Sonera trial: systems expert says company did not give instruction on legal implications of use of telephone records

print this

A witness at the ongoing trial involving allegations of illegal tracing of mobile telephone calls by top managers and security personnel of the telecommunications service provider Sonera says that the company began to give training on the use of telephone records only after police investigations into the snooping scandal began.
      The witness, a systems expert responsible for the company’s mobile telephone records, said that initially he was not given any instructions on the legal limitations to the use of call information.
      The witness had access to the telephone records of all Sonera mobile customers. The records are kept for two years and one month after each call is made.
     
Sonera’s organisation was in such a state of transition at the time that the witness could not recall the names of all of his bosses.
      "The organisation was like an amoeba. It changed four times a year", the witness described.
      At Tuesday’s session of the trial it was revealed that the information needed for the electronic snooping came from the use of the Customer Behaviour Analysis (CBA) system, which is a database established in 1997 for the purpose of generating information for the needs of customer service and marketing.
      Maintenance of the system was the task of a group who officially should have nothing to do with information concerning individual phone calls. Data from the CBA system is primarily intended for the bulk analysis of telephone behaviour.
     
The witness said that he used the same computer programme to find the call information that is used by a separate team which implements court orders authorising the company to provide call information to police.
      However, for some reason the security department of Sonera asked for the information from the CBA team.
      "I had no reason to question the legality of the requests for telecommunications information, because they came from the security unit", the witness said, explaining why he provided the information no questions asked.
      His suspicions were aroused in early 2001 when the requests became more frequent, and were written on separate small sheets of paper. He asked the lawyer of Sonera Mobile Communications for his view on the subject, but he was nevertheless reluctant to give an answer.
      "It seemed that the Sonera lawyers could not have cared less".
      The answer was slow in coming, but it was clear: information on the telephone records should not have been given out.
     
Sonera lawyers sought to show that the witness would not have had to get any training: the systems expert was simply carrying out requests made by others.
      According to Sonera, training concerning legislation is extensive in other respects. Sonera legal expert Maire Laitinen said that much training was arranged on the protection of privacy in telecommunications when the new law on the matter came into effect in 1999.
      She said that at least the head of the company’s security department was aware of the implications.
      "The unambiguous interpretation of the legal department was that telephone records must not be used in investigations related to corporate security", said Laitinen, who was one of those whose calls were traced during the internal investigation.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Sonera trial: Relander admits knowledge of snooping, says he thought it was legal (4.3.2005)
  Relander defence: Sonera internal security investigation legal (3.3.2005)
  Sonera defendants deny deliberate violation of telecommunications privacy (8.2.2005)

Helsingin Sanomat