[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] (Fwd) FC: U.K. firms protest Euro plan for email, web, Usenet
- To: debate@lists.fitug.de
- Subject: [FYI] (Fwd) FC: U.K. firms protest Euro plan for email, web, Usenet
- From: "Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:10:08 +0200
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:23:39 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: politech@politechbot.com
Copies to: sam_parkhouse@cbi.org.uk, office@statewatch.org
Subject: FC: U.K. firms protest Euro plan for email, web, Usenet recordkeeping
Send reply to: declan@well.com
---
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,5-2001213193,00.html
PLANS by Brussels to force Internet service providers (ISPs), such
as BT and AOL, to store detailed logs of their customers Web
activities a retrograde step that could compromise privacy and
damage e-commerce.
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/business.cfm?id=83701
THE CBI criticised the government's failure to block EU proposals
that will allow member states to impose blanket data retention on
telecoms and ISPs.
---
Related news:
Europe weighs recording all phone calls, Net traffic for 7 yrs
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02035.html
More on Europe recording phone calls, Net traffic for 7 years
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02043.html
---
http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/
ccfce800c251d49c80256a7300507a26?OpenDocument
CBI DISMAYED BY GOVERNMENT STANCE ON DATA RETENTION
The CBI is alarmed and dismayed the government has failed to block
plans in Brussels that will allow member states to impose blanket
data retention requirements on telecommunication and internet
service providers (ISPs).
"We are dismayed that senior officials in Brussels, including those
from UK, have agreed an amendment to the telecommunications data
protection directive, which will allow member states to impose
blanket data retention requirements on their own service providers.
"We believe this will undermine trust and confidence in elelctronic
commerce and discourage investment in e-commerce in the EU", said
the CBI's Head of E Business, Nigel Hickson. The CBI urges the
minister of state for e-commerce Douglas Alexander and colleagues
in other member states to veto this proposal when it comes before
the Telecommunications Council on Wednesday June 27. In the last
few days Brussels officials have paved the way for member states to
provide for mass retention of data on e-mail recipients, addresses
of websites visited and data on times when customers log into
ISP's. Currently such service providers are only allowed to retain
such data for billing purposes. "We call on the Government to take
all action to prevent unwanted traffic data retention requirements
on service providers. So we strongly urge the DTI to ensure the UK
vetoes any weakening of Data Protection laws when this is discussed
at the Council of Ministers this month. We will also be lobbying
the Home Office in a similar vein" said John Stewart, chair of the
CBI's E-business Council.
22 June, 2001
Notes to Editors:
The European Union is currently reviewing directive 97/66/EC which
deals with data protection in the telecommunications sector. There
have been calls from the law enforcement community to amend Article
6, which currently prohibits data retention, allowing member States
to demand data retention by service providers. The directive has
been discussed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives in
Brussels (COREPER) and will be voted on by the EU Telecoms Council
on June 27.
Please note Traffic Data does not mean e-mail content. It covers
information about internet activity; for example 1) addresses of
people you have sent email to. 2) websites visited. 3) newsgroups
used. 4) times people log in and log out of ISP's.
Media Contact:
Sam Parkhouse, CBI Press Office: 020 7395 8093 - e-mail:
sam_parkhouse@cbi.org.uk
Out of hours pager no 076 2680 9070.
---
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/jun/07retention.htm
Statewatch Observatory on Surveillance in Europe (S.O.S.Europe)
EU governments' to decide on retention of telecommunications data
(including internet usage) by law enforcement agencies
- Commission and Data Protection Working Party oppose move
- UK leading the campaign for data retention
______________________________________________________________
The debate over the retention of telecommunications data by EU
states for the purposes of giving access to the law enforcement
agencies is reaching the crunch stage. At the Telecommunications
Council in Brussels on 27-28 June the decision may be made to
back demands by the UK and other governments for data to be
retained for use by the agencies. The European Commission are
strongly opposed to the changes as are a number of the
rapporteurs in the European Parliament.
The chair of the EU's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party
has sent letters to the President of the European Parliament, Mr
Prodi of the Commission and the Council expressing its strong
opposition to any changes in the draft measure: Letter from
Rodota: full-text
The battle lines in the Council at the beginning of June showed
the incoming Belgian Presidency and the current Swedish
Presidency backed by the UK demanding changes - to the planned
new EU Directive on personal data and the protection of privacy
in the field of electronic commerce - to allow the retention of
telecommunications data for law enforcement agencies. Opposing
this move were Greece, Italy, Netherlands and the Commission.
At the Telecommunications Council on Wednesday it will be open to
the Council (the 15 EU governments) to back the demand now
fronted by the UK.
The new Directive, which is simply intended to update the current
laws, has to be agreed under the co-decision procedure whereby
the the Council, Commission and Parliament have to agree on the
new measure.
