justify interception of information from communication channels nor the time limits
of any such interception. The recently established State Service for Special Communications and Information Protection implements governmental policy on protecting
state information and confidential communication, and exercises control over cryptographic and technical information security. 54
On June 17, 2002, the State Committee on Communications issued Order No. 122,
which introduced mechanisms for Internet monitoring. The order required ISPs to
install black-box monitoring systems in order to provide access for state organizations. The purpose of this monitoring was to control unsanctioned transmission of
data containing state secrets. However, ‘‘state secret’’ is not clearly defined in current
regulations, allowing authorities broad discretion in interpretation. The difficulties in
separating state from nonstate users also expose the latter to monitoring. By 2006, a
significant number of large ISPs installed black boxes, and the Security Service of
Ukraine sent out letters to governmental authorities insisting they use their access
services.
Under the pressure of public protests and complaints raised by the Internet Association of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Ministry of
Justice abolished this order in August 2006. Some human rights groups claim the Security Service of Ukraine is keeping intercepted messages and carrying out Internet surveillance on a large scale. 55 Since the revocation of Order No. 122, the service has
acted within the limits prescribed by the Law on Operative Investigative Activity.
According to estimates from the Internet Association of Ukraine, the service may have
the technological capability to do so in 50–60 percent of the cases. 56 The level of surveillance may rise up to 90 percent in regions where it is harder for access providers to
oppose the Security Service and other law enforcement bodies.
To compensate for the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation of communication interception and surveillance, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Order No. 1169
in September 2007. This order decrees that permission must be obtained from a judge
or head of the respective Court of Appeals to carry out surveillance. Human rights
groups, such as the Internet Association of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Human Rights
Ombudswoman, protested against the order, claiming it legalized unlawful infringement upon the right to privacy. Notwithstanding the attacks against it, Order
No. 1169 remains active. 57 Statistics also reveal the growing use of interception and
surveillance by law enforcement agencies in Ukraine. According to the Supreme Court
of Ukraine, the number of applications authorizing the use of monitoring and surveillance tools to the Ukrainian Courts of Appeals initiated by law enforcement bodies
grew from 15,000 in 2005 to 19,989 in 2007 and reached 25,086 in 2008. In 2008,
the Ministry of Internal Affairs made 14,815 submissions; the Security Service of
Ukraine, 8,323; and the tax police, 1,655. It is not known how many submissions
were granted, nor is it clear how many were directly related to electronic surveillance. 58
258
Ukraine
of any such interception. The recently established State Service for Special Communications and Information Protection implements governmental policy on protecting
state information and confidential communication, and exercises control over cryptographic and technical information security. 54
On June 17, 2002, the State Committee on Communications issued Order No. 122,
which introduced mechanisms for Internet monitoring. The order required ISPs to
install black-box monitoring systems in order to provide access for state organizations. The purpose of this monitoring was to control unsanctioned transmission of
data containing state secrets. However, ‘‘state secret’’ is not clearly defined in current
regulations, allowing authorities broad discretion in interpretation. The difficulties in
separating state from nonstate users also expose the latter to monitoring. By 2006, a
significant number of large ISPs installed black boxes, and the Security Service of
Ukraine sent out letters to governmental authorities insisting they use their access
services.
Under the pressure of public protests and complaints raised by the Internet Association of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, the Ministry of
Justice abolished this order in August 2006. Some human rights groups claim the Security Service of Ukraine is keeping intercepted messages and carrying out Internet surveillance on a large scale. 55 Since the revocation of Order No. 122, the service has
acted within the limits prescribed by the Law on Operative Investigative Activity.
According to estimates from the Internet Association of Ukraine, the service may have
the technological capability to do so in 50–60 percent of the cases. 56 The level of surveillance may rise up to 90 percent in regions where it is harder for access providers to
oppose the Security Service and other law enforcement bodies.
To compensate for the lack of comprehensive legislative regulation of communication interception and surveillance, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Order No. 1169
in September 2007. This order decrees that permission must be obtained from a judge
or head of the respective Court of Appeals to carry out surveillance. Human rights
groups, such as the Internet Association of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Human Rights
Ombudswoman, protested against the order, claiming it legalized unlawful infringement upon the right to privacy. Notwithstanding the attacks against it, Order
No. 1169 remains active. 57 Statistics also reveal the growing use of interception and
surveillance by law enforcement agencies in Ukraine. According to the Supreme Court
of Ukraine, the number of applications authorizing the use of monitoring and surveillance tools to the Ukrainian Courts of Appeals initiated by law enforcement bodies
grew from 15,000 in 2005 to 19,989 in 2007 and reached 25,086 in 2008. In 2008,
the Ministry of Internal Affairs made 14,815 submissions; the Security Service of
Ukraine, 8,323; and the tax police, 1,655. It is not known how many submissions
were granted, nor is it clear how many were directly related to electronic surveillance. 58
258
Ukraine