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. 57
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- In many States, communication service providers are being compelled to modify their infrastructure to enable direct surveillance, eliminating the opportunity for judicial oversight. For example, in 2012 the Colombian Ministries of Justice, and Information and Communication Technologies, issued a decree that required telecommunication service providers to put in place infrastructure allowing direct access to communications by judicial police, without an order from the Attorney General. The above-mentioned Uganda's Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 (s3) provides for the establishment of a monitoring centre and mandates that telecommunications providers ensure that intercepted communications are transmitted to the monitoring centre (s8(1)(f)). The Government of India is proposing to install a Centralized Monitoring System that will route all communications to the central Government, allowing security agencies to bypass interaction with the service provider. Such arrangements take communications surveillance out of the realm of judicial authorization and allow unregulated, secret surveillance, eliminating any transparency or accountability on the part of the State.
- 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. 57.
- Paragraph number
- 57
sorted by
Date added
96 relationships, 96 entities