“There are also indications both agencies may have placed journalists under surveillance, thereby compromising their sources.”
CTIVD — Oversight Committee for the Intelligence and Security Services
The Dutch Oversight Committee for the Intelligence and Security Services has concluded that both the AIVD and the MIVD have gone beyond the scope of their mandate in their surveillance of lawyers and journalists. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
RELATED POST: Germany: BND spying on journalists
Dutch Intelligence Agencies
The two Dutch Intelligence Agencies are: the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and the Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD).
In the Netherlands, there is no institutional separation between domestic security and foreign intelligence as the two secret services combine both tasks.
RELATED POST: An Introduction to Dutch Intelligence Agencies
RELATED POST: Dr A. Q. Khan: The Bomb, the Swiss and the CIA
Joint SIGINT Cyber Unit — JSCU
The Netherlands has no separate signals intelligence agency, but in 2014, the Joint SIGINT Cyber Unit (JSCU) was created as a joint venture of AIVD and MIVD.
Oversight is provided by two bodies: The Committee for the Intelligence and Security Services (Dutch: Commissie voor de Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdiensten, CIVD) and the Oversight Committee (Dutch: Commissie van Toezicht op de Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdiensten, CTIVD).
The CTIVD only investigates the case brought to its attention, for instance when they surface in the media.
LAWYERS — Between October 2015 and March 2016 the Dutch Secret services violated due process to gain information.
The AIVD allegedly violated lawyer-client privilege, eavesdropping on three conversations by what is called “incidental surveillance.”
[NOTE: “Incidental surveillance” occurs when a security agency did not plan to eavesdrop on a particular conversation, but stumbled against it whilst eavesdropping on a particular source.]
In the Netherlands, lawyer-client privilege is not an absolute right.
However, according to the law, violating the lawyer-client privilege requires two conditions. The agency must obtain an explicit license by a special commission and the demand must be justified on the grounds of defending national security.Neither of the two applied in this specific case.
Moreover, the agency placed a lawyer under surveillance without investigating whether or not he/she was acting as a legal counsel while he was being hacked.
The Military intelligence service (MIVD) also violated attorney-client privilege, in a case that was not justified by a threat to national security.
JOURNALISTS — There are also indications that both agencies may have placed journalists under surveillance, thereby compromising their sources.
Apparently, this was also a case of “incidental surveillance,” in which a source was tapped while communicating with a journalist.
[NOTE: Under the current law, the journalists are not protected as the lawyers by specific legal provisions.The CTIVD would prefer both groups to enjoy the same high level of legal protection but both the Defense (MIVD) and Interior (AIVD) Ministers are known to be opposed to the idea. ]
A new legal framework
The current [eavesdropping] law restricts bulk or untargeted collection to wireless communications only, so cable access is only allowed for targeted and individualized interception.
RELATED POST: UK: Bulk Spying Powers Backed by Independent Reviewer
A new law — already approved by the 2nd Chamber [Lower House] — should be approved by the Senate in the near future. This new [eavesdropping] law will expand the powers of the Dutch Intelligence Agencies.
Dutch Secret Services Wiretapped Lawyers and Journalists