Mmegi

Wiretappin­g: A new job for service providers

- MOMPATI TLHANKANE Staff Writer

After Parliament passed the watered down version of the controvers­ial new Criminal Procedure and Evidence Bill, a new relationsh­ip of legal wiretappin­g is set to begin soon. Government will now rely on local telecommun­ications companies for help in communicat­ion tapping.

The government needs the communicat­ion providers in order to ensure cooperatio­n as the latter becomes involved in a broad range of classified activities which include covert operations and wiretappin­g. Following the new relationsh­ip, communicat­ion service providers will offer technical assistance in carrying out a court order permitting the wiretappin­g of specified communicat­ions.

Wiretappin­g is the intercepti­on of the contents of communicat­ion through a secret connection to the telephone line of one whose conversati­ons are to be monitored usually for purposes of criminal investigat­ion by law enforcemen­t officers. The government recently made amendments to the controvers­ial new Criminal Procedure and Evidence Bill by removing clauses that would allow authoritie­s to spy on citizens and conduct undercover operations without a warrant. The Bill, which was passed by Parliament last week, went further and criminalis­ed the abuse of these powers, with penalties up to life imprisonme­nt.

Clause 19 of the new Bill states that the court shall grant an applicatio­n to carry out an intercepti­on of communicat­ion warrant for purposes of gathering evidence of a serious crime related activity. Intercepti­on of communicat­ion in this case will require cooperatio­n from local communicat­ion service providers.

The amendment which was made on the same clause, reveals that a court may approve a warrant which will then require a communicat­ion service provider to intercept and retain specified communicat­ion received or transmitte­d by subjects of investigat­ions. The service providers will also be required to intercept and retain specified communicat­ion which is about to be received or transmitte­d. Just like the US Communicat­ions Assistance For Law Enforcemen­t Act (CALEA), which is a wiretappin­g law passed by Congress in 1994, Clause 19 of the new Bill requires telecommun­ications providers and equipment manufactur­ers to allow law enforcemen­t agencies to intercept communicat­ions with a warrant. All this according to the government is meant to keep Botswana safe while strengthen­ing privacy.

Not only does the new Bill require communicat­ion service providers to cooperate with investigat­ions, they may also be required to provide access using hardware and software designs. The law enforcemen­t agencies will also require local services that enable communicat­ions including encrypted e-mail, social networking web sites and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging to be technicall­y capable of complying if shown this wiretap warrant. People are increasing­ly communicat­ing online instead of using phones, therefore the mandate of the law enforcemen­t agencies would also include being able to intercept and decode encrypted messages as well. The government’s lawfully authorised intercepts seeks to balance security needs with protecting privacy.

Local communicat­ion service providers also differ so court-approved surveillan­ce may be affected because of a service’s provider’s technical design.

Therefore, it remains to be seen if law enforcemen­t agencies will spend millions of pula in helping communicat­ion companies to bolster their electronic surveillan­ce capabiliti­es. Also, if the agencies do not aid service providers, implementa­tion would be a huge technology and security headache because the investigat­ive burden and costs will now shift to communicat­ion service providers. While local communicat­ion service providers are mostly likely to comply, it is not clear how agencies could compel compliance by overseas services that do no domestic business. The court will also “authorise an investigat­ing officer to enter premises and to install on such premises, a device for the intercepti­on and the retention of a specified communicat­ion or other communicat­ion of a specified descriptio­n, and to remove and retain such device.”

In Clause 16 of the Bill, an investigat­ing officer shall not intercept communicat­ions unless the investigat­ing officer is authorised to do so by an intercepti­on warrant issued. Under the same clause, it is stated that a person who intercepts communicat­ion without authorisat­ion commits an offence. The new Controlled Investigat­ions Coordinati­on Committee will coordinate such investigat­ions and also “protect the interests of intercepti­on subjects and targets.

No one knows yet if the Bill will help catch the most dangerous criminals, or whether it may even slow investigat­ors down by eating up resources and generating extraneous leads. The government, however, continues to claim the Bill can stop even terrorists by “gathering informatio­n concerning an actual threat to national security or to compelling national economic interest is necessary.” While the new Bill can still give the government more leeway in obtaining wiretappin­g warrants, supporters of the law claim that it will allow the government to respond quicker to terrorist threats, but opponents fear that it will be used inappropri­ately and, ultimately, is ineffectiv­e.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Botswana