The signatory organizations call for the removal of proposals to extend the means of interception from the draft law implementing the Communications Code Directive.

The danger is the introduction of a new article, Article 10², which unjustifiably broadens the scope and spectrum of electronic communications interception, including access to traffic data, content data and the „content of transited encrypted communications”.

The total lack of transparency and debate before and after this article that limits the right to privacy was added to the draft law, is worrying and unacceptable in 2021, in a European Union member state.

Article 10² would add issues in the field of interception and legal access to electronic communications, beyond the strict text of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with its associated safeguards. The proposed text extends the powers of legal interception to „bodies with responsibilities in the field of national security”, adds new categories of providers (including those with registration obligations to ANCOM) and expands actions to new activities, such as granting access to the content of encrypted communications in their own networks or access to the hosts’ computer systems, in order to copy or extract existing data.

We consider that all these proposed measures would be a violation of the right to privacy, a right defended both by the Romanian Constitution [Art. 26 (1)] and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Art. 7) and the draft law suffers from the absence of a real debate, needs the inclusion of adequate safeguards and is beyond the existing regulatory framework.

We request:

• removal of art. 10² from the draft law and related articles^[1], which exceed the purpose of the directive that needs to be implemented;
• Given that the Government considers it necessary to expand the regulation of legal access to communications, it should do so with a coherent proposal through a law amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, accompanied by a human rights impact assessment, which should take into account the relevant decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. This proposal should follow the real and necessary public debate process for a project with such an impact.

 

Call supported by:

Asociația pentru Tehnologie și Internet

Asociația Code for Romania

Asociația Interlan

Asociația Declic

CeRe: Centrul de Resurse pentru participare publică

Asociația Miliția Spirituală

ActiveWatch

Centrul pentru Inovare Publică

Federația Organizațiilor Naționale pentru Servicii Sociale – FONSS

Greenpeace

Asociația pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului în România – Comitetul Helsinki – APADOR-CH

Asociația Four Change

Asociația MozaiQ LGBT

Asociatia Atlatszo Erdely Egyesulet –Asociația Transilvania Transparentă

Dexonline

Asociația Parcul Natural Văcărești

Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile – FDSC

Andrei Tiut (Civitas Politics)

Centrul de Dezvoltare Curriculară și Studii de Gen: FILIA

Asociația Civica

Expert Forum

Institutul Român pentru Pace – PATRIR

Rise Out Iaşi

Rădăuțiul Civic

 

 

^[1] Definitions of Articles 95 and 96, as well as Articles 142 points 21 and 22 and Article 57 (2)