4 standards for ICTs, including lawful intercept requirements. interception as: 4.4 ETSI defines lawful “A security process in which a service provider or network operator collects and provides law enforcement officials with intercepted communications of private individuals or organisations.” 358 It is not yet clear or certain which technical standards Myanmar will be using to implement the technical requirements of lawful interception. Mass Surveillance In contrast to lawful interception, mass surveillance is understood to refer to the bulk access and/or collection of many users’ communications without prior suspicion of criminal activity by the individual targets. Therefore mass surveillance involves no individual target, no prior suspicion, is not time bound and due to the technology employed, is potentially limitless. In contrast to technology provided for lawful interception, much of the technology that allows mass surveillance is unregulated. The adoption of mass surveillance technology thus impinges on the very essence of the right to privacy. 359 Products that Facilitate Surveillance   ‘Dual use’ technology: ‘Dual use’ is a legal term applied to products, services or technology that can be used for both military and civilian purposes. In the ICT sector, it can apply to technology that can be used for commercial functions, but may also contribute to infringements on human rights. For example, a technique called ‘Deep Packet Inspection’ (DPI) was developed to analyse network traffic to make sure the network runs smoothly. However, it is also capable of reading emails and governments wishing to conduct unlawful surveillance can abuse this. Many states known to censor the Internet also use DPI. 360 In January 2012, the European Union banned DPI exports to Syria because of the monitoring and interception capabilities, as it was thought they were being used against dissidents. 361 Unregulated technology: There is growing concern that an increasing number of companies may be selling technology that goes beyond regulated, targeted and controllable interception of individuals under prior suspicion. It is currently considered by many experts to be ‘single use’, because it is difficult to justify a legitimate use for technology that is capable of intruding so much into a person’s correspondence and home. There is evidence that some governments are using the technology to track and detain political dissidents as part of a wider pattern of intimidation. 362 Examples 358 Ibid, “Lawful Interception”. See: UN General Assembly, “Promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism*, A/69/397 (23 September 2014). 360 Ben Wagner, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München and Universiteit Leiden, “Deep Packet Inspection and Internet Censorship: International Convergence on an ‘Integrated Technology of Control“ Global Voices Advocacy (2009). 361 EU Council, “Regulation No. 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011” (18 January 2012) Annex V 362 Citizen Lab, “From Bahrain With Love: Finfisher’s Spy Kit Exposed“ (2012); Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Kidane Vs Ethiopia (last accessed August 2015). 359 168 PAGE CHAPTER 4.4: SURVEILLANCE – LAWFUL INTERCEPTION & OTHER SURVEILLANCE METHODS