| 1. |
Australia |
Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act, 1979
- Governs interception of communications
- Relevant provisions: S. 3, 7, 6A, 34, 46
Surveillance Devices Act, 2004
- Establishes procedure for obtaining warrants and for use of surveillance devices
- Relevant Provisions: S.13, 14
|
- Authorisation for surveillance is granted in the form of a warrant from a Judge or a nominated member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
- The warrant issuing authority must be satisfied that information obtained through interception shall assist in the investigation of a serious crime
- The Acts provide a list of prescribed offences for which interception of communication may be authorized
- The Acts also specify certain federal and state law enforcement agencies that may undertake surveillance
|
| 2. |
Brazil |
Federal Law No. 9,296, 1996:
|
- Authorisation for interception is granted on a Judge’s order for a period of 15 days at a time
- Interception is only allowed for investigations into serious offences like drug smuggling, corruption murder and kidnapping
|
| 3. |
Canada |
Criminal Code, 1985
- Governs general rules of criminal procedure including search and seizure protocols
- Relevant Provision: §§ 184.2, 184.4
|
- Grants power to intercept communication by obtaining authorisation from a provincial court judge or a judge of the superior court
- Before granting his authorisation, the judge must be satisfied that either the originator of the communication or the recipient thereof has given his/her consent to the interception
- Under exceptional circumstances, however, a police officer owing to the exigency of the situation may intercept communication without prior authorisation
|
| 4. |
France |
Loi d'orientation et de programmation pour la performance de la sécurité intérieure (LOPPSI 2), 2011:
- Authorises use of video surveillance and interception of communications
- Relevant Provisions: Article 36
Loi de Programmation Militaire (LPM), 2013:
- Authorises surveillance for protection of national security and prevention of terrorism
|
- Interception of communication under LOPPSI 2 requires previous authorization from an investigating Judge after consultation with the Public Prosecutor
-
Such authorization is granted for a period of 4 months which is further extendable by another 4 months
-
Interception of communication under LPM does not require prior sanction from an investigating judge and is instead provided by the Prime Minister’s office
- Information that can be intercepted under LPM includes not only metadata but also content and geolocation services
|
| 5. |
Germany |
Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post und Fernmeldegeheimnisses (G10 Act), 2001
- Imposes restrictions on the right to privacy and authorizes surveillance for protecting freedom and democratic order, preventing terrorism and illegal drug trade
- Relevant Provisions: §3
The German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), 2002
- Lays down search and seizure protocol and authorizes interception of telecommunications for criminal prosecutions
- Relevant Provisions: §§ 97, 100a
|
- Authorises warrantless surveillance by specific German agencies like the Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service)
- Lays down procedure that must be followed while undertaking surveillance and intercepting communications
- Authorises sharing of intercepted intelligence for criminal prosecutions
- Mandates ex post notification to persons whose privacy has been violated but no judicial remedies are available to such persons
- The Code of Criminal Procedure authorises interception of communication of a person suspected of being involved in a serious offence only on the order of a court upon application by the public prosecution office
|
| 6. |
Pakistan |
Pakistan Telecommunications Reorganisation Act, 1996:
- Controls the flow of false and fabricated information and protects national security
- Relevant Provisions: § 54
Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013:
- Regulates the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies regarding covert surveillance and interception of communications
- Relevant Provisions: §§ 6,7, 8, 9
|
- Authorisation for interception is provided by the federal government. No formal legal structure to monitor surveillance exists
- Interception can be authorized in the interest of national security and on the apprehension of any offence
- Requests for filtering and blocking of content are routed through the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Evaluation of Websites, a confidential regulatory body
- Under the Fair Trial Act, interception can only be authorised on application to the Fedral Minister for Interior who shall then permit the application to be placed before a High Court Judge
- The warrant shall be issued by a judge only on his satisfaction that interception will aid in the collection of evidence and that a reasonable threat of the commission of a scheduled offence exists
|
| 7. |
South Africa |
The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act, 2002
- Regulates and authorizes monitoring and interception of telecommunications services
- Relevant Provisions: §§ 16, 22
|
- Warrant for intercepting communications and installing surveillance devices is granted by a designated judge
- The warrant is issued on satisfaction of the judge that the investigation relates to a serious offence or that the information gathering is vital to public health or safety, national security or compelling national economic interests
|
| 8. |
United Kingdom |
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000:
- Authorises interception of communications and surveillance
- Relevant Provisions: §§ 5, 6, 65
|
- Authorisation for interception is granted in the form of a warrant by the Secretary of State or in certain special cases by a ‘senior officer’
- Communications can be intercepted only it is necessary to do so in the interest of national security or for the purpose of preventing and detecting serious crimes
- Complaints of alleged illegal surveillance are heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal
|
| 9. |
United States |
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 1986 (Title III, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act)
- Governs authorisation for wiretapping and interception
- Relevant Provisions: §18
|
- Authorisation for interception can be granted by a district court or federal appeals court on application by a law enforcement officer duly signed by the attorney general
- Application mandates obtaining the information through a service provider before invading upon individual’s privacy
|
