"The information commissioner said public bodies not involved in dealing with serious crime or national security, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted."

I don't have much of a problem with GCHQ using it... but the Department for Work and Pensions? Also, a lack of warrants is concerning.

It feels very much like a law that could be exploited by anyone.

DWP handles benefits. Organised crime is involved in a lot of benefit fraud.

Allowing the DWP to have access to anything without a warrant would be bad. Allowing them to have access to destination / address data with a warrant might be okay. Allowing them to have access to content data is probably a bad thing. I think I'd prefer Serious Organised Crime Agency to all of it; and I'd prefer some better oversight. Whether that's a warrant (good) or a chief inspector of another force (bad) remains to be seen.

Don't forget that this is, essentially, just an extension to things like RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to cover new forms of communication.

I agree that we need to be careful that they don't kludge in things like "looking at the content is fine" or "you don't need warrants".

> Also, a lack of warrants is concerning.

It's right there in the bit you quoted:

> the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted