Interception of Communications - Department of Communications

8/4/2019 Interception of Communications - Department of Communications

1/15

An Roinn Cumarsaide,

Fuinnimh agus Acmhainni Nadurtha

Baile Atha Cliath 2.

Department of Communications,

Energy and Natural Resources

Dublin 2.

) . . . . . l - September 2011

Mr. T J McIntyre

Digital Rights Ireland Ltd

Dear Mr. McIntyre

1 refer further to your recent request under section 7 of the Freedom ofInformation Act 1997 and

2003 requesting records relating to the lawful interception and illegal interception of

communications. I wish to advise that following consideration of the matter I have decided to part

grant your request.

With regard to that part of your request for all records from 1 January 2001 onwards held by the

Department relating to either (a) the lawful interception of communications, or

(b) legislative measures intended to address the unlawful interception of communications, and in

particular the matters set out in paragraphs 1 and 5 of your request, I would advise as follows.

Lawful interception is governed by the provisions of the Interception of Postal Packets and

Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. Section 12 of that Act restricts the

disclosure of the existence of authorisations to the minimum necessary, where 'necessary' means

necessary for the purpose of the prevention or detection of serious offences or in the interests of

the security of the State. Section 32(1 )(a) of the Freedom ofInformation Act 1997, as amended,

provides that a request for access shall be refused if, inter alia, the disclosure of the record

concerned is prohibited by any enactment, other than a provision specified in the Third Schedule

of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended. As the Interception of Postal Packets and

Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 is not listed in the Third Schedule, access

to any records in respect of lawful interceptions is refused, by virtue of section 12 of the 1993 Act

and under section 32(1)(a) of the Freedom ofInformation Act, as amended.

In reaching my decision to refuse these parts of your request, I am also relying on the following

sections of the Freedom of Information Act and am of the opinion that revealing information in

respect of interceptions would be prejudicial to the public interest:-

Sections 23(1)(a)(i), 23(1)(a)(ii), 23(1)(a)(iii), 23(1)(aa), 23(1)(c) and

Sections 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(2)(a)(i) and 24(2)(a)(ii).

In reaching my decision I have also taken into account the provisions of section 23(2) and 24(3)

of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, which precludes me from disclosing the

existence or non existence of records to which section 23(1) and 24(1) of the Act applies.

29-31 Adelaide Road, Dublin 2

29-31 B6thar Adelaide

Baile Atha Cliath 2

Tel: +353 1 678 2000

LoCal!: 1890 44 99 00

Fax: +353 1 678 2449


2/15

With regard to paragraph (2) of your letter, I should advise you that this Department does not

hold any records in relation to the matters referred to in subparagraphs 2(c) to (g). Accordingly,

this part of your request is refused in accordance with section 10(1)(a) of the Freedom of

Information Act, as amended.

In relation to subparagraphs (2)(a), (2)(b) and (2)(h) of your request, I am refusing access to these

records under section 20(1) of the Freedom ofInformation Act 1997, as amended given that suchrecords contain matters relating to the deliberative process of a public body and having regard to

section 20(3) it is my opinion that the public interest would not be better served by granting the

request.

With regard to the ePrivacy Directive and various Statutory Instruments transposing this

Directive, I would advise that Article 5.1 of the Directive refers to interception or surveillance of

communications and prior to the introduction of S.1. No. 337 of 2011, this was deemed to be

transposed by section 98 of the Postal and Telecommunication Services Act 1983 as amended.

Following revisions to the ePrivacy Directive, S.1. No. 337 of 2011 was introduced in July 2011.

In addition to section 98 of the 1983 Act, Regulation 5(1) of S.1. No. 337 of 2011 directly

transposes the provisions of the Directive.

As regards subparagraph (2)(h), I can advise that the recently enacted Communications

Regulation (Postal Services) Act, 2011, puts in place a robust regulatory framework for the postal

market which has been open to competition since the 1sl of January 2011 under the Third Postal

Services Directive, 2008/6/EC. Section 54 of that Act, Ministerial Directions to postal service

providers, extends the application of interception provisions to all postal service providers.

I have decided to grant your request for access to records referred to in paragraph (3) of your

letter and in this regard attached a Schedule and associated documents.

Finally, in relation to your request referred to in paragraph (4), I should advise you that"telephone hacking" is a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality and would suggest

that you contact that Department regarding records relating to this matter.

