"Santa Garancea, head of the Latvian Tax Assistance Authority (VID), detailed on TV24 the methods and reasons behind acquiring citizens' phone access"

"Santa Garancea, head of the Latvian Tax Assistance Authority (VID), detailed on TV24 the methods and reasons behind acquiring citizens' phone access"

In a move that has raised eyebrows, Latvia's Tax Assistance Authority (VID) has been reported to have a tool for accessing citizens' phones, officially referred to as a tax control tool. The tool, which is only employed when the amount involved is significant, has been the subject of intense scrutiny due to its potential infringement on privacy rights.

The implementation of this mass phone surveillance would need to conform to Latvia’s legal framework on privacy, which includes the Personal Data Processing Law and compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These laws provide a robust framework protecting the right to privacy and the protection from unauthorized interference with personal data and communications.

Under the GDPR, mass phone surveillance typically constitutes interception and processing of personal communication data, which requires a clear legal basis such as a court order or other statutory authority. The processing must respect principles of necessity and proportionality and safeguard individuals’ rights to privacy. Unauthorized or excessively broad surveillance may breach these laws and lead to legal challenges or sanctions.

Despite these concerns, the official in charge has not sought to address the potential infringement on privacy rights with the tax control tool. The official's behavior and words have raised concerns about the transparency and accountability of the Latvian government.

The official's response to questions about the tax control tool has been dismissive and confrontational. Despite this, the official has attempted to reassure the public by focusing the conversation on the economic feasibility of the tool rather than the fact of surveillance. However, the lack of external oversight or public criteria for the use of the tax control tool in Latvia has added to the unease.

Moreover, the use of the tool potentially infringes on the right to privacy, including protection from unauthorized interference (surveillance, wiretapping, data collection) and the confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations, and emails, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), article 12, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) article 17.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), which Latvia has ratified, also enshrines these rights. Yet, the official did not address the violation of these fundamental human rights in relation to the tax control tool.

It is crucial to note that privacy is considered to have disappeared as a phenomenon in the Baltic States, including Latvia. This raises questions about the democratic nature of Latvia, particularly when the use of such a tool is presented as a matter of economic expediency rather than a necessary measure for national security.

In summary, the use of the tax control tool by VID is only in line with the right to privacy in Latvia if it fully complies with GDPR principles and Latvia’s Personal Data Processing Law, including safeguards against unauthorized interference. Without strict adherence to these legal safeguards, such surveillance risks violating Latvia’s and the EU’s privacy protections.

As of now, there is no evidence to suggest that VID’s surveillance practices are explicitly authorized or have been legally challenged. The precise compliance of the tool's use would depend on the specifics of how the surveillance is conducted and regulated. It is a matter of public interest that these details are clarified to ensure the protection of citizens' privacy rights.

1. The lack of acknowledgement from the official in charge regarding the potential infringement on citizens' privacy rights, as seen with the use of the tax control tool, raises significant questions about the transparency and accountability within Latvia's government, particularly concerning the protection of education-and-self-development, lifestyle, and general-news related to personal data and communications.
2. When assessing the use of the tax control tool, it's essential to consider that privacy protections, such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, are crucial in business and technology-focused societies, as they safeguard fundamental rights such as protection from unauthorized interference and the confidentiality of personal communications.
3. As a nation that highly values finance and business, Latvia must ensure that the use of surveillance tools like the tax control tool adheres to the principles of necessity and proportionality, complying with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Latvia’s Personal Data Processing Law to maintain the trust of its citizens and uphold the democratic nature of its government.

Read also: