Sometimes, you just cannot keep looking the other way. This is what happened to telecoms operator Vodafone, which last week revealed the extent to which it is subject to government’s requests for information on and tapping of its users. This was a courageous move on Vodafone’s part. While software companies have been more forthcoming with this kind of revelation, a telecoms operator like Vodafone requires a government licence e to operate, leaving the possibility of retribution for such disclosures.
“One of the most spied-on nations in Europe”
The report revealed that no fewer than 3,773 calls or texts had been tapped. Those are the figures for one operator alone and put us almost at the top of the league in a slot that The Guardian newspaper described as “one of the most spied nations in Europe”. The UK, which is not only far ahead of us in terms of population size but also risk from terrorists, fraudsters, money-launderers, robber barons and other assorted categories of criminals, scores a relatively meagre 2,760.
Now, most European countries have some sort of oversight mechanism to make sure that this privilege is not abused. Malta has no such thing. Direct access means there are no warrants involved and, just so that the eavesdroppers do not run any risk, it is actually illegal to disclose, in any way or means, that tapping – or any aspect of it – is going on. This means that we cannot even know anything beyond what Vodafone has revealed, be it nationwide figures or how many were cases of interception of content as opposed to simple requests for ‘metadata’ (user details such as name, address and location).
Just to make the whole experience even easier for the government, Vodafone also revealed that there are also secret wires directly connected to its network, and those of its competitors, allowing agencies to listen in. Who needs warrants when, at the flick of a switch, someone in a government office could be tapping a telephone conversation?
The ‘benevolent’ spying on our children
A few months ago the government issued a Legal Notice which, in effect, gave its officials and, more worryingly, the Minister, a free hand to dig into students’ personal data, from the tender age of childcare pupils upwards, without the parental consent that is required by the Education Act. Today, the Minister already has access to information regarding students but this can only come through the Commission or Directorate of Education, so not at the power of a single individual, and all under a veil of anonymity.
The government retorted that it was intended for the purposes of “research and quality assurance”. However, it never specified what this research was and the legal notice would have given it unlimited access rights. So as it is presented to us parents, camouflaged as a sheer act of benevolence, it becomes more intriguingly dangerous. Parents and guardians are pushed aside and the state imposes legal liability on educational institutions to collect and provide the sensitive information required.
Educational institutions include educational and non-educational as well as vocational institutions, which means that, until further government clarification, we may not only be talking about schools here but also about scouts, ballet, bowling, karate and other similar activities. Nothing is said about the possibility of opting out of this exercise or the ethical considerations involved. Big Brother business par excellence!
The Opposition called for a discussion on this legal notice. Its motion to have it withdrawn was obviously defeated, although certainly not thanks to a solid defence made by the government. One backbencher dismissed the concerns by saying that this was an information-gathering exercise that was no different from a parish priest sending questionnaires to the families in his parish. Despite the vote – and thanks to the fact that the public is becoming more aware of privacy issues and the outcry that followed this news – government ended up suspending even if not actually withdrawing the legal notice.
In actual fact, the so-called suspension of a legal notice has little meaning as a law is either effective or made non-effective and non-enforceable through the same parliamentary process that brought it into being. As the latter process has not been carried out, the law remains in force and so does the danger to our children’s privacy.
The discussion with the Commissioner of Data and any other relevant consultations should have been carried out before and not after the enactment of the law. So, yet again, the government has admitted that it has rushed a decision on a very sensitive issue. Yet again, as happened in the sale of citizenship issue, the Opposition was right to raise concerns from the beginning. We do not have such a negative Opposition after all.
Government’s well-guarded secrets
On the other hand, the Government guards its secrets very closely. The press got wind of the fact that a very senior Libyan politician was residing, under heavy guard, in an apartment in Xemxija. Is it former Libyan PM Ali Zeidan? His deputy? The government is not giving answers “for reasons of national security”.
Is that national security as in Malta’s national security? Over the years, Malta has given protection to many people fleeing dangers in their countries. Extending the same kind of protection to a Libyan politician who would risk unjustified persecution in his country would not be extraordinary. Neither would it be if that person, if previously prominent, is afforded some discretion. What is well and truly unacceptable is lowering the “national security” curtain, respecting a foreigner’s privacy more than that of the Maltese.
Back to the “not in the interests of the people” attitude
At the same this government, which itself was elected on a promise of greater transparency, repeatedly fails to provide timely and accurate replies to parliamentary questions. It fails to provide information regarding the hefty packages of controversial government employment or appointments. It also fails to table and make public documents such as the power station contracts and the Henley & Partner’s contracts. The government is also failing to provide, as required by law, the necessary information for the Ombudsman to investigate the dubious appointments of senior army officials. What is the government hiding from us? And why is it hiding it from us? So much for the transparency we were promised.
Mr Puli is the Shadow Minister for the Family & Social Solidarity