THE INTERVIEW OF THE WEEK Rodoljub Sabic, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The phone tapping of citizens without a judicial warrant, the most disputed provision of the Law on Electronic Communications, is nothing else but a method of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. In his interview for “Alo!”, Rodoljub Sabic, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, warns that Serbia is facing a dilemma whether to legalize the methods of Milosevic’s regime or to adhere to the provisions of its own Constitution.
Serbia will not start resembling “Big Brother”, since it does not resemble it now. The provisions in the Law are not a novelty; they exist from before; they stem from the time of Milosevic. The only dilemma is whether or not we will legalize or change, improve, or adapt to the constitutional solution in Article 41, which clearly states that “the confidentiality of data is inviolable and that exceptions are allowed only upon a decision of a court of law.” In any case, I am for respecting the Constitution.
What are the gravest dangers citizens would face if the proposed Law on Electronic Communications is passed?
- The dangers lie in possible misuses. The possibilities of abuse should not be viewed either pessimistically or optimistically, but, rather, realistically. The possibilities, simply, should never be overlooked. If the misuse happens, it will entail various breaches of one’s privacy – establishing the location of one’s whereabouts, determining who they spend time with or communicate, their spheres of interest with regards to web sites they visit – which would enable the creation of a personality profile of the person whose privacy is violated.
Would you be a confidential informant to a journalist knowing that this Law permits finding out when, for how long, with whom, from which number, and where from the journalist made a phone call?
- Personally, whatever I say to a journalist, I can and may repeat in front of TV cameras. So, every time I provide information or make comments, I do not have a reason to hide from anyone. But, it would be inappropriate to say those famous and ridiculous words: “I am an honest man who has nothing to fear.” This is a matter of principle and the respect of boundaries of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.
Will these provision, practically, lead to censorship?
- No, I do not think so. Maybe these provisions lead to auto-censorship in some journalists, but that is not the main problem, since a great number of journalists do not write anonymously, but, rather, sign their names.
What could be a problem when it comes to journalists is the confidentiality of journalistic sources. The confidentiality of journalistic sources and the right of a journalist to protect his/her sources are the fundamental cornerstones of the freedom of the media, while the provisions in the proposed Law open up the possibility of easily discovering sources.
Have you heard a single convincing argument that the intelligence agencies would not abuse their official capacity and eavesdrop on the content of conversations?
- The arguments that I have heard were not law-based. The majority of them stated that these provisions would allow the agencies to work faster, more efficiently, easier. Taking into consideration the importance of the fight against organized crime, terrorism, etc., the competent authorities should be given the best possible work conditions. Material, logistical, technical, and legislative conditions. But, at least when it comes to legislative conditions, the boundary that cannot be crossed is the Constitution. One’s attitude towards possible abuses should not depend on the belief in someone’s trustworthiness or untrustworthiness. In a regulated democratic society, deflecting from the rights guaranteed by the Constitution does not depend on trust, but on legislative mechanisms which control the justification for that exception and the way in which it is being conducted.
Nada Kolundzija announced that the decision of the Constitutional Court on the nature of the Law would be respected. How do you understand this choice of institution they would trust, when both you and the Ombudsman were against the Law?
- I have no doubts that they will respect the decision if and when it is made. But, I do not think that the Constitutional Court, which is swamped with work, should be the one providing answers to all disputed questions, even for those that could be answered very easily. Not only the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Information were criticizing the Law, but also the journalist associations and the media, information technicians, the Barrister’s Chamber, the civil society, all established experts, the media, a great number of citizens. It is not by coincidence that all of them understand Article 41 of the Constitution of Serbia in the same manner.
How will you supervise the application of this Law and will intelligence agencies inform you about their activities?
- This is not only about providing information. The Commissioner has a right to access and see the complete documentation related to everything, even this kind of data collection and databases, including controlling the rooms and the equipment being used. Of course, we are the ones who are making the first steps in protecting human rights through our activities as so-called independent institutions. Besides legislative conditions, we will have to ensure and develop other conditions – personnel, technical, and logistical – in order to be able to fulfill our tasks.
Entrefilet:
Tadic has the final say
Do you expect from the President Boris Tadic to use his rights and refuse to sign this Law?
- I would not like to speculate. The decision is in the hands of the President.
Who keeps on insisting on spying
Do you have any explanation why the governing majority is fighting so hard for the disputed provisions?
- Each person should explain their attitude themselves. But, it is very good that the governing majority accepted the second amendment of the two submitted by the Ombudsman. With this, at least at a superficial level, the governing majority confirmed the principle that limiting human rights has to be overseen by independent institutions.
