Editing Wiretapping (section)

==Legal status==
{{main|Telephone call recording laws}}

[[File:IDET2007 Jitka phone tapping device.jpg|thumb|right|Telephone line control device "Jitka", used in late 1960s by Czechoslovakian [[StB]] to signal line occupancy, and connect a recorder]]
[[Lawful interception]] is officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguard [[privacy]]; this is the case in all [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]]. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be authorized by a [[court]], and is again in theory, normally only approved when [[evidence (law)|evidence]] shows it is not possible to detect [[Crime|criminal]] or [[Subversion|subversive]] activity in less intrusive ways. Oftentimes, the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.<ref name="hsw3">{{Cite web |url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/wiretapping3.htm |title=How Wiretapping Works |last=Harris |first=Tom |date=2001-05-08 |website=How Stuff Works |page=3 |access-date=2011-12-20}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/wiretapping.htm |title=How Wiretapping Works |last=Harris |first=Tom |date=2001-05-08 |website=How Stuff Works |access-date=2011-12-20}}</ref> Illegal or unauthorized telephone tapping is often a criminal offense.<ref name=hsw3/> In certain jurisdictions, such as [[Germany]] and [[France]], courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without the [[Two party consent|other party's consent]] as evidence, but the unauthorized telephone tapping will still be prosecuted.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Klass and others v. Federal Republic of Germany |reporter=(Series A, NO 28) (1979–80) |opinion=2 EHRR 214 |court=European Court of Human Rights |date=1978-09-06 |url=http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/limitations/klass_germany.html |access-date=2014-07-22 }}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Huvig v. France |opinion=11105/84 |court=European Court of Human Rights |date=1990-04-24 |url=http://cambodia.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/echrsource/Huvig%20v.%20France%20%5B24%20Apr%201990%5D%20%5BEN%5D.pdf |access-date=2014-07-22 }}</ref>

===United States===
In the [[United States]], under the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]], federal intelligence agencies can get approval for wiretaps from the [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]], a court with secret proceedings, or in certain circumstances from the [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] without a court order.<ref>{{USC2|50|1805|Issuance of order}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-327.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-327.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Privacy: An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping |last1=Stevens |first1=Gina |last2=Doyle |first2=Charles |date=2012-10-09 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |location=Washington, DC |access-date=2018-01-29}}</ref>

The [[telephone call recording laws]] in most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while twelve states require both parties to be aware.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.versadial.com/the-complicated-legality-of-voice-recording-in-2013/ |title=The Complicated Legality of Voice Recording in 2013 |date=2019-05-24 |website=Versadial Solutions |access-date=2018-01-20}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/states.html |title=Privacy Laws by State |website=Electronic Privacy Information Center |access-date=2018-01-20}}</ref> In Nevada, the state legislature enacted a law making it legal for a party to record a conversation if one party to the conversation consented, but the Nevada Supreme Court issued two judicial opinions changing the law and requiring all parties to consent to the recording of a private conversation for it to be legal.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://pickardparry.com/2014/04/is-it-legal-to-record-a-conversation/ |title= Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in Nevada Without the Other Party's Consent? Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in Nevada Without the Other Party's Consent? |last=Parry |first=Zachariah B. |date=2014-05-09 |website=Parry & Pfau |access-date=2015-01-24}}</ref> It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm |title=United States Telephone Recording Laws |website=Call Corder |access-date=2011-12-20}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/RECORDING.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/RECORDING.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Reporter's Recording Guide |last1=Rasmussen |first1=Kirsten |last2=Komperda |first2=Jack |date=Summer 2012 |publisher=The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press |access-date=2018-01-20 |last3=Baldino |first3=Raymond}}</ref>

The [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] protects privacy rights by requiring a [[Search warrant|warrant]] to search a person. However, telephone tapping is the subject of controversy surrounding violations of this right. There are arguments that wiretapping invades a person's personal privacy and therefore violates their Fourth Amendment rights. On the other hand, there are certain rules and regulations, which permit wiretapping. A notable example of this is the [[Patriot Act]], which, in certain circumstances, gives the government permission to wiretap citizens.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Soma |first1=John T. |last2=Nichols |first2=Maury M. |last3=Maish |first3=Lance A. |last4=Rogers |first4=Jon David |date=Winter 2005 |title=Balance of privacy vs. security: a historical perspective of the USA PATRIOT Act |url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A139431581/ITOF |journal=Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal |publisher=Rutgers University School of Law |location=Newark |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=285–346 |issn=0735-8938 |id=GALE{{!}}A139431581 |url-access=subscription |via=Gale General OneFile}}</ref> In addition, wiretapping laws vary per [[U.S. state|state]], making it even more difficult to determine whether the Fourth Amendment is being violated.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Slobogin |first=Christopher |date=2002 |title=Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places and the Right to Anonymity |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/mislj72&i=227 |journal=Mississippi Law Journal |volume=72 |pages=213–316 |url-access=subscription |via=HeinOnline}}</ref>

