Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - 2016
Examination of warrants. IOCCO inspects the systems in place for applying for and
authorising interception warrants. This usually involves a three-stage process.
First, to achieve a representative sample of warrants, inspectors select them across
different crime types and national security threats. In addition, inspectors focus on those
of particular interest or sensitivity. For example, those which give rise to an unusual degree
of collateral intrusion, those which have been extant for a considerable period (in order to
assess the continued necessity for interception), those which were approved orally, those
which resulted in the interception of legal or otherwise confidential communications, and
so-called ‘thematic’ warrants.
Secondly, my inspectors scrutinise the selected warrants and associated documentation
in detail during reading days which precede the inspections.
Thirdly, identify those warrants, operations or areas of the process where require further
information or clarification and arrange to interview relevant operational, legal or
technical staff. Where necessary, examine further documentation or systems relating to
these warrants.
Samples. The total number of warrants examined during the 22 interception inspections
was 970. This figure equates to 61% of the number of warrants in force at the end of the
year and 32% of the total of new warrants issued in 2016.
Audits and query-based searches. Where inspectors have access to the application
and authorisation systems, they examine the warrant documentation electronically
rather than on paper. Where the interception agency also uses that system to evaluate
the intercepted material (and related communications data) and produce intelligence
reports, they are able to conduct query-based searches against the material and reports.
These searches give better insight into how the material has been used, enable specific areas to
be tested for compliance, and allow trends and patterns to be identified from the extraction of
information from large volumes of applications. Furthermore, inspectors are able to examine
within the operational environment the interference with privacy actually being undertaken,
and whether this is in accordance with the Secretary of State’s authorisation.
It is only possible to assess whether something is, was or continues to be proportionate by
scrutinising the operational conduct carried out and the use of the material acquired, for
example by examining:
•
•
•
•
•
•
42
how the material has been used / analysed;
whether the material was used for the stated or intended purpose;
what actual interference or intrusion resulted and whether it was proportionate to
the aim set out in the original authorisation;
whether the conduct has become disproportionate to what was foreseen at the
point of authorisation and, if so, why the operational team did not initiate the
withdrawal of the authority;
the retention, storage and destruction arrangements for material acquired; and
whether any errors or breaches resulted from the interference or intrusion.
@iocco_oversight