In a joint statement addressed to the government, the firms said it is a “general rule” that users should be alerted when the government spies on their web browsing history, adding the Bill could have “far reaching implications.”
They said surveillance shouldn’t include “bulk collection” of user information and individual accounts should be targeted instead, further saying many parts of the law “remain opaque.”
The groups also warned the wording of the bill could force companies to weaken encryption and provide “backdoors” to data, despite statements to the contrary.
“We reject any proposals that would require companies to deliberately weaken the security of their products via backdoors, forced decryption, or any other means,” it said.
“We have collective experience around the world of personnel who have nothing to do with the data sought being arrested or intimidated in an attempt to force an overseas corporation to disclose user information,” it added.
In a statement, May said: “Internet connection records would update the capability of law enforcement in a criminal investigation to determine the sender and recipient of a communication, for example, a malicious message such as those exchanged in cyberbullying.”