Taro called unfounded the criticism, from sworn advocate Paul Keres, on the "significance" of privacy violations.

At present, it is for the investigator to assess when interference is 'significant,' and in the case of any significant interference, the individual must be informed. A court grants permission for surveillance. It has a specific purpose, and the investigator may conduct surveillance only for the purpose specified in the warrant," Taro said.

"There may be people who happen to be picked up in some recordings – the circle of such people may, by chance, be quite broad. Nobody knows in advance who the subject of interest might speak with. For this reason there is a clause that, in cases of significant interference, the individual must be informed," Taro went on. "But there also has to be a certain reservation – this notification must not become a separate process that hampers the investigation or makes it excessively cumbersome."

On ERR's question of how the interior ministry might assess the significance of the interference without having conducted supervision, Taro said this "stems from one person's subjective opinions, even though it concerns a lawyer," adding that a ministerial response is never the work of one individual official but "is analyzed within a broader circle of experts, including legal experts."

Right now, the legal framework is such that the investigator has to assess the significance themselves," he added.

Taro stressed that supervision must not be misused as a tactic in legal disputes, saying it should instead follow proper legal channels and not be turned into "a component of an ongoing court case" or resolved "via the media."

As to Keres's denial that his petition for oversight for the ISS relates solely to one court case and his client, businessman Parvel Pruunsild, Taro said: "He has an ongoing court case with a specific client, and he even used that case as an example. It simply isn't realistic to claim there's no connection."

Ain Seppik, a former interior minister, rejects Taro and his ministry's stance, however, saying the request to initiate supervision was undoubtedly justified.
"It is a general rule that people must be notified of surveillance – unfortunately, law enforcement agencies have lately been avoiding this more and more; they don't want to do it. In this case, a check should absolutely have been conducted," Seppik said.

Seppik pointed out that the ministry has not determined the extent of the violations.

Seppik said the minister wrongly "relinquished his supervisory role" by refusing to investigate, despite the need to determine if a "significant violation" occurred.

The former minister added his current successor was "shying away from any kind of supervision," failing a "legal duty" that could have prevented the police chiefs case.

Seppik further criticized the ministry for refusing to verify agency actions, calling its reasoning flawed and saying covert surveillance leaves people unable to file complaints.

Lawyer: Failure to inform public should be the exception, not the rule

Another prominent lawyer, Carri Ginter, sided with Seppik and said the problem ranged much further than just the actions of the ISS.

"We have a serious problem in society in that we don't know who is accessing our data. For example, who is viewing databases or listening to our phone calls," Ginter said.

"I have been a lawyer for 25 years now and I have been notified only once that I was involved in a phone call relating to a criminal case. I do not believe that in 25 years there have been so few instances of my phone calls being touched," Ginter added.

Ginter hasn't read the request submitted by Keres, but still sees the problem, noting that failing to notify individuals should be an exception, not the norm.
Ginter said proceedings are justified because the ministry hasn't assessed whether the violation was "significant or insignificant" and is merely "speculating" without investigation.

As to the interior ministry's response that people can always file a complaint about potential surveillance, Ginter called this "complete nonsense," noting, as had Keres, the difficulty of filing a complaint about something one is unaware of – in this case the access of their personal data.

"An ordinary person doesn't walk around thinking, 'every six months I should probably send a complaint to the state – please check who accessed my data.' That has no connection whatsoever to real life," Ginter added.

Early on this month, Keres requested supervisory proceedings against the ISS, known in Estonian as the Kapo, over undisclosed wiretaps, but the Ministry of the Interior refused, citing minimal privacy impact and the ongoing Pruunsild trial. Keres referred to this as "demagoguery," arguing the issue affects many beyond his client.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and X and never miss an update!