Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update
Table 3:
Thematic areas presented in the report, by number of interviews
Theme
Legal framework
67
Clarity of legal framework
53
Effective oversight
35
Mandate of the body
33
Independence of the body
16
Transparency of the oversight activities
29
Main challenges to upholding fundamental rights
38
Definition of national security
15
Resources and technical capacities
64
Oversight institutional framework
60
Cooperation with other institutions
46
Remedies
54
Duty of notification, right to access information
17
Whistle-blowers
14
Source:
FRA, 2017
for this report. However, this approach does not make
it possible to explain the causality of the issues and
provide grounded explanations; instead, it provides
a ‘straightforward’ approach for deriving findings in
the context of interview guiding questions (namely,
it condenses extensive and varied raw interview
data through recurrent and most relevant themes or
categories into a brief, summary format). Also, this type
of qualitative research is based on the interviewees’
opinions and judgments rather than factual results.
While looking for relationships and patterns in the
data, the type of institution or organisation that the
respondents represented was used as the main
breakdown dimension. Other possible characteristics,
such as country, position within the institution, or
any other specific information, was considered with
a particular focus only during the analysis process
but disregarded while finalising the results and
presenting the findings.
Presentation of the findings
The findings from the fieldwork complement the
conclusions of the comparative national legal analysis
and follow up on specific issues identified during the
data collection or in earlier FRA reports. The analysis
of the interview data is influenced by the content of,
and language used during, the interviews. Therefore,
156
Number of interviews during
which issue was discussed
the terminology used in the discussion of the findings
predominantly originates from the respondents
and is not necessarily closely connected to the
legislative regulation (ie, does not follow the text of
the regulation). It is worth mentioning that, during
the interviews, respondents attempted to explain the
complexity of their day-to-day practices and procedures
in an understandable way.
The quotes included in the text of the report have
been selected for being particularly illustrative or
representative of the research findings. They primarily
serve illustrative purposes. Only translated quotes are
presented. They have been slightly edited, but only to
improve understanding and readability. All the interviews
were carried out in confidence; references to the
interviewees are therefore kept general. In most cases,
the category specified next to the quote refers to the body
represented, e.g. expert body, parliamentary committee,
data protection authority or civil society organisation,
etc. Where interviewed individual experts hold an
academic position or are practicing lawyers, broader
categories are applied – such as ‘academia’ or ‘lawyer’.
The presentation of the findings does not aim to single out
a specific country, so the countries are mentioned in the
text where relevant, but are not specified alongside the
quotes. Before publication of the report, all respondents
consented to being cited in the way the citations and
references are presented in the report.