EU citizens: What do you think about the data retention directive?

[Kekkonen]

On Tuesday the EU parliament will vote and accept that the police and intelligence agencies will get to know everything about you, me and them thru "data retention", EU law (that stands over national law) will thus get something in the same waters as the US' "Patriot Act", this combined with the new anti-terror laws in most countries will sure give the authorities effective tools to counter "bad elements" in the society, but at what cost?

http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/50/13/93/bigbroth445.jpg


The responsible Committee of the European Parlaiment is Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). The Committe votes on the Data Retention Directive;

The Directive suggests to retain for one year the following categories of data:

-data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication;
-data necessary to trace and identify the destination of a communication;
-data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication;
-data necessary to identify the type of communication;
-data necessary to identify the communication device;
-data necessary to identify the location of mobile communication equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention

Personally I think that the terrorist paranoia has gone too far and that the upcoming 1984-society isn't the solution (thus it's bad). But what do you think, good or bad?

[Taekwondo]

Innocent until proven guilty just changes into suspect until proven innocent. Do not worry citizen, go about your business as usual!

[Weasel]

In our legal system there used to be the principle of being innocent until proved guilty. Nowadays you have to prove to be innocent.
:bash:

[Weasel]

Innocent until proven guilty just changes into suspect until proven innocent. Do not worry citizen, go about your business as usual!

Wow, we both share our thoughts. :hug:

[signatory]

I would have liked to hear both the for and against arguments.

as I am still undecided and haven't read the final proposal by the EU.

[Kekkonen]

I would have liked to hear both the for and against arguments.

as I am still undecided and haven't read the final proposal by the EU.

Doesn't really matter what you and we think and like, it will pass in a couple of days and then we will have it. If I have understood it correctly it didn't pass in the parliament last month because the parliament only wants the data to be saved for a year while some member states (Sweden and Great Britain have been the main voices) wants to save it for two years, but other than that it's all in the document below;

http://www.edri.org/docs/EUcommissiondataretentionjuly2005.pdf


http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?cat=5

December 5th, 2005
Data Retention Directive gets Council green light
Data Retention, Legislation, Europe

On Friday the Council of Ministers of the European Union agreed the text for a Data Retention Directive. The Directive now goes to the European Parliament for First Reading: if it is now agreed there, as is likely if not entirely inevitable, that is essentially the conclusion of the process. Member States will now be pressing MEPs to nod the Directive through. That vote is scheduled to take place on 14th December.

It is difficult to assess the full implications as there is still considerable confusion and ambiguity within the text. Broadly speaking, however, if this text goes through then the UK government will have been successful in imposing sweeping data retention requirements, and will have avoided most of the safeguards proposed by industry.

Some of the key points include:
The data to be retained includes e-mail traffic data (To, From, Date etc), VoIP traffic data, and data relating to the assignment of an IP address when a user connects to the Internet. It does not include the contents of communications, nor (any more) web access or Internet chatrooms;
The retention period is between six and 24 months, at the option of each Member State;
There are no provisions for the reimbursement of costs incurred by industry in fulfilling its obligations under the Directive. There is a separate statement by the EU Commission that, in its opinion, if an individual Member State chooses to make such reimbursement that is not illegal State Aid;
Member States are given 18 months to implement the Directive with regard to telephony, 36 months with regard to Internet data;
The fast-track “comitology” procedure for expanding the data types to be retained has been deleted from the Directive;
The Commission is instructed to review the operation of the Directive within three years after the implementation deadline;

LINX, through EuroISPA, and other industry representatives have been lobbying strongly to ensure that there is no obligation on network providers to analyse content simply passing across their network, so as to record and retain traffic data contained in such communications. Unfortunately the Directive is so unclear that it is impossible to certain whether we have been successful in this regard.

The language in Article 1 is very unclear: the key phrase “generated or processed” has become “generated or processed by them“, which does little to clarify whether passing data across a network constitutes “processing” it (in the context of data protection law, it would). Article 3 contains language that suggest that perhaps this is not necessary when it says that the obligation shall apply “…to the extent it is generated or processed by providers […] in the process of supplying the communication services concerned…”. However, a second paragraph to Article 3, added at the request of major telecommunications companies, says that there shall be no obligation to record details of unsuccesful telephone call attempts, unless these are recorded already: a similar statement applying to other types of unrecorded communications data is conspicuous by its absence. Finally recital 13 contains the (grammatically unintelligible sentence)

“In particular when retaining data related to Internet e-mail and Internet Telephony, the scope may be limited to the providers’ own services or the network providers” (emphasis added)

Use of the word “may” instead of “shall” implies that Member States may opt to require that networks conduct such real-time investigation of their traffic.