I wish to advise you that if for any reason you are not satisfied with the outcome of your request

you are entitled to seek a review by appealing the decision. To appeal, you need to write to the:-

FOI Unit

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Elm House, Earlsvale Road

Cavan

You must make you appeal within 4 weeks of the date of this letter but the making of a late

appeal may be permitted in certain circumstances. The review will involve a complete

reconsideration of the matter by a more senior member of staff of this Department.

Please note that an application fee for an appeal is currently 75.00 and a reduced fee of 25.00

applies if you are covered by a medical card. If claiming a reduced application fee, the request

must be accompanied by

The medical card registration number

The name of the issuing Health Board

Your consent to the verification of these details with that Health Board


3/15

Payments should be made by way of bank draft, money postal order or personal cheque made

payable to "Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources". On receipt of the

fee you will be advised of when you can expect a decision on your appeal and the contact details

of the person handling the appeal.

Yours sincerely

,V\~)J}J\~0\~

Barbara Leeson

Communications Policy Division

Phone: 01 6782293


4/15

Vl

c:o

'~

u-0;:l

EEou

r . ; . . . . .

oc:o' , =0..Q)

u . . . .Q)

. . . . . c:

~bJ)

~-. . . . . " '0

c,9. . . . . 0..Q)

u . . . .Q)

. . . . . c:

'I)

c__0

' I ) . -C1)'I)

c " :.- c;j" 0 c.5 0~u

-o 0~Z

0 : : " 0


5/15

c~

c~

(\3 (\3

0'--' 0'--''';::

~'';::

~~. . . . . .

u'--' u'--'Q;l N Q) NrfJ N rfJ N

00


6/15

Digital Rights Ireland Complaint to European Commission over Irish Interception Laws

Digh~al Rights Ire l . f l I td

I -lo m e

Page] of7

,

{ ~. \\.~!

". ~_.#~

May 28th, 2009

You might have noticed that we think that Irish !f! l't;J~DliQn laws are an invasion of our privacy UnfortunatelyIrish law on interception of communications also fails to protect our privacy - and for that reason we've lodged a

forma] con1plaint with the European Commission, pointing out that Irish law doesn't meet European standards

and asking that they require the Irish government to introduce adequate protections. Read on for more details and

to see what you can do to help.

What's the difference bet\veen data retention and interception? While data retention focuses on traffic data - who

called whom, when, where the mobile phone was, etc. - interception deals with attempts by the state or private

parties to monitor the contents of communications to listen in on telephone calls, read emails, and so on

!ntercepticJJ1is controlled to a limited extent by Irish law - under legislation from 1983 and a 199.3Act introducedafter a SCal)9_~linvolving the Taoiseach and Minister for Justice illegally tapping journalists' phones - but that law

is now well out of date, and doesn't meet the standards set out by European law in the 2002 ~-Privgc;;y.Dj!~~Jive.

What's wrong with the existing Irish law? There are two major limitations. First, it was introduced at a time when

there were a limited number of players in the telecommunications market As such, it applied initially to Telecom

Eireann, and was extended to certain telecoms businesses operating under a licence or a general authorisation It

does not, however, apply to other businesses which don't need an authorisation - which includes most online only

businesses Webmail, instant messaging or voice over IP, for example, would not be protected by the 1993 Act

Secondly, it applies only to messages which are "being transmitted" - something which appears to mean that ego

the contents of a webmail inbox would not be protected

As a result of these limitations, the protections of the 1983 and 1993 Acts - which make interception a cIiminal

offence, require a wan ant from the Minister for Justice before interception can be carried out by the police, and

provide for judicial oversight - simply do not apply to a wide range of online communications. This lack of

legislative control appears to be a relatively clear breach of the e-Privacy Directive, which requires states to

"prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications and the

related traffic data by persons other than users, without the consent ofthe users concerned, except when legally

authorised to do so ." [by] legislative measures [which are] necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a

democratic society".

In short, we think that Irish law doesn't adequately protect the privacy of your online communications - and

hopefully the European Commission will require the Government to introduce adequate protections. If you agree,

you can support the complaint by contacting the Minister for Justice (Email: 1]1inister@jt[stice.ie, Fax: 01 661-

5461, Snail Mail: 94 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2) and asking him to extend Irish interception law to adequately

protect online communications and meet our European obligations. You can also email the Commission at

InfsoB2@ec europa,cu, referring to our complaint and indicating that you are also making a formal complaint that

Irish law on the interception of communications is not in compliance with Art 5 of the ePrivacy Directive.

