Acting on request of BETA Agency to comment on Republic Agency of Telecommunications Decision establishing Technical Conditions for Sub-systems, Devices, Equipment and Instalations of the Internet Network, the Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance, Mr Rodoljub Šabić, gave a statement as follows:
“Taking into consideration the importance of electronic communications in modern world, the Technical Conditions for Sub-systems, Devices, Equipment and Installations, recently adopted by RATEL deserve serious attention. We are talking about a normative deed certain provisions of which can be widely and differently interpreted, depending on who the interpreter is; this, of course, is never good. Besides, certain provisions are regulating matters for which it should surely be better, quite justifiable in fact, to be governed by the law rather than by some sub-legal normative deed.
It can not be disputed that RATEL is authorized to establish appropriate technical conditions, nor that it is the duty of public telecommunication operators to ensure that such conditions are met (at their own expense and regardless of how great a burden it is for them), because that's expressly envisaged by the law. However, the contents of these conditions can be disputed, and it would be good to hear a public voice in this matter, first of all the voice of experts.
Our attention will surely be drawn mostly to the clauses envisaging the obligation of a provider to allow authorized Services, Police or BIA “completely autonomous passive monitoring of the Internet activities of subscribers and re-directing of the incoming and outgoing traffic.” Such clauses, namely the possibility of the abuse, rouse reserves, even fear, including calculations that similar terms could also get into fixed and mobile telephony by-laws. This fear is probably strengthened by some previous experience with bad security i.e. secret service practices. The reserves have been additionally strengthened by the fact that we are probably the last European country which doesn't have the Law on Personal Data Protection. The problem of protection of personal data has existed with us for years, and it is not by an accident that valid EU documents concluded that there is such protection in our country in theory, but not in practice. We do not have any functional protection mechanisms, and we are far from having a dominant mentality based on European democratic standards on privacy and personal data protection. That's why the abuse of “technical conditions” does not necessarily apply to public authorities only, they apply to other protagonists as well.
We might say that these technical conditions represent yet another example of how often the authorities make moves for which the public, even experts and the broad public in particular, are unprepared. It would therefore be useful to have, even post festum, some kind of a “public debate” in order to hear all those who could have valid arguments, including the Ombudsman and the Minister of Human Rights, and eliminate all possible dilemmas.
Regardless of the dilemmas regarding monitoring and interception of the Internet traffic, one of the obligations should certainly be excluded. I believe that, starting from Article 41 of the Constitution, which guarantees the confidentiality of mail and other means of communication, and which regulates possible departures from the same, the use of such options can be allowed only and solely based on court decision, for a certain period of time, and for the reasons and under the terms clearly envisaged by the law.
Of course, even when we eliminate the abstract, normative level dilemmas, it doesn't mean that we have also eliminated practical problems. The danger of the abuse of mechanisms which are limiting human rights calls for the establishment of an effective mechanism for the protection of those rights. That's why this too is an opportunity to emphasize the importance and necessity of the adoption and implementation of a modern Law on Personal Data Protection.”
