SUBMISSIONS
Submission
on the
Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill
8 April 2003
From the Anti-Bases Campaign, Christchurch
Introductory statement:
The Anti-Bases Campaign has opposed the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and its Waihopai station actively since 1988, shortly after the construction of the base was announced. This submission deals with the provisions of a Bill that facilitates interceptions. But it should be read in the context of our total opposition to the very existence of the GCSB, its secretive intrusions into personal privacy and its close ties to the international intelligence community under the UKUSA Agreement.
The Anti-Bases
Campaign is clear on the fact that the Telecommunications Bill under
consideration deals with telecommunications service providers and thus may not
have great relevance to our main concerns about the activities of the GCSB and
of its signals intelligence (SIGINT) interception facilities at Waihopai in
particular. We are also aware of
legal constraints on the GCSB to matters ostensibly having to do only with
foreign intelligence. But we do
have considerable concerns about the Bill.
We object to
legislation that provides for the technical means for intelligence agencies
effectively to hack into computers.
We object to the forced involvement of private telecommunications
services in spying on the communications of New Zealanders. The satellite interception capabilities
of the Waihopai base already allow virtually complete and unaccountable
interception of emails, faxes, telephone calls, and data transfers transmitted
by satellite. No warrant system
can possibly operate to protect against privacy violations at Waihopai. And we have no confidence that privacy
will be protected, either by warrants or “other lawful interception authority”
under the provisions of the Telecommunications Bill.
Privacy is to be
protected by so-called “lawful authorisation”. This reassurance is baseless. The GCSB, whether spying via satellite interception or
computer hacking, is exempted from a key Information Privacy Principle in the
Privacy Act. The GCSB is exempted
from the 4th Principle which reads in part: “Personal information
shall not be collected by an agency by unlawful
means…” (emphasis added) How
can any citizen of New Zealand have confidence in the control and oversight of
an agency that is effectively exempted from acting lawfully?
Privacy is to be
protected by excluding “telecommunications that are not authorised to be
intercepted”. But the GCSB is
authorised to intercept “foreign communications” without any clear and
unambiguous definition of “foreign” in any relevant act, including the GCSB Act
(2001) and the Crimes Amendment (No. 6) Act (2002)(including its SOP exempting
the GCSB from anti-computer-hacking provisions in the Act). What does “foreign” mean in the context
of GCSB spying? If you ask the
director of the GCSB under the Official Information Act, as ABC has done, he
will refuse to answer in the name of national security. It is all too obvious that the reason
for this deviousness is that a New Zealander in New Zealand is very likely to
be on one end of a so-called foreign communication and be swept into the
computer-hacking or SIGINT interception net.
There is a
pitiful attempt in the Bill (Section 14) to protect third parties: “Duty to
minimise impact of interception on third parties. Every person who, under interception warrant or any other
lawful interception authority, intercepts or assists in the interception of a
telecommunication must take all practicable steps that are reasonable in the
circumstances to minimise the likelihood of intercepting telecommunications
that are not authorised to be intercepted under the warrant or authority.” That wording is so weak and
unenforceable it is hard to believe it is serious. It is yet another illustration that protecting privacy while
opening the floodgates of interception is impossible. In the name of fighting terrorism and crime, privacy
protections are lost in all but name.
And for what good
reason are our privacy protections being progressively eroded and our private
communications being opened to intelligence agencies with no effective
oversight or accountability? No
convincing case has yet been made by Government as to why so much new intrusive
power must be vested in the police and intelligence agencies. The Anti-Bases Campaign believe that
the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill, and the several recent
pieces of legislation related to it, are overreactions to the terrorist events
of September 11, 2001 in the United States and are not driven by genuine and
supportable law enforcement needs in New Zealand.
Our submission has focussed on the GCSB. But our concerns apply to the Security Intelligence Service and the Police as well. The ABC believes that increased powers of surveillance and interception would further erode the fundamental rights of all New Zealanders to engage in research, education and non-violent protest whether or not the Government agrees with them. Exercising these democratic rights must not lead to increased intrusions into privacy based on official suspicions of terrorist or criminal intent. Terrorist and criminals will find it easy to evade the prying eyes and ears of the spies and police. Innocent private citizens will not.
The Anti-Bases
Campaign believes this Bill is without merit and should not be passed out of
Committee.
We request the opportunity to testify in support of our
submission before the Law and Order Select Committee. We further request that the Committee meet in Christchurch
to hear testimony on submissions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Telecommunications
Bill.
Robert L. Leonard
For the Anti-Bases Campaign