7. Provision for Periodic Review of the Lawful Interception Framework  Given the speed at which technology develops, and the potential for communications surveillance to infringe rights, it is important that there is provision within the legislative or regulatory framework for periodic review of the law to ensure rights are protected. Other Considerations to Take into Account in Drafting the Legal Framework  Consistency between the regulation, law and practice: • Embedding human rights principles into the regulation and laws that provide the framework for interception and surveillance is insufficient on its own. • The agencies requesting surveillance must be required to consider the human rights implications in the requests that they make. This should include consideration of whether any less intrusive methods are possible, to ensure that the issue of proportionality is addressed. • There should be training on the human rights implications and their obligations to consider them for all agencies who have the powers to make requests. Training the judiciary is also required. • Accompanying the legal framework there should be a more detailed code of practice that sets out how the law is intended to work in practice. • Where there is more than one law or regulation in place (e.g. telecoms law, national security law, tax, drug enforcement, cybersecurity legislation etc.) there must be consistency in the human rights safeguards in place and clarity provided on which law has primacy in which circumstances.  The role of companies providing service to users: • Service providers should not be compelled to modify their infrastructure to enable direct surveillance that eliminates the opportunity for judicial oversight. • Any request to service providers for access to communications content or data should be provided in writing, explaining the legal basis for the request including the requesting government entity and the name, title and signature of the authorised official. Although it is preferred for requests to be provided in writing it is recognised that there are certain exceptions provided for by law, for example emergency situations and immediate risk to life where oral requests are acceptable, providing they are followed up in writing. • Service providers should have the right to seek clarification or modification to a request which does not seem to follow domestic legal procedures (which in turn should incorporate the internationally accepted human rights protections). ANNEX TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS: LAWFUL INTERCEPTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO USER DATA 39 Annex to Recs