Telecom Interception Laws: U.S. and U.K. Compared

Introduction: Interception, Access, and Regulatory Context

This paper provides an overview of the telecommunications interception and access laws in the United States and the United Kingdom, as prime examples of developed telecommunications regulatory frameworks that can, to some extent, provide useful real-world case studies for refining a regulatory regime in other jurisdictions.

Interception is the electronic surveillance of private telecommunication transmissions in real time. Also commonly referred to as "wiretapping" — because historically the practice required placing a "tap" on a phone line — interception involves the use of a device or technology to listen to live person-to-person communications, such as landline telephone calls, internet conversations, or conversations via wireless phone networks, as they occur. The parties to the communication are typically unaware that they are being observed by a third party.

Telecommunications access is similar to interception, except that it refers to the act of accessing and reviewing a stored record of a communication that occurred in the past — for example, a recording of a telephone call, a voicemail message, or an email stored on a carrier's systems or other media. Interception and access are generally accepted as tools of modern law enforcement and national security intelligence gathering and prosecution. Ongoing technological evolution has required both law enforcement agencies and legislative bodies to grapple with ever-increasing modes of internet and wireless communication — such as instant messaging and text messaging — which have all become common platforms for "live" communication.

Telecommunications interception and access are officially and strictly controlled in many countries in order to safeguard individual privacy; this is the case in all developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often requires court authorization and is normally approved only when evidence demonstrates that it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity through less intrusive means. Laws and regulations often require that the crime under investigation must meet at least a minimum threshold of severity. In many jurisdictions, however, permission for telephone tapping is easily obtained on a routine basis without rigorous investigation by the authorizing court or other entity. Illegal or unauthorized telephone tapping is frequently a criminal offense.

The U.S. and the U.K. together provide a distinct — and in many ways common — perspective on the issues of telecommunications interception. Both nations have developed interception and access regimes in a context in which national security concerns hold a prominent position in both legislative debate and public discourse. As countries that share strong traditions of individual freedoms and privacy, it is notable that both nations — in particular the U.S. — have created regulatory regimes with the potential to intrude upon civil liberties to a greater degree than those of some other developed nations. The modern history of terrorist activity in both the U.S. and the U.K. has been a driving force in the broadening of interception and access capabilities by law enforcement and national security agencies, making it instructive to examine the two countries together as a means of exploring the balancing act between civil liberties and national security in the regulatory environment.

References

Brownstone, R.A., & Voglei, C.A. (2006). U.S.A PATRIOT Act Impasse: E-mail Interception Rules Need Congressional Attention, Too. The Privacy and Data Protection Legal Review, 1(2).

Calleja, R. (2000). RIP ACT 2000 — U.K. Computer Law & Security Report, 16(6), pp. 400–401.

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. (1994). Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 U.S.C. 1001–1010.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978. Public Law 95-511. Library of Congress.

Gellman, B. (2005). The FBI's Secret Scrutiny. The Washington Post, 6 November 2006. Retrieved 9 May 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

Henning, A.C., Bazan, E.B., Doyle, C., & Liu, E.C. (2009). Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the U.S.A PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. Congressional Research Service, 23 December 2009.

Hills, J. (2006). What's New? War, Censorship and Global Transmission: From the Telegraph to the Internet. International Communication Gazette, 68(3), pp. 195–216.

Interception of Communications: Code of Practice. (2002). Issued by the Office of the Home Secretary. The Stationery Office (London): 2002.

Justice. (1999). Justice's Response to the Government Consultation Paper 'Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom.' Issued by the Justice Ministry, August 1999.

Kennedy, C.H., & Swire, P.P. (2003). State Wiretaps and Electronic Surveillance After September 11. Hastings Law Journal, 54, pp. 971–985.

Kennedy, P. (2008). Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2008. Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister pursuant to section 58(6) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2009.

Marís, F. (2006). The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Overview of the case of R v. Clifford Stanford (CA (Crim Div) 1 February 2006) and the offence of unlawfully intercepting telecommunications on a private system (section 1(2) offence). Computer Law and Security Report, 22, pp. 254–256.

McKay, S. (2006). Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act Part I: Meaning of Interception. Journal of Criminal Law, 69, pp. 106–109.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Chapter 23. The Stationery Office (London): 2000.

Reid, A.S., & Ryder, N. (2001). For Whose Eyes Only? A Critique of the United Kingdom's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Information & Communications Technology Law, 10(2), pp. 17–201.

Risen, J., & Lichtblau, E. (2005). Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. New York Times, 5 December 2005. Retrieved 10 May 2010 from

Schwartz, P. (2008). Reviving Telecommunications Surveillance Law. University of Chicago Law Review, 75, pp. 287–315.

Straw, J. (1999). Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom: A Consultation Paper. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by command of Her Majesty, June 1999. The Stationery Office (London): 1999.

Sutter, G. (2001). A Tale of Two Interception Regimes: RIP v CALEA, a comparison. Presentation at 16th BILETA Annual Conference, 9–10 April 2001, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Wiretap Act. (1968). 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Library of Congress.

Yeates, J. (2001–2). CALEA and the RIPA: The U.S. and the U.K. Responses to Wiretapping in an Increasingly Wireless World. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 12, pp. 125–166.

Yeh, B. (2006). CSR Report for Congress: U.S.A PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (S. 2271). Congressional Research Service, 21 February 2006. Library of Congress.