States shall only engage in targeted communication surveillance that is authorised by law, that conforms with international human rights law and standards, and that is premised on specific and reasonable suspicion that a serious crime has been or is being carried out or for any other legitimate aim. (Principle 41, The Declaration) This declaration makes it explicitly clear that indiscriminate surveillance, untargeted surveillance, collection analysis and sharing of a person’s communication is illegal. In addition to this, states are encouraged to ensure that domestic legislation on surveillance comprehensively safeguard the right to privacy. Amongst the internationally accepted standard safeguards are limitation on targeted surveillance imposed by a judicial authority, specific time limitations on surveillance, well-defined scope of surveillance and user notification. An important safeguard to recognise is the right to privacy. Both international and regional declarations impose a responsibility to other rights associated with privacy, for instance, the right to anonymity. Even the African Union declaration recognises these rights recognises that there is need to put in place some standard safeguards that fence off individual privacy form the prying eyes of surveillance forces and institutions. To make the safeguards functional and effective, they should be built in the constitutional arrangement of every country. For example, the requirement for judicial authorisation, just and appropriate, time-framed surveillance should be creatures of the legislation. This is meant to promote both accountability and transparency in the architecture of the surveillance system. Even though the AU declaration is a positive and forward -looking document, many countries have not yet ratified the document. Others have drifted into draconian legislative practices that curtail the very freedoms the declarations are meant to protect. Perhaps we must briefly flesh out the principles that govern transparent practices of digital surveillance. There are two very important such principles the necessary and proportionate principles. THE NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONATE PRINCIPLES In addition to the intra-national and regional legal instruments have explored above, there is also the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (generally referred to as ‘The Principles’). In 2013, hundreds of CSOs, agreed to adopt these principles as the threat of surveillance escalated and the respect for human rights lagged behind in some countries. Leading these efforts were organisations were Privacy International (PI), the Open Rights Group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Association of Progressive Communications (APC). The principles promulgated about 14 key practices that would lead to the observation of human rights. At the same time, they would lead to respect for other individual rights associated with human rights. They emphasised the centrality of judicial authorisation in surveillance. However, the emphasis was also on a competent judiciary, and, thus, not just a judiciary. Furthermore, important aspects of surveillance featured heavily in the principles. For instance, an emphasis on legitimate aims of the practice, legality, proportionality and the importance of user notification. There has been a broad acceptance that these principles represent what can ultimately morph up to be a global standard for surveillance practices. Suffice to mention that they have not been without criticism. Chief amongst these criticisms being that the principles represent the ideological, political and economic interests of the funders. Regardless of these criticisms, these principles represent a very positive, internationally accepted starting point on which surveillance practices at local levels can be anchored. Page 8 A SURVIVAL TOOLKIT FOR JOURNALISTS