{"id":30,"date":"2005-11-06T12:00:09","date_gmt":"2005-11-06T10:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/amendments-to-proposed-directive-on-data-retention\/"},"modified":"2012-01-22T18:47:43","modified_gmt":"2012-01-22T17:47:43","slug":"amendments-to-proposed-directive-on-data-retention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/amendments-to-proposed-directive-on-data-retention\/","title":{"rendered":"Amendments to proposed directive on data retention"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Sent the following e-mail to MEPs:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Dear &#8230;,<\/p>\n<p>I welcome the amendments tabled by some of your colleagues in regard to the <strong>proposed directive on data retention <\/strong>(<a href=\"http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/prelex\/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=de&amp;DosId=193330\">COM(2005)0438<\/a>), with the aim of limiting its harmful effects on society. In fact, nearly all amendments (LIBE_PR(2005)364679, LIBE_AM(2005)364849, <a href=\"http:\/\/www2.europarl.eu.int\/registre\/commissions\/itre\/projet_avis\/2005\/364724\/ITRE_PA(2005)364724_XM.pdf\">ITRE_PA(2005)364724<\/a>, ITRE_AM(2005)364725) are aimed at restricting the scope of the proposed directive, arguing that there is no proof that a wider scope would be of substantial use, and arguing that a wider scope would be disproportionate.<\/p>\n<p>However, it needs to be pointed out that these arguments apply to the entire project of mass data retention. There is <strong>no proof that mass data retention is of substantial use <\/strong>in fighting serious crime, beyond what traffic data is already available at present. Mass data retention is also clearly disproportionate, considering that 99% of those who would be affected by it are entirely innocent.<\/p>\n<p>For the following reasons, the proposed directive should be <strong>rejected<\/strong>, rather than just limited in scope:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Once \tmass data retention has been implemented, its scope is bound to be \tcontinuously expanded over time. The <strong>proposed evaluation clause \tis of little value<\/strong>, as all practical experience shows that \tpolice powers are never abandoned once they have been introduced. \tThe supposed benefit of mass data retention needs to be empirically \texamined and proven <em>before<\/em> implementing data retention.<\/li>\n<li>The \taftermaths of 9\/11, of the Madrid bombings and of the terrorist \tattacks in London have shown that there is no need for a directive \ton data retention. <strong>Investigations could be conducted successfully \twithout mandatory data retention <\/strong>in the US, Spain and the UK. \tOnly two of the 25 EU member states (Ireland and Italy) have \tactually implemented mandatory mass data retention at present. There \tis no evidence that data retention is having any impact on crime \tlevels in those states whatsoever.<\/li>\n<li>Data \tretention is <strong>easy for criminals to circumvent<\/strong>, for example by \tusing mobile phone cards that have been registered in the name of \tanother person. Likewise, pay-as-you-go phones, Internet caf\u00e9s \tor offshore e-mail accounts can be used to escape detection.<\/li>\n<li>The \tPresident of the <strong>European Confederation of Police<\/strong>, Heinz \tKiefer, announced in 2005 that &#8222;he is sceptical as to whether \t[data retention] will actually help criminal investigations. [&#8230;] \t[I]t remains easy for criminals to avoid detection through fairly \tsimple means, for example mobile phone cards can be purchased from \tforeign providers and frequently switched. &#8218;The result would be that \ta vast effort is made with little more effect on criminals and \tterrorists than to slightly irritate them'&#8220; \t(<a href=\"http:\/\/www.eurocop-police.org\/pressreleases\/2005\/05-06-02%20PRESS%20JHA%20Council_E.pdf\">source<\/a>).<\/li>\n<li>Mass \tdata retention would have a <strong>chilling effect <\/strong>on confidential \tpolitical, professional and business communications and contacts \t(and thus the activities of political activists, of lawyers, of \tjournalists, of businessmen engaged in confidential negotiations, \tetc.). It would also cost millions of euros, <strong>withdrawing taxpayer&#8217;s money from \ttargeted security projects <\/strong>with an actual impact on crime.<\/li>\n<li>Even \twith a narrow scope and strict safeguards, the proposed directive \twould <strong>create a precedent <\/strong>for the mass collection of \tinformation on all citizens on the off chance that the data may come \tuseful at some point in the future. Following that reasoning, why \tnot introduce George Orwell&#8217;s telescreens (video cameras) in every \thome, provided that access to the recordings is only granted in \texceptional circumstances? Do we really want to live in a society \twhere all our actions are recorded, all of our interactions are \tmapped; just in case that the information may be of use at some \tpoint in the future?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>I hope that MEPs will not let themselves be <strong>pressured by the Council&#8217;s threat <\/strong>to go ahead with its own data retention project. There is no real risk of that happening because several member states are opposed to passing a framework decision (see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.statewatch.org\/news\/2005\/oct\/council-data-ret-draft-10-oct-05.pdf\">here<\/a>), and an unanimous vote in the Council would be required.<\/p>\n<p>For the reasons set out above, I <strong>urge you to reject <\/strong>the proposed directive on data retention altogether and instead speak out for the implementation of international mechanisms for the targeted preservation of data relating to specific suspects. Only targeted and international mechanisms actually promise to be effective in fighting globalised crime and terrorism.<\/p>\n<p>Yours sincerely,<br \/>\n&#8230;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.JointDeclaration.com\/\"><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sent the following e-mail to MEPs: Dear &#8230;, I welcome the amendments tabled by some of your colleagues in regard to the proposed directive on data retention (COM(2005)0438), with the aim of limiting its harmful effects on society. In fact, nearly all amendments (LIBE_PR(2005)364679, LIBE_AM(2005)364849, ITRE_PA(2005)364724, ITRE_AM(2005)364725) are aimed at restricting the scope of the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,9,6],"tags":[23],"class_list":["post-30","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-datenschutz-im-staat","category-english","category-vorratsdatenspeicherung","tag-data-retention"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4109,"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30\/revisions\/4109"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.daten-speicherung.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}