(Update: 16 06.09 - The Eu! opean Commission has now replied, indicating that it is now investigating this matter

hUp://www digi talrigh ts ie/2009/05/28/ complaint -to-european-commissi on -over -irish -in terception-... 06/08/2009


7/15

Digital Rights Ireland Complaint to European Commission over Irish Interception Laws Page 20f 7.,.-\

j

under r\ ence 2009/4368, SG(2009) A/487L You might include this reference if writing to support us)

For those of you who can't get enough legalese, the full text of our complaint is below:

Dear Mr,

The purpose of this letter is to outline how Ireland has failed to implement Article 5 of Directive

2002/58/EC

As you Imow, Article 5.1 provides that:

"Member States shall ensure the confidentiality ofcommunicatiol1s and the related traffic

data by means of a public communications network and publicly available electronic

communications services, through national legislation, In particular, they shall prohibit

listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of

communications and the related traffic data by persons other than users, without the

consent of the users concerned, except when legally authorised to do so in accordance

with Article 15( 1). This paragraph shall not prevent technical storage which is necessary

for the conveyance of a communication without prejudice to the principle ofconfidentiality"

When implementing the Directive, it was the view of national authorities that Article 5.1 was already

adequately provided for in Irish law by section 98 of the po~l~!.LaD!;tTJelecoll'm1UnicatiOll~S~LY:i~~$.

Act 1983 in combination with the Int~lcep-tiQn_QfYQsl,:l}J)f!Qk~~_ill.fsJ.I~lecQn}l,llJ!ni.~.~nio.nsM~_~~?cg~s

(R

created by that Act (including judicial oversight) do not apply to other police interceptions.

I propose to outline briefly the Irish legal framework and to consider in more detail the places where

Irish law falls short of the requirements of Article 5

Persons to whom Irish interception law applies

Irish law on interception of telecommunications messages is contained in section 98 of the Postal and

http://www .eligitalrights ie/2009 /05/28/ camp 1aint -to-european-commission -over -irish- intercepti on- 06/08/2009


8/15

Digital Rights Ireland Complaint to European ConU11issionover Irish Interception Laws

T ;ommunications Services Act 1983 which prohibits interception and disclosure of

telecommunications messages. That section, as originally enacted, applied only to the interception of

messages being transmitted by the then state monopoly, Telecom Eireann.

With the advent of deregulation, section 98 was extended to cover other licensed operators (the Po.stg]

anJI Telec;Q]11m1I11ic;alio1JsSS:J.vjc.es.(!:\Jn~mlm~IJnA.(,:kL


9/15

Digital Rights Ireland Complaint to European Commission over Irish Interception Laws

( a ) (i) that-

(I) investigations are being can-ied out by the Garda Sfochtma, or another public

authority charged with the investigation of offences of the kind in question, concerning a

serious offence or a suspected serious offence,

(II) investigations not involving interception have failed, or are likely to fail, to produce,

or to produce sufficiently quickly, either or, as the case may be, both ofthe following,

that is to say:

(A) information such as to show whether the offence has been committed or as to the

facts relating to it,

(B) evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings in relation to the offence,

a n d

(III) there is a reasonable prospect that the interception of postal packets sent to a

particular postal address or of telecommunications messages sent to or from a particular

telecommunications address would be of material assistance (by itself or in conjunction

with other information or evidence) in providing information, or evidence, such as

aforesaid,

or

(ii) that-

(1 ) in the case of a serious offence that is apprehended but has not been committed,

investigations are being carried out, for the purpose of preventing the commission of the

offence or of enabling it to be detected, if it is committed, by the Garda Siochana or

another public authority charged with the prevention or investigation of offences of thekind in question,

(II) investigations not involving interception have Hliled, or are likely to fail, to produce,

or to produce sufficiently quickly, infom1ation as to the perpetrators, the time, the place,

and the other circumstances, of the offence that would enable the offence to be prevented

or detected, as the case may be, and

(III) there is a reasonable prospect that the interception of postal packets sent to a

particular postal address or oftelecol11l11unications messages sent to or from a particular

telecommunications address would be of material assistance (by itselfor in conjunction

with other information) in preventing or detecting the offence, as the case may be,

and

(b) that the importance of obtaining the infonnation or evidence concerned is, having

regard to all the circumstances and notwithstanding the importance of preserving the

privacy of postal packets and telecommunications messages, sufficient to justify the

intercepti on,"

