(Dagbladet) In a hearing on new legislation proposes Justice and Ministry major expansions of police to block cellular and radio signals and set up false base stations for mobile phones.
The ministries led by two FRP ministers, respectively Anders Anundsen and Ketil Solvik Olsen.
The bill applies “mobile regulated zones”, geographical areas where the police can have full control of what they want of radio and mobile traffic going in and out of the area.
The technological developments in recent years have done both blocking and monitoring of signals easier, and cheaper equipment.
Today is the general rule that a court must approve monitoring. In the proposal the police commissioners and Operations when necessary, to determine whether monitoring or blocking signals to be initiated. Police do not have specific suspects.
Vide authorizations
In the consultation document proposes two alternative amendments. One a police can make mobile regulated zones in all cases where they will prevent or investigate crimes on with sentencing of three years and upwards. Ministry also proposes that the police can use the tools in the following scenarios:
• prevent and eliminate serious nuisance
• arrests and warrants
• when it is necessary to protect the life and health
• accumulations of people that can end with violence
• serious threats
• use of drones
• illegal handling of firearms with sentencing under three years
• to implement other police operational measures
Jamming
A main amendment proposed is to give the police the opportunity to jam the electronic communication in an area.
“The proposal means that for example would be to restrict public mobile communication systems working (jam) and to identify the identity of the communication device “, according to the proposal.
Ministries realize that jamming is not without immediate disadvantages:
“Jamming of cellular, for example, imply that it is not possible to make emergency calls, trigger violence alarms and transmit fire and burglar alarms via cellular within the geographic area for the time jamming occurs” .
– Concerns
Lawyers, activists and ICT experts reacted strongly Ministry publishers.
– There are major gaps in knowledge. There is almost no empirical basis for consultative bodies to say someone about how they authorizations they have today, which came last year, works. And therefore we do not know whether there is a need to extend them, says lawyer Jon Wessel-Aas Dagbladet.
Wessel Aas have freedom of speech, privacy and human rights expertise.
– It is risky to open this outside the criminal procedural track, pure prevention activities. That is no requirement for concrete suspicion and without courts prior approval, says Wessel-Aas.
– Police States
ICT Norway also reacts on the proposals from the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Transport.
– It is clear that the police and the rule of law must be able to make use of such methods, but it must be done in a way that does not harm confidence in the digital services and authorities to use instruments, says director of new media ICT Norway, Torgeir Waterhouse.
– The proposal of the Ministry of Justice is precisely the kind of legislation police states. But it’s about how to use it in practice. Should this be means police can use, so they must be cautious. There is a big problem that such measures shall be decided by the police master and operations manager. Polite must go through the courts and it must be reported and logged.
– The Minister of Justice should think that if the trust among people decreases, then it will lead to more heavily encrypted services and that the information the police want, becomes less available, Waterhouse.
He shouts warning for privacy, if legislative proposals in the consultation document goes through.
– The proposed legislation says that in practice the police can listen to a call when they feel the need . And so we can not have it. Both for the sake of those who own net to break into and out of consideration for the privacy of those being monitored.
Fears for width mobilization
Under several large demonstrations in recent years has small violent groups met up and challenged the police or used violence. Norwegian Peace Council fears the legislation will do that people will stop coming in demonstrations because electronic surveillance of a small minority affects all who are present.
– We have good experiences with the police and other authorities in the demonstrations we hold today. But with such legislation can be too easy to use monitoring in situations where it could have been avoided. One should ask for clearer definitions of the Ministry, said general manager Hedda Langemyr Dagbladet.
– Such legislation could destroy width mobilization, because people will take into account that they are being watched if they show up at markings and demonstrations. Also organizers may be unsure whether they will mobilize people, says Langemyr.
More ambiguities
Dagbladet has asked the Justice Department to clarify several aspects of the consultation letter. Ministry Communications Department has repeatedly declined to put Dagbladet in touch with professionals who can comment content of the document.
This includes the use of the word “riots.” “Typically, this will apply to large illegal organized riots with potentially violent outcomes where it is absolutely necessary to implement measures to ensure health and life and values of great social importance”
“Riots” describes itself which is violent, and Dagbladet has asked the Ministry whether one has meant accumulations of people or demonstrations, which may end with violence.
– We will not go into a discussion about the definition of riots. But it can play in response, says Trond kommuniksjonsrådgiver Øvstedal.
Dagbladet has spoken with police in Oslo about the proposal. After that Dagbladet understands it organized crime division at Oslo police such a large part to answer the proposal, but they want at the present time not to discuss how they will sit for the suggested amendments.
– brakes is
– There is a trend that increasingly criminalize and investigator preparation actions. Now the brakes, says Heidi Mork Lomell, head of the Department of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Oslo.
– General people choose security over freedom. It is because they think that there is freedom of others they sacrifice to ensure their own safety. They believe that they will go free from surveillance, while only other affected states Lomell Dagbladet.
– But it does not always. In situations like demonstrations are not always so easy for the police to advance distinguish between what is or may evolve to become legally and illegally and who then should be affected by surveillance and investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment