The Investigatory Powers Bill (IP Bill) has been passed in parliament on its second reading, despite the widespread criticism it has faced.
The IP Bill passed by 266 votes in the House of Commons after Labour and the SNP abstained rather than voting against the so-called Snoopers' Charter.
If those who abstained had instead voted against the IP Bill it would not have passed.
During Tuesday's second reading, many MPs told the House of Commons that they agree IP Bill in principle, but said that substantial reform will be required if they are to support its progress into law.
Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham acknowledged the "difficult work that the security services do", and added: "It's lazy to label the bill a Snoopers' Charter".
However, he concluded that the bill is "not worthy of being passed into statute" in its current form.
He said he would not be fulfilling his duties to the public by "giving the government a blank cheque with this bill," adding that respect for individual privacy, and more extensive controls over privacy intrusions needed to be baked into it.
"This bill is not good enough," stated Burnham, explaining the reasons for his party's abstention over the vote to pass the bill.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, whose party also abstained, said that aspects of the bill "permit suspicionless surveillance, which is a threat to civil liberty."
Cherry, also explained that the US is "rolling back from bulk data collection, finding it unconstitutional, and of questionable value in the fight against terrorism," a point later echoed by Conservative back-bencher David Davis.
"The SNP will not be morally blackmailed into blind support for a bill of dubious legality," Cherry concluded - a speech subsequently derided by Conservative MP Ken Clarke as "the most combative I've ever heard in support of an abstention."
Nick Clegg, whose party the Liberal Democrats came out in direct opposition to the bill, later said: "The powers in this bill are formidable and capable of misuse." He added that the bill's wording needs to be more explicit, due to the exceptional nature of the powers.
Conservative MP David Davis, who in July 2015 won a High Court ruling stating that sections 1 and 2 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) were unlawful, told V3 recently that the legislation should be given more time for its second reading.
"We are supposed to debate [the bill], and each of us will have six minutes [to comment on the bill and suggest amendments] in a speech. It's undemocratic. We ought to have a couple of days on the floor of the House for the second reading, that's the 'in principle' debate.
(1/2) The #IPBill as it stands grants our intelligence agencies sweeping powers, with flawed safeguards and little consideration for privacy— David Davis MP (@DavidDavisMP) March 15, 2016
Meanwhile, Jim Killock, executive director of campaign organisation the Open Rights Group, said: "MPs of any political party who value democracy must resist the Government's attempts to rush the Investigatory Powers Bill through Parliament.
"The UK's senior lawyers, its journalists and the tech industry have lambasted the Bill. Parliament's own committees have called for significant changes to its powers. But the Government is intent on forcing it into law. MPs must act before it's too late."
FBI briefing US companies to dump Kaspersky, claiming intelligence prove it a 'threat to national security'
Kaspersky rejects FBI accusations that its products are a 'threat to national security'
But breached contractor says that it simply didn't have that much data
EE follows Three in threatening legal action against Ofcom - but for entirely different reasons
The One X is already sold out at several retailers