| "In accordance with law" | Standards for real-time intercept spelled out in Telecom (Interception and Access) Act. Computer access regulated under ASIO Act, § 25A. | Standards set forth in Brazilian Federal Act 9296 / 1996 | Standards spelled out in Crim. Code § 184. | Vague access standards grant substantial authority. | Standards set forth in Loi 91-646 of July 10, 1991. | Standards spelled out in BDSG & Crim. Code §§ 100a et seq. | Vague standards allow widespread access. | Standards spelled out in Wiretap Act and Comm. Data Act. | Standards set forth in Articles 266-271 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Standards spelled out in Communications Interception Act | The Protection of Communications Secrets Act and Criminal Procedures Act set broad standards | Standards spelled out in RIPA and Police and Criminal Procedure Act. | Standards provided by the Wiretap Act and ECPA. |
| Court order required | Yes | Yes | Yes; emergency exception. Crim. Code § 186. | No | Yes | Yes. Required by Basic Law, Art. 10, Crim Code. | No | Yes, warrant from senior judge required. | Yes, authorization from judicial authorities required. | Warrant Required | Yes | No | Yes. |
| Approval of senior official required | No. Telecom. Act § 39. | No | Yes; signature of Attorney-General. Crim. Code § 185(1). | No | No | No | Senior police officer may issue an order to produce. Crim. Proc. § 91. | No | No | Only public prosecutors and senior police may seek a warrant. | No | Warrant from the Secretary of State required; emergency exception. RIPA § 7. | Authorization from Attorney General or designee required to apply for warrant. 18 USC § 2516. |
| Limited to serious crimes | Yes. Telecom. Act § 46. | Wiretapping is not permitted for crimes that are only punishable by “detention,” rather than full imprisonment | No | No | Wiretapping only permitted for In criminal and misdemeanor crimes, punishable by at least two years in prison. Cloning and keystroke monitoring is only permitted for organized crime investigations. | Limited to substantial criminal offenses. Crim. Code §§ 100a(2), 100g(2). | Information may be used for any broad or generic purpose. | No | Electronic interceptions must related to investigations of serious offenses (offenses listed in Art. 266 of the Data Protection Code or those with a minimum five year sentence) | Limited to drug trafficking, illicit firearms trade, organized murder, and the smuggling of illegal immigrants. | Wiretapping limited to serious crimes pursuant to Protection of Communications Secrets Act; not limited for the issuance of warrants for digital data pursuant to the Criminal Procedures Act. | Limited to “preventing or detecting serious crime;” crime undefined. RIPA § 5. | Limited to long list of predicate crimes. 18 USC § 2516. |
| Particularity as to target | Yes. | Individual targeted must be suspected of criminal activity. | Satisfied by warrant requirement. Crim. Code § 185(1)(e). | None | Required | Required. Crim. Code §§ 100a(3). | None. Info. Tech. Act § 69(1). | The person or device must be specified, if known in advance. | Individual targeted must be suspected of criminal activity. | Satisfied by warrant requirement. Comm. Interception Act, art. 6. | Required for issuance of a wiretapping warrant pursuant to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. | Yes. RIPA § 8. | Yes; roving wiretaps allowed. 18 USC § 2518; 50 USC §1805(c)(2)(b). |
| Showing of suspicion required | Unclear | There must be reasonable suspicion that the crime has been committed by the person investigated | Reasonable grounds to believe [the interception] may assist the investigation of the offence. Crim. Code § 185(1)(e). | None | Yes | Must be “necessary” for an investigation supported by “determinate facts”. | “Necessary or expedient … for investigation of any offence.” Info. Tech. Act § 69(1). | Necessary to prevent or detect offenses. Wiretap Act § 6(a). | Yes | “Sufficient suspicion that a communication involving [a serious crime] ... is about to take place." Comm. Interception Act, art. 3. | Required for issuance of a wiretapping warrant pursuant to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. Not required for the issuance of warrants for digital data pursuant to the Criminal Procedures Act. | “Secretary must be convinced that the warrant is necessary …[for] preventing or detecting serious crime and that the conduct authorized is proportionate.” RIPA § 5(2)-(3). | Probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. 18 USC § 2518(3)(a). |
| Exhaustion of less intrusive means | No other practicable methods exist. Telecom. Act § 46A(3)(a). | Required | Required. Crim. Code § 185(1)(h). | Not Required | Not required | Allowed only if other means would be much more difficult or offer no prospect of success. Crim. Code §100a(1)(3). | Not Required | Not Required | Surveillance must be essential for the continuation of an investigation. | Required. Comm. Interception Act, art. 3. | Required for issuance of a wiretapping warrant pursuant to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. Not required for the issuance of warrants for digital data pursuant to the Criminal Procedures Act. | Ability to obtain information by other means is merely a factor in granting the warrant. RIPA § 5(4). | Allowed if normal investigative procedures reasonably appear unlikely to succeed or too dangerous. 18 USC § 2518 (3)(c). |
