Looking at this the wrong way round
This review seems to have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
Of course there are good reasons for invasive powers. And, of course, the people proposing them generally intend them to be used for good. The question that needs to be analysed is not "are they useful?" but "what is the downside?". Of course a police state will reduce crime: the reasons we haven't allowed one to be created in the past is not because we like crime but because of the other effects it has!
My question to Anderson is "what stops bad people abusing these capabilities?". I believe the answer is "very little". And hence the risks of allowing these capabiltiies to even be created far outweigh the potential benefits.
Examples of real, documented and uncontested abuses which have happened even with the more technologically limited capabilities of the past include:
1) Monitoring and disruption of democratic political parties and trade unions [since the 1970's, at least]
2) Victimisation of innocent and human-rights-protected activism [cf. John Catt]
3) Abuse of access to records and data for personal revenge by "bad apples" in the police and security services [cf. several scandals involving looking up or investigating sexual partners]
4) Witch-hunts for whistle-blowers in both private and public organisations (including telecoms companies, local government, and many others).
5) Interference with freedom of the press, privileged communications with lawyers and political contact with our MPs.
Where does this report investigate the dangers of the massive acceleration, cost reduction and easier concealment of these abuses with the new proposed powers and new technological capabilities? We must reduce surveillance because of these concerns, not increase it!