This week, the Government caused a stir when it announced plans to introduce legislation to allow authorities to monitor the online activity of everyone in the UK.

It has been no surprise to see intensive lobbying from MPs, civil rights agencies and individuals whose rights would be affected by such ‘Big Brother’ proposals – but what do these developments tell us about the Government, its reactions to developments in technology, the way in which technology is used by society and the domestic legal system in general?

When the proposed legislation was first announced, nobody had seen the detailed rights which the government was seeking to introduce - which in itself, led to a negative reaction. It appeared from initial reports that law enforcement agencies would have the unfettered right to review content held by social media sites, but following clarification from government officials, it seems that this would include, or constitute, the tracking of relationships between individuals by monitoring the flow, timing and location from which messages are sent and received through social media channels. This means that given the geo-location capability of smart phones and tablets, it could be determined where you are, when you’re there, who you are talking to and potentially (as this aspect is still unclear) what you’re saying.

While the Government’s hastily presented clarifications are helpful in understanding the potential scope of the proposed rights, in practice, individuals and civil liberties groups, in particular, will remain concerned about the ability of law enforcement agencies to track this type of information which has the potential to be extremely intrusive and prejudicial to the rights of individuals. This is compounded by the lack of clarity as to whether or not the proposed rights would be subject to obtaining a warrant - this has important implications as the warrant requirement provides a further safeguard to the rights of individuals.

Again, this lack of clarity has further fuelled the growing and almost unanimous negative response to the Government’s proposals. Similarly, the timing of such proposals in wake of the public outcry from the UK’s phone-hacking scandal (where private communications between individuals were intercepted and utilised by third parties) is regrettable.

For all of these reasons, it’s essential that the Government provides detailed proposals on the rights which it is seeking to enshrine into English law, as this will have a knock-on effect in terms of evaluating the adequacy of existing legislation which provides similar powers – such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act – as well as those laws that are in place to protect individuals – for example, the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

Before any new legislation can be successfully implemented, relevant bodies, such as the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO), would need to assess the potential impact of it on individuals and their statutory rights regarding the use of their personal data by third parties.

Similarly, those directly affected by the proposals will need to consider the implications of the proposals for their business and the commercial and technological challenges which they may present. Many of those businesses affected will be social media sites that do not charge for use of their services, but may be required to introduce new systems, processes and personnel in order to deal with these types of requests for information - adding further overheads to their business.

Despite the issues that the proposed legislation has raised, it does provide a good working example of how the checks and balances which are built into the Parliamentary system continue to work in the modern age. While the Government will be left frustrated at not being able to push through the proposals in the name of national security, it is right and proper that proposals which may have far-reaching implications for the rights of individuals, are clearly articulated and subject to scrutiny by all interested parties before they become law.

Generally, however, this debate highlights the way in which the Government and legislators are struggling to keep pace not only with digital developments, but also with the way in which people now use technology as part of their everyday lives and how laws should be developed to deal with such developments. What is clear from this episode is that attempts to rush through legislation in the name of national security will not go unnoticed or unopposed, particularly where the rights of individuals may be eroded as a result.

During the riots last year, much was made of the way in which social-media enabled the rioters to rapidly share information on both a local and national scale, and the Government’s proposals seem, in part, to be a reaction to this event.

Whilst not necessarily the most appropriate course of action, had the Government introduced the proposals in the immediate aftermath of the riots, they may have gained more immediate positive reactions from the public, or at least a slightly more sympathetic response. However, as we stand, it is likely that these proposals will take several years of drafting, reviews and consultation before they are enshrined into law – by which time, we will probably be looking at new uses of technology, in respect of which the current proposals may no longer be adequate.