Lawful Intercept(ion) Primer Part 2 — Why?

Welcome! Please comment and leave me a note telling me what you like and what you'd like to see more of. Sign up to my RSS Feed!
This entry is part of a wonderful series, [slider title="Intercept"]Entries in this series:
  1. Lawful Intercept(ion) Primer Part I - Introduction
  2. Lawful Intercept(ion) Primer Part 2 — Why?
  3. Lawful Intercept(ion) Primer Part 3 - How?
[/slider]

As promised, in this entry, I  discuss why Lawful Interception is needed (or not) and some of my thoughts on the subject.

 

OK, so let’s try and tackle the question of why Lawful Interception is needed.   Keeping in mind that I am a Privacy advocate, this is not an easy question for me to answer.   I believe that generally conversations someone has should be sacrosanct.  That being said,  I believe that only in three cases Lawful Intercept is warranted:

1) Risk for Life:  Let’s suppose that a person on the phone is being attacked, or having a medical emergency, and as such emergency services need the ability to listen in on a conversation to prevent further medical hurt or provide emergency services.

2) Terrorist / Criminal investigation – this one is very contentious.  I, however, believe that an important tool in the prevention of attacks and/or crimes is the ability to gather intelligence about pending actions and plans of malicious nature.

3) The "Statistical" exemption – Telecommunication companies may need, from time to time, rarely, and without a specific individual being targeted, measure quality of services – such as Voice over IP (VoIP) by "listening in" on a small part of a conversation.   I do not like this particular exemption, but I know of times in which it is needed and irreplaceable.

In the US, the legislature generally agrees with my beliefs and codified the law, in general, to read as follows:

(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

and

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—

(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or
(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

– US Code Title 18, Section 2511

 

 

In the next blog in this series, I will discuss the "How" of Lawful Intercept.  How it is accomplished, where, and give some examples of its utility.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*