Page 4 of 7

(,"\~)

This section provides important safeguards: interception is restricted to serious offences,

investigation other than interception must be inadequate, interception is restricted to messages sent to

or from a particular address, thus ruling out indiscriminate monitoring of traffic and "fishing

expeditions", and interception must, in the circumstances, be proportionate,

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2009/05/2 8/camp laint -to-european -commission -over- irish -intercepti on -. 06/08/2009
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2009/05/2http://www.digitalrights.ie/2009/05/2


10/15

Digita l Rights Ir ela nd )} Compla int to E ur opea n Commission over Ir ish Interception L aws Page 5 of 7

~ ion 8 of the Act then creates ajudicial power of oversight over the interception system, whilesection 9 creates a complaints procedure for persons who allege that interceptions have beenimproperly canied out

The 1993 Act is, however, limited to "interceptions" which would (ifnot authorised) amount to an

offence under section 98. (See the definition of "interception" in section 1.) Consequently, the 1993

Act has no application to interceptions falling outside section 98. It follows that any interception bythe police of, for example, emails transmitted by a webmail service will not be regulated by theprovisions of section 98 and will escape regulation by Irish law - the section 98 safeguards, includingproportionality, judicial oversight and the complaints procedure, will not be available

This would appear to breach Article 15.1 of Directive 2002/58/EC Article 15.1 speci fies that any

restIiction by Member States of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5 must be by way of"legislative measures" which are "necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic

society". However. interception of emails in the circumstances I have outlined would appear not to be

govemed by any legislative measure, much less one which can be assessed as necessary, appropriateor proportionate The unfettered discretion which this would appear to confer on the police would

therefore appear to be incompatible with the Directive

In summary, it appears that Irish law has not been properly updated to take account of therequirements of Article 5 of Directive 2002/58/EC, and I would respectfully ask that the Commissioninvestigate whether Ireland has failed properly to implement this Directive

Entry Filed undeI: DRI, Privacy - Gel}er~[

2 CODlments Add your Q)VJl

1. Eoghan I June 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

I was thinking about this myself recently enough, I 'd forgotten to check back here to see if anything had

been done by DRI. Glad to see you took action Consider me raI1ied behind you on this one

2. MUldoch knew of phone hac~hellip I July 21st, 2009 at 5:47 pm

[.. ] to know the password if you want to access the YM from another phone. As usual, there's a goodDigital Rights page! Our privacy laws don't seem to cover it, so DRI have complained to the EU

Commissi on [,, ]

Leave a COlnment

Name

Email

UrI

Required

Required, hidden

http://www d igitalrights ie/2009/05/28/comp laint -to-european-col11mission-over-irish-interception-., 06/08/2009


11/15

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONInformation Society and Media Directorate-General

The Director-General

A C T I O N lO R I G I 1 , 1A le 0 P Y ; U . L k / 1 l a - i t tD A T E

;2-D-?-~D A T E R E C E I V E D I F D I F F E R E N T

C C A,~~A ,0 }~/ro/ )

Ref: Complaint number 2009/4368

Dear Sir,

Brussels, 1 5 V I I 2 0 0 9INrSOIB-2/SB/cr 0(2009) 130130

His Excellency Mr Rory Montgomery

Permanent Representative of Ireland

to the EU

89/93 Rue Froissart

1040 Brussels

Belgium

The European Commission is in receipt of a formal complaint concerning an alleged failure totranspose adequately certain provisions of the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC

I-) The

main points of this complaint are set out below,

In its notification of the transposition of Directive 2002/58/EC (dated 13 November 2003), the

I ris h a uth or itie s p oi nt o ut th at Art ic le 5 .1 o f t ha t D ir ec ti ve was n ot tr an sp os ed in t he

Regulations as there are already sufficient legislative provisions protecting the confidentiality

of communications and related traffic data. According to the Irish notification, the relevant

legislation is section 98 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 as amended

by the Interception of Postal Packages and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act.

1993_ This letter of notification tltrther states that, according to the Irish legal services the term

'telecommunications message' is equivalent to the term 'communication' used in Article 5 of the

ePrivacy Directive.

