CTIVD: substantive yield of intercept communication by AIVD is small
According to the supervisory report of the Commission of Supervision of the Intelligence and Security Services, the substantive yield of intercepting communications is small to very small. Metadata would be more valuable than content.
The committee states in the report that these results raise questions about the effectiveness and proportionality of the power to intercept non-cable-bound communications. It is underlined that this power constitutes a far-reaching invasion of the privacy of individuals. This is also the reason that the CTIVD publishes a supervisory report every year.
The current report covers the period from March 2014 to February 2015. The Committee states that in 2014 the substantive yield of interception of communication between persons is small to very small. In some operations, there would also be no substantive yield at all. It also turned out that the information obtained was actually relevant for the operational teams in only a few cases.
The AIVD intercepts information by intercepting and recording non-cable-bound telecommunications in an untargeted manner, for example by intercepting all information sent via a specific satellite channel. After that, after the minister’s permission, the service examines the information obtained on the basis of various selection criteria. The criteria are, for example, data about a person’s identity, an e-mail address or telephone number, or a specific keyword.
It would be difficult to obtain complete substantive information, for example, because communication between two parties does not always take place via the same satellite channel. That is why collecting metadata, such as call duration and participants, is more valuable because it would enable the AIVD to visualize a network of ‘targets’. The CTIVD indicates that it will investigate the actual value of metadata in a subsequent report.
The current report also shows that the AIVD carried out nineteen percent more taps in the period in question than in the previous period. The reason for this is said to be the intensified research into ‘jihadist travelers and returnees’. Furthermore, the service would ‘usually work in a well-considered way’ when deploying the tapping authority. However, a number of illegalities and carelessness are alleged to have occurred, including the wrongful tapping of thirteen lawyers’ conversations and the one-time wrongful tapping of a conversation related to a person’s sexual life.