===Canada===
In Canadian law, police are allowed to wiretap without the authorization from a court when there is the risk for imminent harm, such as [[kidnapping]] or a [[bomb threat]].<ref name="C-55 leg sum">{{Cite web |url=https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/411C55E |title=Legislative Summary of Bill C-55: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act) |last1=Kirkby |first1=Cynthia |last2=Valiquet |first2=Dominique |date=2013-02-26 |website=Legal and Legislative Affairs Division, Parliamentary Information and Research Service |publisher=Library of Parliament |id=41-1-C-55-E}}</ref> They must believe that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that could cause serious harm to any person or to property. This was introduced by [[Rob Nicholson]] on February 11, 2013, and is also known as Bill C-55.<ref name="C-55 leg sum" /> The Supreme Court gave Parliament twelve months to rewrite a new law. [[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015|Bill C-51]] (also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act) was then released in 2015, which transformed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service from an intelligence-gathering agency to an agency actively engaged in countering national security threats.

Legal protection extends to 'private communications' where the participants would not expect unintended persons to learn the content of the communication. A single participant can legally, and covertly record a conversation. Otherwise police normally need a judicial warrant based upon probable grounds to record a conversation they are not a part of. In order to be valid wiretap authorization must state: 1) the offense being investigated by the wiretap, 2) the type of communication, 3) the identity of the people or places targeted, 4) the period of validity (60 days from issue).<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freelegalhelp.ca/evidence.html |title=Rules of Evidence |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170207020150/http://www.freelegalhelp.ca/evidence.html |archive-date=2017-02-07}}</ref>

===India===
In India, the lawful interception of communication by authorized law enforcement agencies (LEAs) is carried out in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007. Directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall not be issued except by an order made by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of Government of India and by the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department in the case of a state government.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Acts & Rules |url=http://dot.gov.in/act-rules/act-rules-content/act-rules-content/act-rules-content/act-rules-content/2423 |access-date=2016-03-06 |website=Department of Telecommunications |publisher=Government of India Ministry of Communications}}</ref> The government has set up the [[Centralized Monitoring System]] (CMS) to automate the process of lawful interception and monitoring of telecommunications technology. The government of India on 2015 December 2 in a reply to parliament question no. 595 on scope, objectives and framework of the CMS has struck a balance between national security, online privacy and free speech informed that to take care of the privacy of citizens, lawful interception and monitoring is governed by the Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007 wherein oversight mechanism exists in form of review committee under chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary at Central Government level and Chief Secretary of the State at the state government level.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.loksabha.nic.in |title=Parliament of India, Lok Sabha |access-date=2016-03-06}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://gangothri.org/?q=node/7 |title=Telephone Tapping in India : Legal Provisions |date=2013-04-11 |website=Gangothri.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430215325/http://gangothri.org/?q=node/7 |archive-date=2015-04-30 |access-date=2018-01-20}}</ref> Section 5(2) also allows the government to intercept messages that are public emergencies or for public safety.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Arun|first=P.|date=2017|title=Surveillance and democracy in India: Analysing challenges to constitutionalism and rule of law|journal=Journal of Public Affairs and Change|volume=1|pages=47–59|via=jpac.in}}</ref>

===Pakistan===
In Pakistan, [[Inter-Services Intelligence]] (ISI) is authorised by the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication to intercept and trace telecommunications, as stipulated under Section 54 of the relevant Act, in July 2024.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1844810|title=Govt formally authorises ISI to 'trace, intercept' calls and messages in 'interest of national security'|first=Shakeel|last=Qarar|date=July 9, 2024|website=DAWN.COM}}</ref> Under the authorization, ISI officers of at least grade 18, subject to periodic designation, are empowered to surveil calls and messages.<ref name="auto"/>