construction companies should therefore be aware that their infrastructure may be targeted by actors wishing to illegally intercept mobile phone signals for the purposes of surveillance, impacting both freedom of expression and privacy. When tower construction companies carry out their regular checks and maintenance, they should therefore be especially vigilant for any signs that cell tower or base station equipment has been tampered with. Infrastructure  Do not provide lawful interception services until a legal framework is in place:   Lawful intercept solutions provided as part of the network infrastructure of operators should not be operational until national legal framework and regulations are in place and it is clear which set of technical standards Myanmar will adopt (ETSI standards or another). Without legal safeguards in place, companies requested to take action by the government to action lawful interception may be contributing to human rights violations of the right to privacy and potentially further severe impacts, depending on the action taken by the government once it has secured the information. Vendors should be prepared for such requests and consider through their due diligence processes the human rights risks associated with these transactions. This includes due diligence pre-sale, during the sale in putting appropriate conditions or procedures in place in sale documents or contracts, and in post-sale due diligence. 397 Train operator personnel: In addition to carrying out the appropriate due diligence, vendors should ensure that equal attention is given to training of operator personnel as part of the sale of technology products, including lawful interception systems. Myanmar staff may not be informed or even consider the wider implications of their actions unless they are provided with specific training. Send clear messages about business relationships: The opening of the Myanmar ICT market has seen a rush of new companies to the market. Unlike other bigger footprint sectors, smaller ICT companies have far fewer downside risks in entering and exiting markets quickly. Some of the companies selling unregulated surveillance technology market themselves by asserting that their technology can be added to a particular vendor’s network as lawful intercept ‘solutions’ when in fact they provide capabilities that go well beyond what is lawful. Network vendors should publicly distance themselves from these companies, ensuring that their company’s logo and name are removed from any marketing literature by such enterprises and by providing a clear message to the Government that they do not condone such products. 397 See for example guidance on dealing with government requests: European Commission,”ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights” (2013), pg. 32-33. IHRB, “Human Rights Challenges for Telecommunications Vendors: Addressing the Possible Misuse of Telecommunications Systems. Case Study: Ericsson“ (2014). CHAPTER 4.4: SURVEILLANCE – LAWFUL INTERCEPTION & OTHER SURVEILLANCE METHODS 177 4 4.4