internet companies".

Dan Jaffe, a lobbyist for the Association of National Advertisers, said: "[The FCC regulation] would have created a very uneven playing field."

"Collecting information so you can provide consumers content that is relevant to them is of great value. There will be a great deal more spam if you cannot gather what we think is perfectly reasonable data," he added.

His comments were in line with a statement issued to both houses of Congress by six of the largest advertising and broadband trade groups, which warned the rule "would break well-accepted and functioning industry practices, chilling innovation and hurting the consumers [it] was supposed to protect".

President Trump now has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign the reversal into law.

24/03/2017: US Senate votes to allow ISPs to sell people's data without their consent

US internet service providers (ISPs) may soon no longer need people's explicit consent to sell or share their web browsing data or personal information with third parties.

The US Senate voted 50-48 to roll back rules instituted last October by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that were designed to force ISPs and mobile carriers to gain consumers' opt-in consent to share their data with other companies.

The resolution, first proposed earlier this month by Republican senator Jeff Flake and co-sponsored by fellow Republicans, must now go through the House of Representatives in order to repeal the FCC's privacy legislation.

Republican senator John Thune said yesterday in the Senate: "As chairman of the commerce committee which has jurisdiction over the internet, I've worked hard to promote policies that encourage the private sector to invest in and grow the internet ecosystem as a whole.

"All of that is jeopardised, however, if government bureaucrats have the ability to overregulate the digital world. When it comes to over-regulating the internet, one need look no further than the Democrat-controlled FCC under President Obama."

The vote fell along party lines, with Democrat senator Edward Markey one vociferous opponent of the resolution.

He said: "The Republicans are saying to the American consuming public: 'you have no privacy'. If you're at home and you've got Comcast or Verizon, if you've got AT&T and they're gathering all this information about you as a broadband provider, every site you go to, everything you're doing, everything your children are doing - what they're saying as of tonight: 'no privacy, no privacy for your family'. Everything is out there to be captured by these big broadband barons."

In a joint statement responding to the vote, FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn and FTC commissioner Terrell McSweeny said: "If signed by the President, this law would repeal the FCC's widely-supported broadband privacy framework, and eliminate the requirement that cable and broadband providers offer customers a choice before selling their sensitive, personal information.

"This legislation will frustrate the FCC's future efforts to protect the privacy of voice and broadband customers. It also creates a massive gap in consumer protection law as broadband and cable companies now have no discernible privacy requirements. This is the antithesis of putting #ConsumersFirst. The House must still consider this legislation. We hope they recognise the importance of consumer privacy and not undermine the ability of Americans to exercise control over their sensitive data."

That reference to "no discernable privacy requirements" is significant ISPs could opt to offer the least privacy protection possible, because that is the easiest way to do it.

However, consumers can keep hold of their data by paying for a VPN through which to access the internet, which hides their web activity even from their ISPs by encrypting users' activity so the ISP can't see it.

Marty P. Kamden, CMO of NordVPN, said: "Internet users should regularly delete cookies, install antivirus and anti-tracking software, and make sure not to enter personal passcodes and credit card information when using open Wi-Fi networks. The best known method to keep your information private and encrypted from ISPs is a VPN."

Renate Samson, CEO of UK-based privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, told IT Pro that the vote comes at a time when all people must count themselves as "digital citizens".

She said: "We are all digital citizens now. In a world driven by data, where data loss, breach, hack or misuse are commonplace problems, all citizens must understand that protection of their data is as critical as the protection of their physical selves. Weakening people's right to control who can access, share or sell data is a huge step backwards in ensuring the safety, identity security and privacy of US citizens."

It seems that encryption has been firmly established as the whipping boy du jour for pearl-clutching, public-safety panic merchants. Specifically, it's encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp and iMessage that have found themselves in the crosshairs.

Following last week's terror attack by the Houses of Parliament, it has emerged that the killer was communicating with someone via WhatsApp in the moments preceding his assault. It has been speculated although not confirmed that he may have been in contact with someone who conspired with him to plan the attack, although this afternoon the Met Police have said there's no evidence he was directed by Islamic State.

This has fuelled fresh calls to severely weaken or outright ban the use of encryption by such services to secure their messages, echoing last year's fierce debate over whether or not Apple should hack the iPhone of the San Bernardino killer. It's worth noting at this point that even though a third-party company did eventually hack into Syed Farook's phone, there is no indication that it offered any actionable intelligence.

Nevertheless, home secretary Amber Rudd and other Tory MPs are using this tragedy as an excuse to castigate and demonise encryption, with talk of coercing tech companies into installing backdoors into their code. It's not the first time the government has proposed this, either; it was included in early versions of the Snooper's Charter, but was ultimately dropped from the bill.

