Justice Minister Anders Anundsen suggest police themselves should decide when they can use fake base stations for monitoring mobile phones. But he gets strong criticism from police lawyers, lawyers and the Public Prosecutor.
Attorney General Tor-Aksel Busch concludes that the justice minister’s proposal “violates the system and the scheme is established in our country.” That the police should not receive judicial approval before they go to such steps are particularly problematic, believes Prosecutions.
Aftenposten mean: No to police surveillance powers
Before Christmas sent the Justice Department out a bill for consultation, where it opens to the police themselves should decide when it is necessary to use so-called false base stations. In this way the police can identify those that are located within the station’s coverage area. It is also possible to listen in on calls, or block phones.
Today, the police must have permission from the courts and notify the National Communications Authority when such technology is used. In very acute situations, such as preventing terrorism, this rule is waived. Prosecutions are concerned that police access to such methods are far freer, and that control mechanisms are weakened.
Many people react negatively
He gets support from other heavy, legal environments. Aftenposten has previously discussed the submissions from the Bar Association, who believes that the proposal is “a hollowing of the Constitution, paragraph about citizens’ right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his communications.”
Also NCIS and police lawyers union is concerned the same. NCIS writes that the proposal goes far, and “raises a number of difficult issues.”
Many of the submissions is concerned that the police should be able to invoke “necessity” when they set up fake base stations. Necessity is not regulated, but it is widely accepted that the police can go far to prevent crimes in quite acute situations. The danger is that necessity becomes more like a normal situation.
Busch calls necessity “a safety valve”. To give a general right to surveillance as justified by “necessity” will expand police permission to use such methods, without that “this is discussed or explained in detail in the consultation paper.”
Police The lawyers, trade union lawyers in police is also very skeptical that the police themselves should decide when such monitoring methods can be used. “We are approaching dangerously a limit,” they write. The lawyers believe that it is most natural that the courts governing the use of such technology, and the prosecution must be heard when there is no time to court proceedings.
Inspectorate warns that the proposal puts so ambiguous framework for monitoring that it “goes on expense of legal certainty “and warns that the law is adopted.
PST supports the proposal
Anders Anundsen get primarily support from the Police Security Service (PST), which will have the greatest advantage of law. PST chief Marie Benedicte Bjørnland believes that “today’s heightened threat situation” necessitating an amendment that allows the PST can use fake base situations in acute situations. The most extreme, it may be necessary to “prevent the use of remote triggering mechanisms for explosives.”
Bjørnland believes that the police will get better tool if the law is adopted. And the proposal is so around formulated will make no law seems outdated when it pops up new technology.
Sunday afternoon Aftenposten in contact with the Ministry of Justice, who do not want to comment on the submissions.
Published:
No comments:
Post a Comment