A/HRC/41/35 on granting licences for the export of surveillance technologies, until there is convincing evidence that the use of these technologies can be technically restricted to lawful purposes that are consistent with human rights standards, or that these technologies will only be exported to countries in which their use is subject to authorization – granted in accordance with due process and the standards of legality, necessity and legitimacy – by an independent and impartial judicial body. For now, however, the mounting evidence that privately developed surveillance tools are being used for manifestly illegitimate purposes offers a strong case for a moratorium on these transfers. B. Obligations of Governments as users of surveillance technologies 1. Reinforce national laws limiting surveillance in accordance with the obligations of international human rights law 50. As a primary step, Governments deploying surveillance tools must ensure that they do so in accordance with a domestic legal framework that meets the standards required by international human rights law. Surveillance should only be authorized in law for the most serious criminal offences. To be compliant with those standards, national laws must: (a) Emphasize that everyone enjoys the right not to be subjected to unlawful or arbitrary interference with his or her privacy and the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas regardless of frontiers and through any media; (b) Require that any legislation governing surveillance be contained in precise and publicly accessible laws and only be applied when necessary and proportionate to achieve one of the legitimate objectives enumerated in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (c) Ensure that a surveillance operation be approved for use against a specific person only in accordance with international human rights law and when authorized by a competent, independent and impartial judicial body, with all appropriate limitations on time, manner, place and scope of the surveillance; (d) Require, given the extreme risks of abuse associated with targeted surveillance technologies, that authorized uses be subjected to detailed record-keeping requirements. Surveillance requests should only be permitted in accordance with regular, documented legal processes and the issuance of warrants for such use. Surveillance subjects should be notified of the decision to authorize their surveillance as soon as such a notification would not seriously jeopardize the purpose of the surveillance. 65 51. It is common for States to impose a high burden of proof on criminal investigations seeking access to the work of journalists (A/70/361, para. 24). Surveillance technologies are often used to target those who play significant roles in promoting democratic values. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that some States may believe that there are situations in which, for instance, journalists use the cover of their profession to engage in serious criminal offences. In his experience, these claims are almost always false or overstated. Too often, Governments use these sorts of claims to undermine journalism and dissenting voices or to target journalists for surveillance even when they are not the target of a legitimate criminal investigation, causing a disproportionate impact on the free press. In this context, the law’s default position should be to prohibit the use of digital surveillance tools against individuals in the media. Of course, this does not provide journalists with immunity from other forms of legitimate legal process, including non-digital surveillance. It is simply that, in the context of the intrusive technologies of digital surveillance, the possibility of abuse or “leakage” from a legitimate criminal investigation into areas involving other journalistic work is very real and difficult, if not impossible, to contain. Its very possibility would likely serve to deter journalists from working on the most sensitive sorts of topics, not to mention the willingness of sources and whistle-blowers to come forward. 65 See “Necessary and proportionate: International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” (May 2014). 15