Update: Apparently the European Parliament vote may take place on 12th or 13th December instead.

[joka]

I would compare this to unknowingly eating poo; If I can't taste, notice or know that I'm eating poo, why should it bother me.
Same thing, if some guy in some office is having a laugh at say my Internet traffic p-), but I never know about it, why should it bother me.

So I voted "Yes, why not" Bring on the poo!

[signatory]

I can't see any talk about how and when they can use the data, does it say they need a court order or is that left to each member state to decide how to reveal the info ... ?

If I'm not mistaken we have 3 months in Sweden now and they need a court order to reveal the info, and they only have to store called phonenumbers as an invoice afaik.

Funny thing is the Swedish Data Inspection board have said they do not agree with the new proposal cause they think it would be a violation of human rights... so it's even possible a state agency (or several from other EU states) will go against the sitting government and bring them to the european court of human rights...

[Esszett]

I am absolutely against it for many reasons.

First would be that I am principally against "preventative" monitoring of people without having an "Anfangsverdacht"/ a reasonable suspicion.
I agree with Taekwondo and Weasel.

Second: Even the information gained in the "traditional" way wasn't effectively shared between the nations.
It's not as if European agencies didn't gain enough information on suspects. It's just that the suspects simply had to move to another country and they were out of sight.
I don't really get why this wasn't the first thing about which something was done.
How do they expect all the additional data could have any practical use with circumstances like that?

Third: As far as I understood it is planned to gain huge masses of data.
Now how would this help? Who is gonna scan it? Wouldn't it be much more effective to continue doing it the "traditional" way?
And even more important: HOW MUCH WILL IT COST???
I suspect it will cost A LOT. And I really doubt it will be worth it.

(Btw: Oh the irony, I'm just listening to "Die Gedanken sind frei".
"-Es bleibet dabei, die Gedanken sind frei! Lalala..." p-) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Gedanken_sind_frei )

[Clarsachier]

Personally I think that the terrorist paranoia has gone too far and that the upcoming 1984-society isn't the solution (thus it's bad). But what do you think, good or bad?[/QUOTE]

X2

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The way I look at it is like the way I look at driving. Driving is not a basic human right. If you want to drive, you have to obey the rules of the road, because the consequences of you being a bad driver can have horrible impacts on other people's lives (literally).

The same goes with datacomm. If you want to use the digital infrastructure - go ahead, with full knowledge of the rules. This supposed anonymity is a myth. The man at your ISP already knows what kind of **** you like to move across the routers he owns. The guy at PSTN switch knows who you call over his interconnects to other telcos. The people at the local cellphone MTSO knows what you're doing late at night. You're not really anonymous and invisible right now anyway. This is information traveling over public utility infrastructure. There should be a measure of privacy expected, but not ultimate privacy IMHO.

In the US we have CALEA which connects directly to law enforcement in real time (with a court order of course). Now it's being expanded for data / VoIP.

As long as people still have the option and ability to "drop out" of the data world, and live an untracked, anonymous life if they choose, what's the problem? Now please line up for your barcode tatoos.

[Kekkonen]

As long as people still have the option and ability to "drop out" of the data world, and live an untracked, anonymous life if they choose, what's the problem? Now please line up for your barcode tatoos.

What kind of option is that? Selecting the life of a homeless hobo doing all you can do to avoid police taking you to a shelter? Oh yeah that's really an option. Maybe that would work in some countries but definitively not here in the Nordic countries.

Using the Internet, phones etc is not an option you can make as an ordinary citizen in the western world, it's something you must do. For example in Sweden they have mandatory conscription for all men, now however the initial tests will be done by answering questions on the internet so that they can weed out those not being even slightly interested. How is that an option you can make if it's mandatory? Already today you can report taxes and stuff on the Internet to you local authorities, wouldn't surprise me if it became more or less the only way to do it in the future.

Proxy proxy proxy.

