Hi there, we use cookies in order to provide you with the best user experience and to collect visitor statistics. By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies. Read more about cookies

Our market sites

Our market sites

Jul 9, 2014 1:05 PM CET

Thoughts on reporting statistics for legal interception and CDR

From Vodafone’s newly published transparency report:

“Finally, we would emphasise that it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from a comparison of one country’s statistical information with that disclosed for another. Similar types and volumes of agency and authority demands will be disclosed (where public reporting is permitted at all) in radically different ways from one country to the next, depending on the methodology used. Similarly, changes in law, technology or agency or authority practice over time may make year-on-year trend data comparisons difficult in future reports.” Sustainability Report, Vodafone Group Plc 2013/14.

I fully agree with Vodafone regarding statistics. The Ruggie framework addresses states responsibilities very clearly. Companies will never have full access hence cannot, and should not, provide details or reports unless the methods, completeness, definitions and robustness in data can be properly secured, assured or verified. This will never be the case in so called “SORM”-countries, for example. Without adequate level of quality in the used criteria (compare with GRI criteria: accuracy, timeline, completeness etc.) the figures will be more or less useless.