The right to privacy is not absolute. At times governments will need to protect the interests of its citizens and to do so may gather intelligence to assist with the detection, investigation and prosecution of crime, as well as for national security.120 Personal information may also be collected about individuals for research and policy purposes. In such cases limits may be placed on the right to privacy. Unlike other provisions of the ICCPR, the right to privacy does not explicitly set out what limits are permissible.121 However, authoritative international sources have established principles against which rights limiting measures can be assessed. These are the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality.122 Any rightslimiting measure that does not accord with these principles is likely to be unlawful or arbitrary and in breach of Article 17 of the ICCPR. Personal information may also be collected about individuals for research and policy purposes. In such cases limits may be placed on the right to privacy. 120 Report of Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy (19 October 2017) para 7. 121 Note that the European Convention on Human Rights right to privacy under section 8 provides for the permissible limitations on the right at section 8 (2): it must be in accordance with the law, necessary in pursuit of a legitimate and, and proportionate. 122 OHCHR Report, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, para 22, (“Guidance on the meaning of the qualifying words “arbitrary or unlawful” nonetheless can be drawn from the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the practice of the Human Rights Committee as reflected in its general comments, including Nos. 16, 27, 29, 34, and 31, findings on individual communications and concluding observations, regional and national case law; and the views of independent experts.”). 3.1 Legality The UNHRC has explained that “unlawful interference” with the right to privacy means that no interference can take place unless it is envisaged by the law.123 This means that States are required to have in place legislation that specifies in detail the precise circumstances in which interferences with the right to privacy may be permitted.124 The law must be publicly accessible, clear and precise,125 and individuals must be put on notice and foresee the application of the law that limits their right to privacy.126 3.2 Necessity The principle of necessity requires that any interference with the right to privacy must be limited to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and the lest intrusive option available.127 3.3 Proportionality Any measures that intrude on the right to privacy must be proportionate to the objective. This involves a balancing exercise of the benefit sought to be achieved against the harm that would be caused to the individual’s rights and to other competing interests.128 3.4 Principles in New Zealand Law and Policy New Zealand legislation and policy instruments broadly reflect the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. For example, the information privacy principles set out in the Privacy Act 1993 123 UNHRC, General Comment No. 16 (right to privacy), para 3 124 Ibid, para 8 125 UNHRC, General Comment No. 16 (right to privacy), paras 3, 8; OHCHR Report, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, para 23; GA Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (18 December 2014); Report of Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank La Rue (17 April 2013) para 83, Report of SR countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin (23 September 2014) paras 35-36; Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom expression, (11 May 2016) para 85, Human Rights Council Resolution, Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/HRC/RES/35/34 (23 June 2017) repeating wording of A/HRC/RES/29/9; SR on countering terrorism (2 July 2016); Special Rapporteur on countering terrorism, (11 August 2017). 126 Weber and Saravia v. Germany, App. No. 54934/00, European Court of Human Rights, Decision on Admissibility (29 June 2006). 127 Report of the SR on countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin (23 September 2014) para 51; OHCHR Report, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, para 23. 128 bid. 26