[Esszett]

The way I look at it is like the way I look at driving. Driving is not a basic human right. If you want to drive, you have to obey the rules of the road, because the consequences of you being a bad driver can have horrible impacts on other people's lives (literally).

The same goes with datacomm. If you want to use the digital infrastructure - go ahead, with full knowledge of the rules. This supposed anonymity is a myth. The man at your ISP already knows what kind of **** you like to move across the routers he owns. The guy at PSTN switch knows who you call over his interconnects to other telcos. The people at the local cellphone MTSO knows what you're doing late at night. You're not really anonymous and invisible right now anyway. This is information traveling over public utility infrastructure. There should be a measure of privacy expected, but not ultimate privacy IMHO.

Don't know about that since I don't have a clue about how all this techno-stuff works but I think all these little pieces of information in most cases are pretty useless.
IMO it only becomes dangerous when someone has the ability to put all these little pieces together and to draw a bigger picture.

I can't really explain why but there's something about the thought of there being someone who's watching me and gaining information about me that utterly disturbs me.
Even though I don't really have anything to hide and I don't expect authorities to abuse this information.
And this bad feeling is enough for me to say I am against it since I really like to feel private and confortable.


As long as people still have the option and ability to "drop out" of the data world, and live an untracked, anonymous life if they choose, what's the problem?

As long as people really HAVE the option and ability to "drop out".
I'm not talking about some "Matrix"-Sci-Fi-nightmare. But I fear in the future people maybe won't have the option to "drop out" that easily.
It could be that some information will only be available over the Internet.
It could be that shops and stores in the real world will disappear because it is easier/ more efficient to shop over the internet.
It is possible that cash money will disappear and only electronic money will be available.
And maybe even some things I can't even imagine right now.
At latest at this point it will not be as easy to "drop out".
I'd just feel safer when I could be sure that at this point there wasn't someone storing information about me and anything I do.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but you know: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you." p-)

[Laworkerbee]

The main danger is this stuff being sold to companies to use in thier databases, to market and sell to you the consumer :fork:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I sure hope the EU doesn't find out about the 50 gigs of hot lesbian **** on my hard drive.

Oops

[StukaJr]

I love lesbian **** ^^

Doesn't Microsoft already have a way to track its individual Windows clients with some kind of embedded serial number or some other mumbo jumbo? I think that's how Mellissa Virus Author got tracked down?

[quorthon]

Come on, this is clearly needed in this day and age to combat terrorism and unless you are a terrorist or could meet the definition of a terrorist you have nothing to worry about.

You are either with us or against us.

[signatory]

This register won't reveal the data and contents of communication.

It will reveal where and when.

I have not seen them talk too much about this being due to the new terrorism threat but rather as a way to combat hard cross-border crime such as drug and human trafficking. They've been working on this since 1995...

So I don't see a huge problem with it, most countries have some kind of register like this already but can't effectively cooperate over the borders.

That said, the criminals will probably just find another way to slip through the net.

[Kekkonen]

This register won't reveal the data and contents of communication.

It will reveal where and when.

It will reveal a lot more which can be read in the directive. It's not called "data retention directive" for nothing, and the Internet providers whining about huge costs for them is of course based on that they must save huge quantities of terrabites for an extended period. I'm pretty sure they already save the "where and when and to who and where" information, so what extra information will be saved?

The Internet providers will not save a copy of your latest downloaded 4 gb **** movie of course by practical reasons, but that's not interesting either. What's interesting is what kind of data they will save. It has already been shown that police have been given access to SMS's people have sent that have been used in court later, which of course shows that some (if not most/all) mobile phone operators saves that kind of information. And how about e-mails? The large providers here in the Nordic countries, like Telia Sonera, have refused to say what kind of information they save which sounds a little suspicious (my guess, they already save that data).

So the whole point is that now with this directive the authorities (namely the police and intelligence agencies) will get easier access to that data, from court order to "browse someones Internet habits" freely. Since neither the police or intelligence services are infallible in any way (the chief of the Finnish secret police have recently been under attack for breaking the law) my fear is that ordinary citizens privacy will be violated when not necessary and in the wrong context.

[Freibier]

One step closer to the Orwellian age

[a_very_ex_STAB]

When the Government decides all its subjects (oops I mean citizens) have to drop 'em and bend over for the installation of mind reading anal probes the order ( I mean request) will of course be couched in terms like 'Law abiding people have no reason to fear' except of course they get to decide what law abiding means don't they;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What kind of option is that? Selecting the life of a homeless hobo doing all you can do to avoid police taking you to a shelter? Oh yeah that's really an option. Maybe that would work in some countries but definitively not here in the Nordic countries.