| Limit on duration | 45-90 days. Telecom. Act § 49(3). | Eavesdropping may last for 15 days; the term may be renewed. A total maximum time limit has not been established. | Limited to 60 days; renewal up to 3 years. Crim. Code §§ 185(3), 186(4)(e) | None | Four months, with an option for renewal. | Limited to 3 months; infinite renewals. Crim. Code §100b(1). | None | Limited to 3 weeks, infinite renewals. Wiretap Act § 6(c). | Fifteen days, with an unlimited extension option by a judge. | Limited to 10 days, renewals up to 30 days. Comm. Interception Act, art. 5, 7. | The maximum period for wiretapping is three months, with potential for an additional three month extension (Article 6 of the Communication Secrecy Protection Act) | Limited to 3 months; infinite renewals. RIPA § 9(6)(c). | 30 days; subject to renewal. |
| Limit on scope (minimization of irrelevant data required) | No | No | Limited to info directly related to a gov’t program. Privacy Act § 4. | Non-targeted data is explicitly collected. | None | Records of core area of private life shall be immediately deleted. Crim. Code §100a(4). | None | None | Confidential information (eg conversations with lawyers, doctors, or religious ministers) must be destroyed. | Irrelevant data must be deleted. Comm. Interception Act, art. 22. | None | None | Yes |
| Limit on use and disclosure | None | Generally no. Sharing Information may be shared between the members of the Brazilian Intelligence System . | Generally, but police exceptions. Privacy Act § 8(2)(e). | Inter-agency sharing is encouraged to increase data utilization. | None | Use must be necessary to the purpose for which the data were collected. BDSG §15(1). | None | None | Data may only be accessed and used by government entities “in order to discharge their institutional tasks” (Data Protection Code, Art. 18). | Communications not relating to felonies must be deleted. | None | Intercepted communications may not be used in legal proceedings. RIPA § 17. | Disclosure limited to “proper performance of … official duties.” 18 USC §2517(1). |
| Retention limit/limit on storage | When a record is not likely to be required it shall be destroyed. Telecom. Act § 150. | Information not used over the course of an investigation must be destroyed. | 2 years. Privacy Reg. § 4. | None | Records are destroyed once the time limit for relevant prosecution has expired. | Unclear if required 6 month deletion applies to police. | None | Yes | Traffic data is be retained by the provider for twenty-four months and electronic communications traffic data shall is retained for twelve months. (Data Protection Code, Art. 132). | Later of 5 years or the conclusion of criminal trial. Comm. Interception Act, art. 27. | Unclear | Intercepted communications must be destroyed when no longer necessary for an authorized purpose. RIPA § 15(3). | At least 10 years, unless ordered destroyed by a judge. 18 USC 2518 (8)(a). |
| Notice to target | No. | Unclear | Yes, within 90 days; extension up to 3 years. Crim. Code § 196. | No | No | Required. Crim. Code §101(4)(3). | No. | No | No | Required within 30 days after the end of the surveillance. Comm. Interception Act, art. 23, para. 2. | Yes; timeframe unclear (Protection of Communications Secrets Act) | No | Required within 90 days of termination of wiretap order. 18 USC § 2518(8)(d). |
| Oversight (protections against abuse) – judicial, executive, legislative | Reports to and by the minister. Telecom Act § 93-103A. | The National Counsel of Justice is tasked with overviewing judicial malpractices and improving the management of the Judiciary; this body has previously addressed wiretapping abuses. | Privacy Commissioner may investigate, audit. Minister of Public Safety annual report. | None | An authorizing judge must file a report on all wiretaps and communications monitoring. | Data Protection Authority; careful attention to privacy and surveillance issues by Constitutional Court. | None | Recent investigations by parliamentary committee and State Comptroller. | Storage is regulated by judicial authorities | Communications Interception Act requires annual disclosures of the number of interceptions. | The Ministry of Information and Communications operates a wiretap complaint center. | Intercept Communications Commissioner reports to Investigatory Powers Tribunal. RIPA §§ 57-70. | Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts annual report to Congress. Congressional oversight. 18 USC § 2519. |
| Redress (remedy) | Civil remedies, Telecom. Act § 107A, 165. Complaints in front of the Australia Privacy Commissioner. | Illegal wiretapping is punishable by a fine and two to four years detention. | Commission for Public Complaints has authority to review. | None | Target of a search may seek review by the Court of Cassation regarding legality and authorization; exclusionary rule applies. Liability for government officials unclear. | Exclusion of material and civil damages are both available. | None | Police are immunized from liability. | Complaints may be filed before the Data Protection Authority (Garande) or courts; the Garande is more typically used. | Suit requiring deletion of improperly obtained communications. Comm. Interception Act, art. 26. | Individuals may engage in civil suit for improper surveillance or release of information (Protection of Personal Data Act) | Investigatory Powers Tribunal may quash evidence, order deletion, or provide money damages. RIPA §§ 65 – 70. | Exclusion of evidence, civil damages. 18 USC § 2520. |
