Please explain this.
She claimed that it was wrong for such actions to be "characterised" as "having access to people’s full web browsing histories. Let me be clear – this is simply wrong."
An Internet Connection Record is a record of the communications service that a person has used, not a record of every web page they have accessed.
So, if someone has visited a social media website, an Internet Connection Record will only show that they accessed that site, not the particular pages they looked at, who they communicated with, or what they said.
It is simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill.
That's fine. However, paragraph 13 & 14 of the draft bill makes the following statement
13. Interception is the making available of the content of a communication – such as a telephone call, email or social media message – in the course of its transmission or while stored on a telecommunications system. Interception is used to collect valuable intelligence against terrorists and serious criminals, which can inform law enforcement and national security investigations as well as support military operations.
Why do we need it?
14. Warranted interception is used only for intelligence purposes. It is a vital tool which helps the law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies to prevent and detect serious or organised crime, and to protect national security.
(Please note: I've added my own emphasis to the relevant parts to make them clearer.)
So on the one hand, she is saying that they only intend to store the "history" of the messages, not the "content"; but the draft bill clearly shows that they are trying to get the whole thing.
Or has she not actually read the draft bill?