Governments Constantly Tap Your Calls, Warns International Telecom

Governments frequently tap private
communications, block users’ access to content and services, and
that’s just what we can legally be told, UK-based
telecommunications giant Vodafone reveals in its first
law enforcement disclosure report. The report, which the
company says really should be issued by the governments that impose
demands on communications companies, calls on officials to be more
transparent in their surveillance efforts. It also asks for an end
to the practice of governments tapping directly into communications
networks, bypassing the operators themselves and making monitoring
and disclosure virtually impossible.

Vodafone sold its interest
in Verizon Wireless last year, and no longer operates in the United
States, so the report doesn’t detail American practices. But it
does reveal surveillance at least comparable to that of the NSA in
the 29 countries in which the company provides services and has
received government demands for cooperation in the past year.

All governments have incorporated national security exceptions
into national legislation to give legal powers to agencies and
authorities. Some governments have constrained those powers to
limit the human rights impact; others have created much
wider-ranging powers with substantially greater human rights
impacts. Meanwhile, agencies and authorities have the scope to
apply advanced analytics techniques to every aspect of an
individual’s communications, movements, interests and associations
– to the extent that such activity is lawful – yielding a depth of
real-time insights into private lives unimaginable two decades
ago.

Those powers can be very extensive—so much so that the report
includes a
legal annexe detailing the laws and agencies in various
countries authorizing and carrying out interceptions. In Australia,
for instance, the Telecommunications Act of 1997, the Australian
Security Intelligence Act 1979, and the Crimes Act 1914 all
authorize real-time interception of communications under different
circumstances varying from law enforcement to national
security.

In the U.K., the Telecommunications Act 1984 (yes, very
appropriate) gives the state broad power to issue orders to
telecommunications companies and forbid them to breathe a word
about the matter.

France requires that telecoms store data about users’
communications for a year, and a new law taking effect in 2015
requires companies to provide real-time location data to
intelligence agencies—essentially formalizing the use of cellphones
and other devides as tracking beacons.

Oversight of powers to intercept communications and force data
disclosures varies tremendously from country to country, as you
would expect from a list that includes established democracies
alongside overt police states.

Because of the difficulty in tracking the sort of content that
governments block, the report doesn’t delve deeply into access
restrictions. Very often filters are placed in parts of the network
that companies can’t monitor, and telling people about banned
information and services is itself forbidden in many countries.

“Refusal to comply with a country’s laws is not an option,”
Vodafone’s report says, rather defensively. It’s a claim that has
become something of a mantra for companies pressured to reveal data
about users or otherwise submit to controversial government
controls, especially in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations
about snooping by the National Security agency and its overseas
partners.

If the claim isn’t completely true, it’s close enough, since
most exceptions have been firms, like
Lavabit, that have
ceased operation rather than comply.

Telling the public about the full range of intrusions into
private communications also isn’t an option, since some disclosures
are illegal in certain countries. Defiance threatens not just
consequences for corporate wallets, but even personal danger. “In
some countries, individual Vodafone employees would be put at
risk,” the report warns. The country operates in garden spots
including Albania and South Africa, so emphasize the word
“risk.”

It’s also not clear how many governments directly tap
communications networks, since that capability can’t be monitored
by the company. Hungary appears to allow such monitoring, the U.K.
might (separate reports
say it does), while Germany and Spain appear to have no legal
provisions for such access. But how officials interpret their
countries’ laws is up to them.