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.