Retention of Data in the EU & Rep of Ireland

national | eu | other press Thursday June 02, 2005 16:07 by A. Niall Retentive

Rapporteur says...

''If all the traffic data covered by the proposal did indeed have to be stored, the network of a large Internet provider would, even at today's traffic levels, accumulate a data volume of
20 - 40 000 terabytes. This is the equivalent of roughly four million kilometres' worth of full files, which, in turn, is equivalent to 10 stacks of files each reaching from Earth to the moon.''

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/libe_home.htm
Rapporteur: Alexander Nuno Alvaro
http://www.europarliament.net/serverdaf8.html

download the entire .doc file
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/votre-europarl/showdocument.jsp?DID=696484&UID=14696&W=no&L=EN

. . .

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the initiative by the French Republic, Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom for a Draft Framework Decision on the retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or data on public communications networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism
(8958/2004 – C6﷓0198/2004 – 2004/0813(CNS))

[....]

→ II. Assessment of the proposal
There are sizeable doubts concerning the choice of legal basis and the proportionality of the measures. It is also possible that the proposal contravenes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[....]

→ 2. Proportionality of the measure
The rapporteur also has doubts as to the proportionality of the individual measures. The ends do not justify the means, as the measures are neither appropriate nor necessary and are unreasonably harsh towards those concerned.

Given the volume of data to be retained, particularly Internet data, it is unlikely that an appropriate analysis of the data will be at all possible.

Individuals involved in organised crime and terrorism will easily find a way to prevent their data from being traced. Possible ways of doing so include using 'front men' to buy telephone cards or switching between mobile phones from foreign providers, using public telephones, changing the IP or e-mail address when using an e-mail service or simply using Internet service providers outside Europe not subject to data retention obligations.

If all the traffic data covered by the proposal did indeed have to be stored, the network of a large Internet provider would, even at today's traffic levels, accumulate a data volume of
20 - 40 000 terabytes. This is the equivalent of roughly four million kilometres' worth of full files, which, in turn, is equivalent to 10 stacks of files each reaching from Earth to the moon. With a data volume this huge, one search using existing technology, without additional investment, would take 50 to 100 years. The rapid availability of the data required seems, therefore, to be in doubt.

[....]

→ Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the rapporteur rejects the proposal for a framework decision and calls on the four Member States to withdraw their initiative.
The rapporteur expects the Member States to produce a study proving the unquestionable need for the proposed data retention arrangements. In addition to this, the data retention obligation, the definition of the data to be retained and the retention period should be dealt with separately from the other aspects of the proposal as the subject of a directive. The Commission should draft an appropriate proposal. It should be pointed out that the proposal's objectives could be achieved simply by implementing the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime and improving crossborder cooperation in the area in question. Before a final decision can be taken on new measures, the results of the requested study must be considered. Should the Council's proposal unexpectedly obtain a majority, the requirement for a review of the measures in the form of an evaluation after three years in force should be incorporated into the text, so that the actual effectiveness of the measures can be established and the act of data retention justified.