Using the Internet, phones etc is not an option you can make as an ordinary citizen in the western world, it's something you must do. For example in Sweden they have mandatory conscription for all men, now however the initial tests will be done by answering questions on the internet so that they can weed out those not being even slightly interested. How is that an option you can make if it's mandatory? Already today you can report taxes and stuff on the Internet to you local authorities, wouldn't surprise me if it became more or less the only way to do it in the future.

Proxy proxy proxy.

You raise some good questions - what kind of life can you have if you never use the phone or the net? Well - I suppose it's akin to asking what kind of a life you can have if you never drive. I couldn't make a living if I couldn't drive. Life in the US pretty much demands that one have and use personal transportation.

But it is possible. In the US, the Constitution does not guarantee you a life of convenience or prosperity - it only guarantees freedom and your ability to pursue happiness. How you exercise those is up to each person. If being truly free and untracked is the key to happiness, then as long as that is still do-able, then the standard has been met.

When I drive, I worry a lot more about the other drivers being properly trained and obeying the rules than I worry about the cops pulling me over for something I didn't do.

There are of course two sides to the argument - on one side is the obvious "the man is out to get you" - the other is that since all of our lives are hopelessly intertwined with communications - that the space must be tightly controlled to quash abuse. I fall into that category. I will not ever do anything, say anything, or transmit anything that I would worry about the police seeing. I worry far more about some a-hole with a sniffer cracking the 128 bit encryption on my SSL link and reading my online mortgage application or my tax return. Or somebody planting a redirect on my browser so that I wind up feeding my info into a bogus site.

IMHO there is far more risk to be associated with not controlling this space than there is with controlling it.

[foxtrot023]

You raise some good questions - what kind of life can you have if you never use the phone or the net? Well - I suppose it's akin to asking what kind of a life you can have if you never drive. I couldn't make a living if I couldn't drive. Life in the US pretty much demands that one have and use personal transportation.

But it is possible. In the US, the Constitution does not guarantee you a life of convenience or prosperity - it only guarantees freedom and your ability to pursue happiness. How you exercise those is up to each person. If being truly free and untracked is the key to happiness, then as long as that is still do-able, then the standard has been met.

When I drive, I worry a lot more about the other drivers being properly trained and obeying the rules than I worry about the cops pulling me over for something I didn't do.

There are of course two sides to the argument - on one side is the obvious "the man is out to get you" - the other is that since all of our lives are hopelessly intertwined with communications - that the space must be tightly controlled to quash abuse. I fall into that category. I will not ever do anything, say anything, or transmit anything that I would worry about the police seeing. I worry far more about some a-hole with a sniffer cracking the 128 bit encryption on my SSL link and reading my online mortgage application or my tax return. Or somebody planting a redirect on my browser so that I wind up feeding my info into a bogus site.

IMHO there is far more risk to be associated with not controlling this space than there is with controlling it.

But don´t you think there should be a limit? I mean, if I was a terrorist suspect, then yeah, I can understand having my PC and internet traffic being monitored, but otherwise? Perhaps a more feasible solution would be to tag especific topics on the internet.

[Vorian]

I don't care whether it's for good cause or not. This is an invasion to our privacy and I am totally against it. If the Western countries want to stop terrorism they should stop acting like they are the planet's police and start focusing on their own problems.

[Kekkonen]

So. Now the EU parliament have voted, and they said yes to a new law that that electronic data traffic must be stored for atleast six months. In the parliament the law passed with 378 votes against 197 after a deal between the Christian democrat/conservative group and the socialist group (the coalition of Evil).

What is left now is just a formality, each member country must approve the new law (and no one will say no to it). So it seems like it became between 6 and 24 months then. I guess Sweden, Ireland and Great Britain that was the main pro-voices behind this law will go for the 24 months while those that were a little more critical will opt for a lower amount of months.

Costs: The Parliament wants telecommunication operators and internet service providers to be fully reimbursed for the costs resulting from data retention obligations and access to the stored data. The Council wants no reimbursement at all, which would mean users in the end having to carry the costs.

[signatory]

Poland wanted the data stored for 15 years! lol