Law with disputable provisions in the Assembly
BIA, according to insights of “Blic” (Flashlight) wrote a part of the Law on Electronic Communications, enabling it to monitor communications without mandatory court decision
T.N. Djakovic
Security-Informative Agency can monitor with whom, how long and where from you communicate by phone or by e-mail. And it doesn’t need a writ for that. Its manager’s signature is enough. A new law on electronic communications, which is from yesterday in adoption in the Parliament does not limit that right by any of its provisions. If the law shall be adopted, the control of monitoring these data shall be in the hands of those who monitor them - BIA.
Based on this occasion MPs didn’t have many objections, although the law proposal has been for months the target of violent criticism of expert public and of Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for Information of Public Interest. He is warning for months: „The law infringes on the Constitution and denies guaranteed human rights”. BIA has, according to insight of „Blic” (Flashlight), assisted the Ministry of Telecommunications in writing the law. From that becomes clearer why during insight into those data court decision is not needed. And those data, as Sabic explains, even if you do not deal with their contents, sometimes say as much as the contents of the telephone conversation itself or of e-mail. Sabic explains that the method selected for adopting the Law on Electronic Communications is not adequate to the importance of that law, that serious expert discussion has been left out, and that its passing is proposed using urgent procedure. The final text of the law proposal was, as Sabic explains, factually inaccessible to the public. The law has been, namely, as they admit in the Ministry of Telecommunications, published on the Assembly website just last Thursday, so, only five days ago.
- It is clear that individual solutions are unclear, controversial and that they could have for their consequence endangering human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and by the law - says Sabic. Recently, as he reminds, the Constitutional Court has evaluated as unconstitutional provisions of the valid Law on Telecommunications, exactly therefore because that Article envisaged the possibility to collect such data without court decision. But that is not sufficient information to wake up sleepy MPs. Differently from them, the Commissioner also reacts on the provision of Article 130. Based on that, the proposer tries to eliminate the authority of his office for control of processing „retained data”. In the law text is quoted that „a body in charge of secret data protection” is in charge of that.
- Because such a body does not exist, that means that the control would not exist, that is, that the data processors shall control themselves - concludes Sabic. Slobodan Markovic, Advisor of the Minister in the Ministry of Telecommunications claims that the proposed law does not permit any arbitrary or illegal activity of any state institution.
- The Commissioner has the right to, in cooperation with the Citizen’s Protector, submit an Amendment, as well as to initiate in front of the Constitutional Court a procedure for checking constitutionality of that legal provision, if the Amendment is not adopted – he says.
Markovic negates that the Ministry has been assisted in the law compilation by BIA, but he adds that their opinion was also requested. He refused to directly answer the question why the law ignores limiting provision: „The law lists which data shall be retained, who and in what situations can access them, in what way they shall be protected, who is protecting them and until what time, who controls them, and who and when destroys them, as well as who is supervising those provisions”.
Those data, as explained, can be used by the court, police and secret services only for implementing criminal proceedings and protecting state security.
Boxed bold text: Commissioner’s objections
Without court decision secret services have been permitted to collect data. In the legal text is quoted that „body in charge of secret data protection” is in charge of control, and not the Commissioner’s Office. There was no public discussion, and there is invoking on the urgency of the law, which has been published late on the Assembly website.
