Mexico’s New Intelligence Law Sparks Privacy Debate

The Chamber of Deputies in Mexico has approved the National Research and Intelligence System Law for Public Security, following a debate lasting nearly 10 hours. This legislation centralizes information collection for identifying high-impact crimes, granting powers to the Ministry of Security and Citizen Protection (SSPC) to request data from public entities and, under judicial oversight, from private individuals.

During the vote, the opposition said the law "violates the right to privacy," arguing that it grants the government access to sensitive personal data without proper constitutional safeguards, reports Proceso. On the other hand, proponents argued that the approval of this law responds to the need to strengthen intelligence mechanisms for preventing and clarifying high-impact crimes, a strategic objective in public security policy. 

The proposed law aims to regulate Mexico’s intelligence policy, consolidating the powers of the SSPC and the National Intelligence Center. But it has generated an intense political and legal debate over the scope of powers granted to authorities. 

The National Research and Intelligence System Law

The law establishes that Public Security institutions at all levels of government — federal, state, and municipal — have the obligation to provide information to the SSPC. It argues that the provision of data is not an option, but a mandate for the “proper functioning of the system.” 

The range of information required is extremely broad and extends from vehicle data, such as car registrations and license plates, to biometric and telephone details that allow the identification of individuals and the analysis of communication networks. Also included are property records, both public and private, which are vital for investigating illicit assets or locating targets, as well as cadastral and tax data that can reveal financial patterns or irregularities. 

“Information on firearms, including those seized or confiscated, is fundamental to the fight against organized crime, while the histories of persons arrested and convicted can identify recidivism or criminal links,” reads the law. 

It also requires access to a wide range of sensitive information related to financial, banking, transportation, health, telecommunications, business, and commercial services, providing a comprehensive view of the activities of individuals or organizations to identify money flows, contact networks or behavioral patterns. In addition, maritime data relevant to security in coastal areas and maritime traffic is contemplated, as well as the list of persons providing private security services.

The legislation also extends this obligation of collaboration to private individuals who possess relevant information. This means that private entities with databases or records that may be crucial for the investigation or prevention of crimes must cooperate with the National System. However, this mandate comes with a safeguard: all collaboration and handling of sensitive information by private parties will always be under strict judicial supervision, aiming to guarantee respect for the rules of privacy, confidentiality, availability, integrity, and data protection. This provision seeks a balance between the need for access to information and the protection of individual rights.

One of the main controversies arose from the late introduction of two addenda, totaling 368 and 116 pages respectively, which modified the original opinions approved in March, reports La Jornada. The opposition argues that it was unfeasible to review and understand these extensive modifications in so few hours, which generated accusations of opacity and lack of transparency in the legislative process.

Opposition parties also express serious concern about the implications of the law on the fundamental rights of citizens. PAN Deputy José Rubalcaba said that the law represents a "direct threat to the privacy of citizens" by granting potentially excessive access to data such as geolocation, biometric information, bank accounts, and even telephone conversations. Rubalcaba says that this measure is unconstitutional, contravening the principle that protects people from being disturbed in their person, family, domicile, papers or possessions without a court order, reports Proceso.

PRI Deputy Emilio Lara says that the reform "sacrifices the right to privacy" under the promise of recovering peace and security. Lara describes the law as an instrument of "massive surveillance," which violates articles 6 and 16 of the Constitution, favoring an "absolute control" without due judicial filters, controls, or transparency mechanisms, reports Proceso.