– full implementation months away
Government is moving ahead with partial implementation of the controversial wiretapping legislation but has since given no assurance that it will help the telephone companies cover the costs of having to import, implement and operationalise the high-tech equipment required.
About two weeks ago Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, at the launching of a new police data centre, announced that he had signed the commencement order for the legislation.
Subsequently, in a public advisory in the daily newspapers at the weekend the ministry announced that August 31, 2009 had been designated the day on which the Interception of Communication Act would come into effect in respect of the provision relating to speech, music or other sounds and data or text.
The wiretapping bill allows for the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications and the acquisition of means by which protected communications may be accessed and placed in an intelligible form and for connected purposes.
The law prohibits the interception of communication unless an application has been made to a judge and she or he has issued a warrant. Intercepted communication obtained on a warrant will be admissible in any criminal proceedings.
The telephone companies, Digicel and GT&T, have since been involved in discussions with Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon.
In explaining the level of preparation which GT&T had undergone, Director, Rate Making, Gene Evelyn in a telephone interview with Stabroek News last week said his company had gone through the negotiations and had every intention of adhering to the law having since ordered the relevant equipment.
He noted however that during the discussions certain issues were raised and an understanding was obtained from the government in this regard.
He explained that the act made provision for the minister to announce a commencement date, but in this case it had been done with a recognition that the companies did not yet have everything in place.
He pointed out that both parties had no expertise in this area and had to rely heavily on the manufacturer of the equipment for advice.
As such discussions had been held with those companies and some short-listed, and based on price and other factors the equipment had been ordered.
Evelyn said that while the company was trying its best, manufacturing, shipping, installation and testing were factors which neither the government nor the company had control over and as such it may mean that the August 31 commencement date would not be realistic.
He said the company ordered its equipment a little over a month ago and it would have to wait a total of three months for it to arrive, be installed and then tested.
He pointed out too that the company’s personnel would have to be in receipt of training before the system could be activated.
He said the company received the commencement order on Monday and re-iterated that it would not be ready by August 31, but it understood that it would not face any penalty.
Financial burden
The only burden that would face the company in this process would be a financial one, Evelyn stated. Cost, he said, was an area of concern which had been raised by both companies during discussions, but which brought no concrete assurances from government.
“We have raised with the government the issue of them taking up some of the costs… they have given no direct assurance that we will get assistance,” Evelyn said.
He noted, however, that the administration seemed willing to mull over the issue.
In terms of maintenance of the company’s equipment at the government’s end, however, government had made it clear that they would take responsibility in this regard.
Further he told Stabroek News that the way in which the law had been written provided for a phased in implementation. He explained that from the other types of communication being provided for in the law, more commencement orders would have to be signed.
“So when I move to comply with another order I may have to go back to the manufacturer to order additional components of the equipment,” he explained.
He was skeptical about pronouncing on exactly how much the total process would cost the company, emphasizing that to date the cost was very significant.
Evelyn told Stabroek News that when interception got started computer software would mostly handle the entire process and so that would be no additional burden on the company’s employees.
He added that not many employees would be associated with the system.
In the weekend public advisory on the act, the Ministry of Home Affairs explained that Section 3 of the act prohibited the interception of a communication, with an exception where the communication had been intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by a judge.
Another exception is where an interception is undertaken on the authority of a designated officer in the case of a national emergency or in responding to a case where approval for a warrant is impracticable having regard to the urgency of the case.
The ministry also advised that any person who intentionally intercepted a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunications system was committing an offence and was liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5M and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
And where the court convicted a person for illegal interception it may order that any device used to intercept a communication be forfeited and disposed of as the court thought fit.
This legislation was passed in the National Assembly in October last year and President Bharrat Jagdeo assented to it in December.
