It bothers me that in all of the noise and panic by government officials regarding their lack of control over the escalating crime situation in Antigua and Barbuda that they are willing to throw caution to the wind. They appear willing to do anything necessary, even if it violates the natural course of justice, to regain control.

This is concerning.

I do not think that cracking down on crime automatically equates to the suspension of constitutional freedoms and rights. It is the recognition and skillful navigation of these apparently conflicting realities that characterizes the difference between a Banana Republic and a Free Society.

I would like to think that we are the latter.

The sheer panic being expressed is conveying a willingness to beat crime even if it requires the suspension of the rule of law and the constitutional constraints guaranteed for ordinary citizens.

What are the rules of engagement? Do you shoot to kill if you have a mere suspicion?

In a recent article from Antigua News Room, I read that an Assistant Commissioner of the Police is giving the impression that certain telecom service providers are deliberately stalling the police’s investigations by not supplying information they need or not responding in a timely manner.

There was nothing said in the story of whether the police issued warrants for the information they requested.

The story went on to state that the police are particularly frustrated when they do not get the telecom providers to cooperate on “information from seized cellular phones”. The government’s response to this is to threaten the telecom providers with $50,000 fines.

On one hand, I am very sympathetic with the efforts of the police while on the other hand, I do not think that the police, acting on their own, should be given unrestrained powers to violate a citizen’s privacy, unless they can prove they have justifiable reasons so to do.

That authority should come from a magistrate or judge who would examine the evidence presented by the police before granting them permission to request that information from the telecom providers.

First of all, I do not believe that anyone, including the police or even a minister of government should be given automatic access to any citizen’s call records WITHOUT A VALID WARRANT or consent from the person under investigation.

Without a warrant, this request would be in violation of an individual’s right to privacy.

These rights are protections guaranteed by our constitution to prevent the government or the police from unlawful overreach. We are all no stranger to stories where police officers and ministers of government have abused their authority.

I am not going to play naive by ignoring the fact that police officers and public officials have used privileged information for nefarious purposes, with impunity. It was not long ago when a minister of government was openly commenting on the state of the bank account of private citizens.

Exactly what the police is requesting is not very clear.

For example, these telecom providers can only provide the metadata for their subscribers. There are no voice recordings to release. The telecom providers can tell you when a call was made; to whom it was made; and for how long the call lasted. And not much more!

Unlocking of phones/mobile devices is not within the purview of the telecom providers. The government will have to get a specialist to do this. Telecom providers do not have full control over the devices. If the police need help with reading data off of locked devices, they may have to contact Apple or Google.

If we can rely on the Assistant Commissioner’s complaint, then I find it highly commendable that the telecom providers are withholding this information. I suspect that the telecom providers are probably seeking legal advice on their exposure to possible liability. I suspect that the requests are being made without a warrant. A warrant would normally absolve the telecom provider of any liability.

Maybe I am completely wrong but the fact that there was no mention of warrants makes me feel that this might be part of the problem with telecom providers’ compliance.

Most people do not understand that the purpose of a written constitution is to limit the reach of government over private citizens. This is why the leadership of the government has to swear an oath to uphold the constitution. They have to promise that they will not abuse the people.

As a private citizen, if my neighbour called my boss and maligned me and I have good reason to believe so, I do not have the right to ring up the telecom provider and ask whether my neighbour called my boss’ telephone and expect the telecom provider to oblige me.

The same should be true for the police officer or government minister. Having to include a judge in the process is the means by which ordinary people are protected from the possible abuse by the police or the government.

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: OPINION: What Are Telecom Providers' Obligations In Crime Fighting?.