Article 5.1 of Directive 2002/58/EC provides that:

"Member States shall ensure the confidentiality of communications and the related traffic data

by m eans of a public com munications ne tw ork a nd publicly a vailable ele ctronic

communicat ions services, through nat ional legis la tion. In par ticular, they shall prohibi t

l istening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance ofcomlllunications and

the related traffic data by persons other than users, without the consent of the users concerned,

except when legally authorised to do so in accordance with Article 15( I). This paragraph shall

not prevent technical s torage which is necessary for the conveyance of a communication

without prejudice to the principle of confidentiality,"

1 0. J . L 201 .3107,2002 p. 37

Commission europeenne. B-l049 Bruxelles I Europese Commissie, B-l049 Brussel - Belgium Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11

Office: BU25 061183 Telephone: direct line (32-2) 299 09 81 Fax: (32-2) 2968394

E-mail: Stephen banable@ec europa eu


12/15

The complainant cla ims that this eXlst ll lg domestic legis la tion only par tial ly covers the

requirements of Article 5 of the e-privacy Directive. Specifically, he claims that the scope of

the national legislation is l imited and that there are several situations which fall within Article 5

but which would not be covered by Irish law. The complainant notes three points in particular:

I . He cla im s th at s ec tio n 9 8 o f th e P osta l a nd T ele co mm un ic atio ns S er vi ce s Act 1983

pr oh ib its th e i nt erc epti on o f o nly th ose m es sa ge s t ha t a re b ein g t ra ns mitte d b y

communications providers who hold a general authorisation. Article 5( I) of the ePrivacyDirective does not refer to general authorisa tion of the respect ive communications

providers . Instead i t general ly prohibi ts interception of communications by publ ic

communications networks. In that case communications transmitted by other persons are

not protected. The Commission services would therefore appreciate clarification as to the

scope of the prohibition of interception under section 98.

2. The complainant fur ther a lleges that the reference under section 98 to messages " in the

course of transmission" unduly restricts the prohibition of interception, since it would not

cover any communications that have been s tored by the recipient , such as contents of a

person's inbox.

3, Finally, the complainant alleges that the Interception of Postal Packets and

Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 regulates police interceptions of

telecommunications messages, but again (since it refers to section 98) only where those

messages are being transmitted by persons who hold a general authorisation.

It a pp ea rs th at th e p ro vis ion s o f s ec tio n 9 8 c ov er a ny pe rs on o pe ra tin g un de r a g en era l

a uth or is atio n, I n p art ic ula r, se ctio n 4 (8 ) o f th e E uro pe an C Ollll l1 un iti es ( Ele ctr on ic

Communications Networks and Services) (Author isat ion) Regulat ions 2003 s ta tes that 'a

reference in an)! enactment fo a penon licensed under \'ection III of the Act of 1983 j~ fo be

construed as a reference /0 an IIl1derwkingdeemed to be awhorised lindeI'the~e Regulations '

T he C om mis si on t he re fo re r eq ue st s th e v ie ws o r th e Ir is h g ov er nm en t o n th e is su es a s

summarised above and in part icular your clari fications as to whether , and i f so, how, the

requirements of the ePrivacy Directive are adequately transposed into Irish law,

I would very much appreciate receiving your reply within ten weeks of receipt of this letter via

the EU Pilot system.

Yours faithfully

Fabio Colasanti

2


13/15

Ref: Complaint no. 2009/4368

Dear Mr Colisanti

r refer to your letter of 15 July 2009 concerning a fOl1nal complaint to theEuropean Commission alleging a failure by Ireland to adequately transpose certain

provisions of the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC).

The views of the Irish authorities on the issues outlined in your letter and our

transposition of the requirements of the relevant provisions of Directive

2002/58/EC are set out below.

Background

1. The ePrivacy Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European

Communities (Electronic Communications Network and Services) (Data

Protection and Privacy) Regulations 2003 (SI 53512003). Notification ofIreland's transposition was conveyed to the Commission by letter dated 13

November 2003. In that letter it is stated that the requirement under

Article 5.1 of the Directive relating to confidentiality of communications has

not been transposed in the Regulations as there are already sufficient

legislative provisions protecting the confidentiality of communications and

related traffic data, by virtue of section 98 of the Postal and

Telecommunications Act of 1983 as amended

2. Section 98 provides, inter alia, that a person who intercepts or attempts to

intercept telecommunications messages in the course of transmission shall be

guilty of an offence.

