Lawmaker Ron Lam and lawyer Leong Weng Pun agree that the future communication interception apparatus requires more refinements to ensure public confidence.
The duo told local Chinese paper Macao Daily News that the system, which is now being discussed in a parliamentary committee as a draft law or bill, should include a third-party monitoring body considered for better protection of personal privacy.
Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak highlighted several times the necessity for the bill, saying that technological progress has made existing laws on communication interception inadequate to adapt to current circumstances.
He reiterated that it will be a requirement for law-enforcement bodies to obtain court warrants to facilitate interceptions. However, the bill has left grey areas: in certain scenarios, investigators will be authorized to conduct interceptions before notifying a judge, provided they submit that notification immediately afterwards.
The grey area lies in Article 10 of the bill, which proposes allowing law-enforcement bodies to request the data in question from telecom service providers, prior to notifying the court and obtaining a warrant.
Lam pointed out that this is a real example of executive approval.
Although understanding the need for an update to the existing law, Lam insisted on the need for a third-party monitoring body to refine the system constantly. As far as he could see, nobody could give an answer as to whether the proposed system was flawless.
While respecting the independence and liberty of the court and judges, the lawmaker was concerned that a judge may only have the chance to scrutinize a particular piece of puzzle. The worst scenario is that a judge may not have the opportunity to observe the full picture.
On the proposed provision of Article 10 of the bill, the lawmaker considers a specific monitoring mechanism crucial to building public confidence, as communication records are considered matters of personal privacy in many places.
Lam thinks that disclosure of numbers of intercepted communications, and publically monitoring the investigative bodies is logical if the security branch is satisfied with its own performance.
The bill bans intercepting communications between suspects and their lawyers, with the exception of when a judge believes the communications involve criminal interactions. Lam finds this worthy of further discussion as the judge may not have access to all relevant evidence.
On the same matter, Leong suggests the government consider the practice in Hong Kong, where an independent body was established to monitor such practices and store equipment needed for the interceptions.
