Home Newsroom 2005 News releases (archive) 2005-11-15: Legislation to modernize investigative techniques introduced today Backgrounder: International approaches to interception of communications capabilities

International approaches to interception of communications capabilities

Recognizing the many different security and criminal threats facing today’s global community, countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States have legislation compelling telecommunication service providers to be intercept capable. Note that while the descriptions below outline the primary legislation in this area, these laws continue to evolve. To ensure ongoing global cooperation in the fight against organized crime and terrorism, it is imperative that Canada introduce its own legislation on this front.

United States

In October 1994, the United States (U.S.) Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to preserve the ability of U.S. law enforcement to conduct electronic surveillance in the face of rapid advances in telecommunications technology. CALEA requires certain defined classes of telecommunications carriers to design or upgrade their systems to ensure that lawfully authorized electronic surveillance can be performed. This legislation is technology neutral in its coverage. Basically, it includes all entities engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier for hire. The experience of the United States is particularly relevant to Canada given that both countries are dealing with many of the same technologies and companies. MITA is also technology neutral in its approach and its requirements have been developed to ensure consistency with U.S. obligations.

United Kingdom

In July 2000, the United Kingdom (U.K.) passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). RIPA allows a Cabinet Minister, in practice the U.K. Home Secretary, to impose obligations upon providers of publicly available communication services to maintain a reasonable intercept capability. RIPA is also technology neutral in its coverage. RIPA was examined and some aspects were incorporated within MITA. For example, the U.K. model developed an order to comply as a means to address the need to compel a lawful interception capability as necessary and MITA includes a similar provision.

Australia

In 1997, Australia passed the Telecommunications Act 1997, requiring carriers and carriage service providers (telecommunications service providers) to comply with obligations concerning an interception capability and special assistance capability. Australia’s Act, like the others, is technology neutral. It applies to all telecommunications including the Internet. Under Australia’s Act, carriers bear the majority of the capital and ongoing costs for developing and maintaining interception capability.

New Zealand

In November 2004, New Zealand passed the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act. It requires network operators to ensure an interception capability of telecommunications networks and services. MITA also has similarities to the New Zealand legislation, for example, both allow for the authority to issue exemptions from the Act or to order a company to comply with the Act.