Complaint

3. The complainant makes three points which are summarised below:

i) Section 98 only applies to communications transmitted by authorised

communications providers and, therefore, does not apply to

"communications transmitted by other persons".

ii) The reference in section 98 to messages in the "course of transmission"

restricts the prohibition under that section and would not cover any

communications stored by the recipient, such as the contents of a

person's inbox.

iii) There is a deficiency in the Interception of Postal Packets and

Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 because it also

only applies to messages being transmitted by persons who hold a

general authorisation

Ireland's response to the complaint

4. By way of background to points i) and iii) above, prior to the coming into

force of the European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks

and Services) (Authorisation) Regulations 200.3 (SI 306/2003) ("the

Authorisation Regulations"), the provision of telecommunications networks


14/15

and services was subject to the grant of a licence by the Minister under section

III of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, Pursuant to the

Authorisation Regulations, licences were replaced by an authorisation system

overseen by the Commission for Communications Regulation ("ComReg").

5. Regulation 4 of the Authorisation Regulations provides that any person who

intends to provide such a network or service is required to notify ComReg of

his or her intention to so do and, upon receipt by ComReg of such notification,

the person concerned is deemed to be authorised Regulation 4(8) provides

that a reference in any enactment to a person licensed under section 11 1 of the

Act of 1983 is to be construed as a reference to an undertaking deemed to be

authorised under these Regulations.

6 Section 98 initially applied to Bord Telecom EireatUl (the then State monopoly

service provider) only but the section was later extended by section 7(1) of the

Telecommunications Services (Amendment) Act 1999 to licensed operators,

which were defined in section 7(3) as '[Bord Telecom Eireann] or any person

licensed under subsection (2) or (3) of section 111 of the Act of 1983' Given

this amendment and regulation 4 (8) of the Authorisation Regulations, the

complainant is correct to state that section 98 only applies to messages being

transmitted by authorised providers. However, the Department does not agree

with the further contention that there may be instances where a message is

being transmitted over a network or service that is not being operated under a

general authorisation and as a consequence would not be protected under Irish

. law. The examples cited by the complainant are webmail services such as

Gmail and voice over internet protocol services such as Skype. It is the

Department's view that both the services provided by these technologies are

transmitted over publicly available networks (such as the eircom or BT

networks) which must be authorised by ComReg and to which section 98

applies

7 With regard to point ii), it is suggested by the complainant that because the

prohibition on interception in section 98 is limited to messages in the course of

transmission and not to messages stored in email inboxes this does not provide

the protection that article 5.1 of the ePrivacy Directive requires The

Department disagrees with this complaint for two reasons. Firstly, it would not

be justified to apply the tem1 'interception' to messages that are in fact in

storage The ordinary meaning of word 'intercept' is to stop, deflect or seize

on the way from one place to another; to prevent from arriving or proceeding.

Once a message or communication arrives at its destination, it can no longer

be intercepted or prevented from arriving or proceeding. The term is also

defined in section 98 (6) as follows:

"In this section 'intercept' means listen to, or record by an)! means,

ill the cOllrse of its transmission, a telecommunications message

but does not include slich listenillg or recording where either the

person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the persoll

intended to receive the message has cOllsented to the listening or

recording, and cognate words shall be construed accordingl)!. "


15/15

The Irish authorities are of the view that this definition is in keeping

with the manner in which 'interception' is set out in Article 51.

Secondly, Article 5.1 does not require Member States to provide

such protection given that the definition of 'communication' at

Article 2 (d) of the ePrivacy Directive is 'any information exchanged

or conveyed between a finite number of parties by means of a

publicly available electronic communications service'. There is no

reference to the storage of information in this definition and the

question of the protection of emails stored in inboxes may be more

properly addressed by existing data protection laws. This

interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the storage of such

communications is seen as an entirely separate matter (see Recitals

22,26 and 27 to the Directive).

To summarise, the Irish authorities consider that the existing provisions under

Section 98 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act of 1983, as amended,

adequately transpose Article 5 of Directive 2002/58/EC into Irish law and providethe required level of protection of the confidentiality of communications and

related traffic data in accordance with that Directive

Your etc.

Interception of Communications - Department of Communications

Documents