Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the intersection of voiceprint recognition technology and lawful interception mechanisms within forensic linguistics, offering a comparative legal analysis across France, Germany, and Canada. It situates voiceprints (forensic speaker identification) as a growing form of evidence in criminal investigations and trials, and scrutinises how interception laws and surveillance policies in different jurisdictions facilitate or constrain the use of such evidence. The study integrates legal frameworks, actual cases, and empirical data to evaluate the admissibility of voice identification evidence and the balance between effective law enforcement and individual rights. In France, for example, thousands of judicially authorised wiretaps are conducted annually under judicial supervision, and yet a notorious miscarriage of justice (the Prieto case) raised concerns over the reliability of forensic voice evidence. Germany’s strong constitutional privacy protections (Article 10 of the <i>Grundgesetz</i>) coexist with extensive telecommunications surveillance operations and the routine use of forensic phonetics by police experts. Canada’s <i>Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> demands strict judicial oversight for interception, resulting in relatively few wiretap authorisations, and its courts have grappled with the admissibility of novel voice identification techniques under common law evidence standards. Across these jurisdictions, the article explores how courts have ruled on voiceprint evidence, the statutory and constitutional safeguards in place, and the impact of international norms such as the EU’s GDPR and the ICCPR on privacy and human rights. Ethical implications—including data protection, consent, and the potential for bias or error in voice recognition—are analysed in light of both technological advances and legal developments. The article provides a clarified theoretical framing (treating voice evidence as a semiotic bridge between spoken language and legal proof), defines key terms (such as “voiceprint” and “interception”), and reinforces its claims with case examples and supplementary data. It concludes with recommendations for future interdisciplinary research and law reform, advocating for clearer admissibility standards, improved forensic methodologies, and policies that reconcile security imperatives with the protection of privacy and fundamental rights.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Intercepting Voices: Voiceprint Recognition, Lawful Interception and Forensic Linguistics in Comparative Perspective

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月8日

查看全文
  • Djemai Mahmoud Boulaares,
  • Mokhtar Boulaares

摘要

This article examines the intersection of voiceprint recognition technology and lawful interception mechanisms within forensic linguistics, offering a comparative legal analysis across France, Germany, and Canada. It situates voiceprints (forensic speaker identification) as a growing form of evidence in criminal investigations and trials, and scrutinises how interception laws and surveillance policies in different jurisdictions facilitate or constrain the use of such evidence. The study integrates legal frameworks, actual cases, and empirical data to evaluate the admissibility of voice identification evidence and the balance between effective law enforcement and individual rights. In France, for example, thousands of judicially authorised wiretaps are conducted annually under judicial supervision, and yet a notorious miscarriage of justice (the Prieto case) raised concerns over the reliability of forensic voice evidence. Germany’s strong constitutional privacy protections (Article 10 of the Grundgesetz) coexist with extensive telecommunications surveillance operations and the routine use of forensic phonetics by police experts. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands strict judicial oversight for interception, resulting in relatively few wiretap authorisations, and its courts have grappled with the admissibility of novel voice identification techniques under common law evidence standards. Across these jurisdictions, the article explores how courts have ruled on voiceprint evidence, the statutory and constitutional safeguards in place, and the impact of international norms such as the EU’s GDPR and the ICCPR on privacy and human rights. Ethical implications—including data protection, consent, and the potential for bias or error in voice recognition—are analysed in light of both technological advances and legal developments. The article provides a clarified theoretical framing (treating voice evidence as a semiotic bridge between spoken language and legal proof), defines key terms (such as “voiceprint” and “interception”), and reinforces its claims with case examples and supplementary data. It concludes with recommendations for future interdisciplinary research and law reform, advocating for clearer admissibility standards, improved forensic methodologies, and policies that reconcile security imperatives with the protection of privacy and fundamental rights.