Naturally, the idea of messing with encryption has got the tech sector up in arms. Critics have called it "deeply misguided" and other (less printable) things. Supporters of the plan say that spies need to be able to read the messages of terror suspects, but experts are queuing up to tell Rudd and the rest of the anti-crypto club that technology simply doesn't work that way.

In an exchange that would be funny if it weren't so deeply depressing, Conservative MP Nadine Dorries made the case that WhatsApp should "develop a terrorist related exception" to encryption technology - presumably this is some kind of Java-based magic wand that would allow GCHQ to hack only the baddies'.

This, along with Rudd's laughable quote that we need people who "understand the necessary hashtags", betrays a deep lack of technological knowledge throughout government. Of course, one would hope that the country's elected leaders have better things to do than immersing themselves in the finer points of C++ and Python, but on the other hand, having one of the country's top ministers saying things like "we don't want to go into the cloud" is embarrassing, especially when she clearly doesn't have the faintest idea what it means.

The experts are right, of course; if government spooks can read the WhatsApp messages of one terrorist, they can read the messages of everyone, from the 12-year-old at the bus stop all the way to the Pope. (This is assuming he doesn't use a rival app, of course - PopeChat, perhaps.)

This is troubling for a number of reasons, most notably from a privacy standpoint. Naturally, the public has been assured that they won't be covertly spied on by the intelligence services, who pinkie-promise that they'd only look at terrorists' communications. We're expected to take this on faith, but incidents like the Snowden leaks suggest that perhaps the government's methods aren't always unimpeachable.

We've also got to consider what future governments could do with any anti-encryption laws. If an anti-democratic, fascistic party found itself in power, for example, these laws could be very easily used to identify and round up immigrants, LGBTQ people and other undesirables'. It's a lot easier to grant powers than it is take them away and this goes double when applied to governments.

Here's the thing, though: aside from the many legal, political and ethical issues with installing backdoors into services like WhatsApp, the biggest problem is practical. The fact is, there's simply no way to block the use of encryption on a technical level. Theresa May could force WhatsApp to stop encrypting its messages, but how long do you think it would take terrorists to simply switch to a different app?

Not only are there innumerable encrypted chat apps available for web and mobile devices, there's also plenty of free resources online to help you build your own, meaning that even an outright ban on encryption wouldn't work. If there's one thing you learn on the internet, it's that there's always a workaround.

Any steps to weaken the encryption of WhatsApp and other services would almost certainly do nothing to help fight terrorism. Instead, all it's likely to do is force terrorists to use even less visible means of communication, whilst simultaneously putting the safety and privacy of innocent people at risk.

Despite the repeated protestations of the security and technology communities, the government continues to revisit this stunningly ignorant and fundamentally flawed plan. Before it goes any further, you should know that Rudd and her cronies aren't just declaring war on WhatsApp - they're endangering your freedoms too.

Last week, Britain was shocked by a terror attack in Westminster that left five dead and 50 injured. When Home Secretary Amber Rudd appeared on The Andrew Marr Show to discuss the government's response to the tragedy, she had some strong words for encrypted messaging apps.

In particular, she said that WhatsApp's use of end-to-end encryption was "completely unacceptable", and said that communications apps provide "a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other". She also appeared to suggest that a spy-friendly backdoor into communication technologies would be a good thing, saying: "We have to have a situation where we can have our security services get into the terrorists' communications."

The immediate reaction to the Home Secretary's comments has been one of mockery, with various critics taking to social media to pour scorn on Rudd's apparent lack of technological understanding, taking particular issue with her assertion that the country needs people "who understand the necessary hashtags" in order to fight online terrorism.

Rudd has also been criticised for what some say is an overly simplistic view of encryption, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales offered to explain the basics of encryption to her.

However, many public figures and industry professionals, particularly within the cybersecurity field, have expressed genuine concerns over her statements. Some fear that the government could use this latest atrocity as an excuse to push through legislation that would cripple - or outright ban - encrypted communication, further damaging UK citizens' privacy.

"These terrorists want to destroy our freedoms and undermine our democratic society," said Liberal Democrat shadow Home Secretary and former Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick. "By implementing draconian laws that limit our civil liberties, we would playing into their hands. Having the power to read everyone's text messages is neither a proportionate nor an effective response."

"These services have become mainstream since revelations of government mass surveillance came to light," argued F-Secure's Andy Patel. "As much as they provide a safe space for terrorists to communicate, they also help keep activists, journalists, and members of the general public safe from surveillance and government prosecution."

