IP: EU-FBI telecommunications surveillance system extended to Internet and satellite phones

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

[ I cannot either confirm or non confirm this djf]

> From: jei () zor hut fi
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 01:40:42 +0200 (EET)
> To: cypherpunks () toad com


> http://www.statewatch.org/news.html
>
> EU-FBI telecommunications surveillance system extended to Internet and
> satellite phones
>
> The EU is to extend the EU-FBI telecommunications surveillance plan to
> the Internet and to new generation satellite mobile phones (see
> Statewatch, vol 7 no 1 & 4 & 5; vol 8 no 5). At the same time EU
> Interior Ministers are seeking to resolve their differences over the
> legal powers they intend to give the "law enforcement agencies" to
> intercept all forms of telecommunications under the new Convention on
> Mutual Legal Assistance. In the US the same issues are being openly
> discussed - the Federal Communications Commission has deferred a
> decision on an FBI proposal to extend surveillance to the Internet.
>
> In October 1994 the US Congress passed an FBI-proposed law, the
> Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. On 17 January 1995
> the EU adopted a Resolution on the "Requirements" to be placed on
> network and service providers to carry out surveillance of all
> telecommunications. These "Requirements" were exactly the same as
> those drafted by the FBI. Now these "Requirements" are to be extended
> from covering traditional phone networks and GSM mobile phones to the
> Internet and to the new satellite-based mobile phones run by
> multinational companies like Iridium.
>
> Under the plan telecommunications network and service providers would
> have to give access to communications from "mobile satellite services"
> (provided by multinationals like Iridium via their "ground station" in
> Italy, see Statewatch, vol 8 no 5) and to e-mail sent and received via
> ISPs (internet service providers) in addition to phone calls and faxes
> sent through the traditional system (land and sea lines and microwave
> towers).
>
> The new draft "Requirements" cover the "realtime" (as it is actually
> happening) surveillance of phone-calls and e-mails including where
> messages are redirected, voice-mail and conference calls. They even
> extend to passing over data when a connection has not been made for
> both outgoing and incoming calls/messages. All details concerning
> e-mails accounts have to be handed over by IP providers. "Realtime" is
> defined as routing the surveillance in "milliseconds".
>
> Legal powers
>
> In a parallel development the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council is
> discussing the draft Articles on the "interception of
> telecommunications" in a new Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in
> Criminal Matters. This is intended to extend the application of a 1959
> Council of Europe Convention with the same title.
>
> The new "Requirements" and the new legal powers are being presented as
> being necessary to combat organised crime. However, the scope of the
> 1959 Council of Europe Convention simply covers any:
>
> offences the punishment of which falls within the competence of the
> judicial authorities of the requesting Party. Provisions is thus made
> for minor offences as well as for other, serious, offences..
>
> (Explanatory report on the European Convention on mutual
> assistance in criminal matters, Council of Europe, 1969, p11)
>
> The issue of police officers and/or judicial authorities being called
> on to give what will in effect be instantaneous authorisations for
> intercepts "within minutes" is not addressed by the draft EU
> Convention.
>
> Nor is the issue of telecommunications surveillance by the security
> and intelligence services - the new legal powers are only intended to
> authorise interception for criminal investigations. To the
> embarrassment of EU Interior Ministers the UK has objected to the
> draft Convention because in the UK - unlike in other member states -
> there is a single law covering the Security Service's (MI5)
> surveillance in connection with national security and its role
> assisting the police on organised crime.
>
> Neither the first set of "Requirements" not the proposed revised set
> of "Requirements" require approval or reference to parliaments,
> national or European. The new draft Convention, when eventually signed
> by the 15 EU member states has to be ratified by national parliaments
> - but they are not allowed to change or amend anything, even a dot or
> comma.
>
>
> This news story is from Statewatch bulletin, November-December 1998,
> vol 8 no 6. This issue also contained a detailed feature on this
> subject. Statewatch bulletin is available to subscribers, e-mail:
> office () statewatch org for details.