Here's the section of legislation in question. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospective#section-44-2-a http://www.legislation.gov.uk/u

Here's the section of legislation in question. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospective#section-44-2-a http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospe... Specifically it turns Section 1(1) [Unauthorized access offence definition] above has effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and [...] into Sections 1 to 3A [Unauthorized access / access with a view to further offences / access with intent to impair / making or supplying artefacts to enable the above] have effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required ; and [...] The governments position is that this change (I believe this is the right one anyway) gives ordinary rank-and-file GCHQ officers immunity from hacking offences because their conduct will be 'authorized' (by the government) and 'required' (to protect us from the Bad Guys). Previously what was permissible under the Act could be construed to be tighter than what GCHQ were doing - were they only inspecting searching and seizing? Certainly before the Act didn't give them explicit immunity from the later offences such as intent to impair the system. Side note 1: Enactment is defined in a legal sense, to mean pretty much any legislation. I'm unusure as to whther the definition it provides allows for e.g. Statutory Instruments (which rarely have any debate in Parliament) to also be covered under the definition. Side note 2: It also makes the same changes to Scotland, which for legal reasons, tends to get called out in separate subsections with minor variation on the wording if the Act applies at all. Obviously, IANAL.