The bill regarding the interception of telecommunications contains clear provisions governing the grounds and modes of the permission to intercept, as well as the scope of the permitted interception, Ella Lei, president of a parliamentary committee, said yesterday.
The bill for the Legal System Governing the Interception and Protection of Communications is now before the parliament’s First Standing Committee. A meeting was held yesterday morning with government officials answering questions from committee members.
The Code of Criminal Procedures already contains stipulations on the interception of telecommunications. The bill is an independent piece of legislation and, according to the government, supplements the Code’s stipulations.
Once passed, the bill will invalidate Articles 172 to 175 of the Code, while Article 251 of the Code will be modified to account for the new law.
At the post-meeting press conference, Lei remarked that, according to the bill, evidence obtained from data intercepted without obtaining the approval of a judge of law will not be taken as valid. Moreover, the judges responsible will determine the scope of the interception.
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak said that, in order to trigger the interception, the crime to be investigated must fall within a list of 12 crimes. The law enforcement entity must prove the necessity of the interception to the judges responsible.
Also, police must also prove the absence of alternative, more advantageous means of obtaining evidence to the court.
The crimes should also comply with the principles of severity, necessity, legality, and appropriateness, among others, Lei explained.
In the bill, communications are defined as activities that involve emitting, transmitting or receiving information, using telecommunication, in the forms of symbols, texts, images, audios, graphics or other related forms.
Communications between suspects and their lawyers are protected from interception, but the government left a loophole for judges to allow interception to occur when the communications are believed to have been made with a criminal intent or constitute the crime itself.
The question as to whether the government will install a tracking app, such as Pegasus, on the devices of investigative targets, was raised at the press conference. Lei said the committee did not discuss this, but provided assurance on the protective nature of the bill.
Wong: Informants
are rewarded
On the sidelines of the committee meeting, Wong said that the government would provide a reward for people who provide clues to the police during investigations. He also encourages members of the public to report suspected cases of illegal migration or smuggling.
Wong made these statements in response to a request for comment on the mainland government’s incentives for informants.
In addition to monetary incentives, gifts are also often used as rewards for people who are able to provide essential information to the police, Wong disclosed. He admitted that the government has specifically budgeted for such incentives.
When asked about the extent of the budget, Wong refrained from giving an exact figure, saying that he did not have the authority to disclose such information.
Moreover, each reward is independently reviewed and approved by the Chief Executive, bypassing the Financial Services Bureau. Documentation is sometimes redacted to provide enough protection on the informant, Wong explained.