The background is on the Statewatch Observatory on Surveillance
in Europe: S.0.S. Europe
______________________________________________________________
The latest available draft of the Council's discussions on its
"common position" shows that the demands of the law enforcement
agencies are centred to two key provisions in the draft new
Directive: Article 6 on "Traffic data" and Article 15 which
allows EU states to derogate from the provisions on an individual
basis and allow law enforcement agencies access to traffic data
(including internet usage). Draft dated 31 May (9337/01):
Full-text (pdf file)
The first key provision, Article 6.1. on Traffic data reads as
follows:
"1. Traffic data relating to subscribers and users processed and
stored by the provider of a public communications network or
service must be erased or made anonymous when it is no longer
needed for the purpose [upon completion] of the transmission of a
communication without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs
2, 3, and Article 15, paragraph 1 4." (bold are changes proposed
by the Council; the [] show deletions)
These changes were put forward by the Swedish Presidency of the
EU. A number of EU governments and the Commission oppose the
addition of the reference to Article 15. However, in a footnote
there is an alternative wording put forward by Belgium, the
incoming EU Presidency from 1 July. This reads as follows where
"B" stands for Belgium:
" Alternative text proposed by B for Article 6, paragraph 1:
"Traffic data relating to subscribers and users processed for the
purpose of the transmission of a communication and stored by the
provider of a public communications network or service may upon
completion of the transmission only be processed for legitimate
purposes as determined by national law or applicable instruments.
Within the scope of this directive, those purposes can be no
other than those mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3".
The effect of this proposal is to delete the provision that data
should be erased or made anonymous and to insert another purpose
(ie: other than for checking billing for customers) saying it can
be "processed for legitimate purposes determined by national law"
- in other words it would allow each EU member state adopt a law
saying data may be retained for law enforcement purposes for
periods of 12 moths to 7 years.
The discussion in the Council (between the governments)
Another document, also dated 31 May, reveals much more detail of
the discussion in the Council and the differences between EU
governments. Both of these documents need to be placed in
context. Both are intended to lead to the adoption by the Council
of a "common position" on the proposed new Directive before the
European Parliament has completed its First Reading vote and
adoption of its report. Strictly the Council should wait for the
parliament but it applies an informal "rule" (created by the
Council) which says the parliament has only three months to
decide its position.
Moreover, the formulation that the law to allow data retention
for law enforcement agencies should be agreed at national law
will allow government "spin-doctors" to say that it is not
binding and that therefore there is no EU policy on the issue -
an examination of the background documents produced since last
autumn show that for data usage to work for law enforcement
purposes it has to operate in every EU country and in all the
applicant countries.
The second document: Text (9356/01) reveals the divisions
between the EU governments. The report opens by noting that the
Commission has proposed that Article 6.1 remain intact - that is,
to maintain EC law as set out in the existing Directive which
says that traffic data "must be erased or made anonymous on
completion of the transmission, except for billing purposes". It
goes on to say:
"Three delegations (B, S, UK) have placed a reservation on the
Commission proposal by requesting the abandonment of paragraph 1
on the principle of the erasure of data or making it anonymous.
These delegations in fact hold that this principle does not take
into account the needs of the repressive authorities"
(translation from French)
B, S & UK stands for the incoming Belgian Presidency of the EU,
Sweden the current EU Presidency and the UK. The
Telecommunications Working Party was unable to resolve the
differences because of:
"the refusal by certain delegations (GR, I, NL) and by the
Commission to see the text of the present directive changed on
this point. The latter underline the importance and sensitivity
of this issue which affects human rights and fundamental rights."
Thus Greece, Italy and the Netherlands together with the
Commission oppose the change. The Commission and Italy also
opposed a change to Article 15 put forward by the UK. The grounds
on which national laws can derogate from the basic principles,
including the obligation to erase traffic data, are different in
the two current EU Directives. The grounds in the General Data
Protection Directive are broader than those in the later
Directive on Telecommunications Data Protection this was because
the latter covers the principle of the confidentiality of
communications. The General Directive covers many sectors and a
large range of data roles. The UK wants to change this and insert
the broad range of exceptions, plus adding public health, which
would allow national laws to derogate from the protections now in
force.
Indeed the intention of the UK is quite explicit, it wants to
ensure that Article 15 allows the general retention of data and
the Swedish Presidency is proposing that the following is added
to Article 15.1:
"Member States may provide for the retention of data for a
limited period justified on the grounds of Article 15.1 in
conformity with the general principles of community law"
Data Protection Working Party letter
The EU's Data Protection Working Party has sent a very strongly
worded letter to the President of the European Parliament, the
President of the European Commission and the Presidency of the
Council of the European Union. Their views speak for themselves:
"It is not acceptable that the scope of initial data processing
is widened in order to increase the amount of data available for
law enforcement objectives. Any such changes in these essential
provisions that are directly related to fundamental human rights,
would turn the exception into a new rule. Systematic and
preventive storage of EU citizens' communications and related
traffic data would undermine the fundamental rights to privacy,
data protection, freedom of expression, liberty and presumption
of innocence. Could the Information Society still claim to be a
democratic society under such circumstances ?"
______________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice. To subscribe, visit
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------- End of forwarded message -------