Free audio stream, including stories that are padlocked on our site. Listen on any device, anywhere. Updated twice daily. The audio stream takes several seconds to start on Android devices.Launch Radio player
RAW DATA: Interception obligations - a law enforcement scenario (PDF)
RAW DATA: High Level Comparison Table: TICA 2004 and TICS Bill (PDF)
Communications and Information Technology Minister Amy Adams has today tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (www.legislation.govt.
The changes are in addition to those recommended by the Law and Order select committee.
“The select committee has recommended a number of practical and positive changes to the Bill in response to submissions,” Ms Adams says.
“Based on feedback from support parties, the public and industry, I intend to make some further changes that go beyond the committee’s recommendations.”
Clause 39 of the proposed Bill currently allows the responsible Minister to direct that a network operator must not resell an overseas telecommunications service in New Zealand where the interception capability, or lack of interception capability, raises a significant risk to law enforcement or national security.
It is proposed to remove Clause 39 from the Bill altogether, and, instead, matters of non-compliance could be addressed through the compliance framework.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with the partnership approach between the GCSB and network operators to protect network security.
To ensure that this interaction occurs in a timely manner, it is proposed to introduce the ability for the Minister responsible for the GCSB to make regulations that require decisions to be made under specific timeframes, in the event that decisions are not being made in a sufficiently timely way.
It is also proposed to narrow the scope of the matters that must be notified to the GCSB, reducing compliance costs for network operators.
As a last resort, where network operators and the GCSB are unable to agree on how to respond to a network security risk, Clause 54 of the Bill currently provides that the responsible Minister may issue a direction.
Before the GCSB can ask the Minister to make a direction, a further check and balance will be introduced. The Commissioner of Security Warrants will now be required to carry out an independent review of the material that informed the GCSB’s risk assessment, and report on whether, in their opinion, the risk amounts to a significant risk to national security.
Finally, to meet the concerns expressed by telecommunications companies that competition and cost implications must be adequately considered, the factors that the Minister must take into account before issuing a direction on network security will be strengthened and clarified.
This will deliver a more rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits, including the impact of the cost on the telecommunications company.
“Although public input has resulted in significant improvements to the Bill, some of the submissions received did not reflect an accurate understanding of what the Bill does and does not do,” Ms Adams says.
“In particular, I would like to reassure people that this Bill does not change the authority of agencies to intercept telecommunications, it does not change existing privacy protections, and it does not require data to be stored or require stored data to be disclosed. The Bill only relates to real time interception.
“The Bill plays a key role in law enforcement and in protecting New Zealand’s national security.”
The SOP will be introduced to Parliament later this week. It is available at: www.legislation.govt.