The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 56
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- Even when judicial authorization is required by law, often it is de facto an arbitrary approval of law enforcement requests. This is particularly the case where the threshold required to be established by law enforcement is low. For example, the Ugandan Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 only requires law enforcement authorities to demonstrate that "reasonable" grounds exist to allow the interception to take place. In such instances, the burden of proof to establish the necessity for surveillance is extremely low, given the potential for surveillance to result in investigation, discrimination or violations of human rights. In other countries, a complex array of laws authorizes access to and surveillance of communications under a range of different circumstances. In Indonesia, for example, the Psychotropic Law, Narcotics Law, Electronic Information and Transaction Law, Telecommunications Law and the Corruption Law all contain communications surveillance components. In the United Kingdom, over 200 agencies, police forces and prison authorities are authorized to acquire communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000. As a result, it is difficult for individuals to foresee when and by which State agency they might be subjected to surveillance.
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Reference
- SR Freedom of Opinion, Report to the HRC (2013), A/HRC/23/40, para. 56.
- Paragraph number
- 56
sorted by
Date added
96 relationships, 96 entities