Madise said files are required for lawmakers with security clearance to determine whether any covert surveillance against them was lawful. The explanation follows suspicions on Toompea after MP Tõnis Mölder discovered the Estonian Internal Security Service analyzed communications of multiple politicians while monitoring his data.

According to Madise, security clearance requirements might currently apply to too many people in Estonia, which wastes resources for the ISS and foreign intelligence. She suggested a simpler background check might suffice instead. However, a file must exist for those with access to state secrets to ensure proper oversight of covert operations. These files typically concern lawmakers on the National Defense Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, or the parliamentary oversight committee of the security agencies.

Covert surveillance should be used as last resort

The Chancellor of Justice conducts oversight when individuals lodge complaints about suspected unlawful surveillance. Madise praised the cooperation of the ISS, the Central Criminal Police, and the Prosecutor's Office during these checks. While most cases were substantively correct, Madise noted a few instances during her term where officials failed to treat covert surveillance as a last resort requiring proper justification and judicial review.

There have also been a few cases where criminal proceedings followed against such an official, although such cases have been few, she added.

Responding to Constitutional Committee chair Ando Kiviberg, who claimed Estonia is moving toward a police state, Madise partly agreed and stressed that society must resist mass surveillance.

"This must be explained constantly — that we must not move in that direction. The coercive power of the state must not be used to collect too much data; it must not be aggregated; artificial intelligence must not be used to search for signs that a person might have thought something wrong, taken a wrong step, or acted wrongly. Otherwise people would have to start proving that they are not criminals," Madise said.

"You also hear this, for example, from tech specialists — after all, the technology allows it. Why not design a system where all taxes are always paid, there is no cash economy; why not connect all cameras across the country, both public and private, so that AI continuously analyzes and perhaps even predicts who might commit wrongdoing. That is a preventive state where even the risk of danger does not arise. But Estonia's Constitution does not support this. There is a desire in society for this, and from time to time steps are taken in that direction, and in my view these must be discussed and, if necessary, restrained," the Chancellor of Justice added.

Madise said she knows that, for example, the current legal requirement for telecom companies to retain communications data is planned to be abolished under a new bill.

"I have already seen a working draft of that bill. The possibility will remain to use data collected for commercial purposes to uncover terrorist networks and to detect and prevent serious crimes and serious misdemeanors. Some additional safeguards will also be introduced," she said.

"Vague provisions" should be removed from laws

Asked how it has come about that many people have doubts about whether forces operating under the label of a rule-of-law state in Estonia actually respect rule-of-law principles, Madise said one reason is the emergence of so‑called "vague provisions" in the Penal Code, particularly relating to trading in influence and violations of conflict-of-interest restrictions.

"All of this was done with the best intentions — to make everything objective, transparent, understandable, maximally honest, and fully rule-based. But what was forgotten is that substance must always come first. We must expect people to understand that their job is not merely to follow rules and try to make everything measurable and rigid and fit into boxes, but that public officials' goal must be to make the best decisions for Estonia," Madise said.

"These vague provisions are such that a person can end up in the dock even if they had no bad intent, did nothing harmful, harmed no one, and gained no personal benefit — they simply violated some rules. And now they face prosecution," the Chancellor of Justice added.

--

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