There are also arguments that weakening encryption would actually put the UK at risk from cyber attacks. Open Rights Group executive director Jim Killock said: "Compelling companies to put backdoors into encrypted services would make millions of ordinary people less secure online. We all rely on encryption to protect our ability to communicate, shop and bank safely."

TechUK deputy CEO Antony Walker agreed, stating: "Encryption technologies are a fundamental tool for ensuring the UK remains cyber-secure. End-to-end encryption is the best defence we have available to keep the data and services we all rely on safe from misuse. From storing data on the cloud to online banking to identity verification, end-to-end encryption is essential for preventing data being accessed illegally in ways that can harm consumers, business and our national security."

In particular, concerns have been raised that these measures could make it easier for Britain to be hacked by agents of a foreign power, particularly given the current allegations of Russian hacking looming over the US government. Sam Dumitriu, head of projects at thinktank the Adam Smith Institute, called the proposal "deeply misguided", and warned of the dangers of thinking that encryption can be weakened selectively.

"It is mathematically impossible to build a backdoor for just the good guys," he said. "It means building a backdoor to your private message for Putin's favourite hacker Guccifer. It means opening up your private photos to perverts like the iCloud hacker."

This is something that the government has advocated before. Prime Minister Theresa May was an outspoken opponent of encryption during her stint as Home Secretary, and her flagship Investigatory Powers Act (also called the Snooper's Charter) initially included similar provisions.

The tech industry at large has also taken exception to her implication that tech companies aren't doing enough to cooperate with the security services and stamp out terrorism on their platforms. "Tech companies take their responsibilities to work with the authorities on extremism and counter-terrorism investigations very seriously," Walker rebutted.

"Working within the strict confines of the law they engage daily in constructive and proven partnerships with security agencies, the police, policy makers and wider civil society bodies. Counter-terrorist operations would not succeed without the ongoing assistance and support of tech companies."

Killock also agreed that companies had a responsibility to help police with their investigations. "It is right that technology companies should help the police and intelligence agencies with investigations into specific crimes or terrorist activity, where possible," he said. "This help should be requested through warrants and the process should be properly regulated and monitored."

WhatsApp, for its part, has decried the attack, and pledged to work with the government. "We are horrified by the attack carried out in London earlier this week and are cooperating with law enforcement as they continue their investigations," a spokesperson for the company said.

Some are now nervously awaiting further privacy-impinging legislation from the Conservative Party, with questions still hanging over whether or not such a bill would actually prove effective. F-Secure's Patel claimed that even if WhatsApp abandons encryption, terrorists would simply find an alternative.

"If a service is forced to weaken, backdoor, or remove its encryption people will move to another one. While governments utilise technology to better track and monitor potential activist or terrorist activities, they shouldn't expect it to solve the root causes of these problems."

In the words of the shadow Home Secretary, "the real question is, could lives have been saved in London last week if end-to-end encryption had been banned? All the evidence suggests that the answer is no".

Civil rights group Liberty has launched a crowdfunding campaign to take on the government's Snooper Charter, saying it's against our basic human rights to be monitored on such a large scale.

The organisation is seeking to challenge the law in the High Court and is inviting the public to support the action by donating money to the campaign using the CrowdJustice platform. With a month to go before the fund-raising initiative ends, it has already hit its 40,000 target, reaching 40,162 at the time of writing.

The Snooper's Charter, formally known as the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), was devised by Theresa May while she was still Home Secretary and will allow the government to access web history and email, text and phone records. Liberty's appeal describes these powers as the ability to "hack computers, phones and tablets on an industrial scale".

"Last year, this Government exploited fear and distraction to quietly create the most extreme surveillance regime of any democracy in history," Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said. "Hundreds of thousands of people have since called for this Act's repeal because they see it for what it is an unprecedented, unjustified assault on our freedom."

Although the IPA gained Royal Assent in November last year and came into force at the end of December, Liberty is seeking to have it repealed, claiming it's unlawful and puts UK citizens' basic human rights at risk.

"We hope anybody with an interest in defending our democracy, privacy, press freedom, fair trials, protest rights, free speech and the safety and cybersecurity of everyone in the UK will support this crowdfunded challenge, and make 2017 the year we reclaim our rights," Spurrier added.

Liberty's campaign comes just a few weeks after the European Court of Justice upheld a legal challenge brought by Conservative MP David Davis and Labour MP Tom Watson, which claimed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act the IPA's predecessor broke the law by indiscriminately collecting and analysing citizens' internet activity and phone records. That case has now reterned to the UK court of appeal.