On 7 September EU Commission official Cecilia Verkleij presented  the state of play of the revision of the EU Data Retention Directive in Berlin. Ms Verkleij is head of the sector „Access to information“ (A.3.002) within the EU Commission’s home affairs directorate general. Her team  is dealing with the revision of the EU’s unpopular 2006 data retention directive which requires the blanket and indiscriminate collection of telephone records, and mobile phone location and Internet data, revealing sensitive information about the movements and social contacts of 500 million Europeans not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Ms Verkleij started by jokingly pointing out that hers was the „most criminal unit in the Commission“, dealing with all issues such as the retention of communications data, of passenger data (PNR) and of financial data (SWIFT). „If you want to know about surveillance, please call us. We can advise you“, she suggested.
Heading the unit on law enforcement access to information, it did not come as a surprise to hear that the first policy objective the Commission is pursuing in revising the data retention directive is ensuring „access to the communications information which is necessary for combating serious crime“. (The European Court of Justice has pointed out though that the sole legal purpose of the directive is „the functioning of the internal market“ on telecommunications.)
The unit is mainly considering amending the data retention directive in three areas: 1) define more precisely the purpose for which retained data can be used (e.g. list of crimes), 2) define more precisely the mode of access to retained data, 3) regulate the security of retained data. The Commission also intends to pursue the idea of cost reimbursement for providers (which was rejected by member states and parliament in 2006). Another idea they are considering is exempting business to business communications from retention obligations as such data is rarely requested. On the other hand the speaker noted that „data generated via the Internet“ was becoming „increasingly important“ for law enforcement. Ms Verkleij spoke out against the opinion that retaining such data was unnecessary. This thinking, she felt, was due to a „lack of experience“ of law enforcement authorities with Internet data. Ms Verkleij did not consider relevant the fact that most traffic data is accessed within the first three months, as this may concern only the first request in the context of a criminal investigation and more data may be needed at a later stage of the investigation.
In regard to the impact of blanket retention on the fundamental right to privacy, Ms Verkleij said that other fundamental rights needed to be considered as well, namely the rights of victims of crime. Ms Verkleij interpreted Article 52 of the Fundamental Rights Charta to say „don’t kill a fundamental right, but don’t abstain [from interfering] either“.
The speaker pointed out that a qualified majority of member states is currently opposed to amending the data retention directive at all. Still the Commission will proceed with an impact assessment before it will decide on how the future instrument should look like. As part of the impact assessment the Commission intends to identify policy options and assess those against the different interests at stake (law enforcement, data protection and market harmonisation). Among the options will be repealing the directive, not amending it at all and options to modify it as identified through stakeholder workshops with civil society, industry, data protection authorities and law enforcement. What options specifically will be assessed Ms Verkleij would not say.
The Commission intends to launch a study to assess the impact of the various policy options on internal security in the EU, industry, and data protection. Ms Verkleij would not say who will be commissioned to do this study (apparently there is to be a „study group“). (I recommended that independent researchers, e.g. criminologists, should be commissioned to do the study. The worst case scenario would probably be the commissioning of the EU’s „data retention expert group“ which is composed of law enforcement, industry and selected MEPs only.)
The study is also to examine how data preservation is applied within the EU and elsewhere, and how effective it has proven to be in criminal investigations. This is to be done by comparing the role of communications data which are available as a result of data retention obligations and those available as a result of data preservation. Ms Verkleij made it clear that nobody could argue with her that data preservation was equally effective as data retention. She did not consider data preservation an alternative to data retention in terms of getting the same results. The Commission is considering it only as a „longer term issue“. (It appears the Commission is considering data preservation only in the context of proposing an EU instrument on data preservation. They have no plans for that at present as even law enforcement representatives do not see a need for an EU instrument. I agree as there is already a provision on data preservation in the existing Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime).
The time schedule of the revision process has been further delayed. Apparently Commissioner Malmström (who voted against the directive in 2006) has asked the unit to do a „thorough job“ on data retention. The impact assessment is to be presented only in early 2012 . Ms Verkleij warned that on a reasonable timeline, it could take 4-5 years to amend the directive, and it is unclear whether there will be a majority to amend it at all. Therefore the Commission intends to continue forcing Sweden, Germany, Romania and the Czech Republic to transpose the directive as it is.
The Commission is calling for input via e-mail .
In the meantime Digital Rights Ireland is hoping that in October, the Irish High Court will finally refer to the European Court of Justice the question of whether the data retention directive violates fundamental rights and is therefore to be annulled completely. In my opinion, chances are good that the ECJ will follow the example of constitutional courts in Romania (2009), Germany (2010) and the Czech Republic (2011) that have all annulled data retention laws in the past. In view of the scale of damage done to fundamental rights by data retention and the lack of evidence for a statistically significant impact on crime or the prosecution of crime, the idea of indiscriminately collecting information on the daily communications of every single citizen will be ruled disproportionate and incompatible with human rights.
- NGO positions on the revision of the data retention directive 
- AK Vorrat press release: 86 cents for one year without blanket telecommunications data retention  (25 Jul 2011)