European Data Retention Rule Could Violate Fundamental EU Law 61
An anonymous reader writes in with a story about the Constitutional Court of Austria objecting to the EU's data retention law. "The European Union's data retention law could breach fundamental E.U. law because its requirements result in an invasion of citizens' privacy, according to the Constitutional Court of Austria, which has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to determine the directive's validity. The primary problem with the data retention law is that it almost exclusively affects people in whom government or law enforcement have no prior interest. But authorities use the data for investigations and are informed about people's personal lives, the court said, and there is a risk that the data can be abused. 'We doubt that the E.U. Data Retention Directive is really compatible with the rights that are guaranteed by the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights,' Gerhart Holzinger, president of the Constitutional Court of Austria said in a statement."
Data Retention, Bush and Blair (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worth remembering the history of these data retention laws. Basically Blair (as a proxy for Bush) pushed these through when the UK had the EU Presidency in 2005:
http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/uk-presidency-revive-data-storag-news-214430
UK had a terrorist attack in 2005, the police tracked one suspect by his phone. Blair then insisted on data retention, saying it was necessary to catch this guy in Italy and just happened to have a piece of legislation drafted already. The EU caved and let him push it through when he held the UK EU presidency.
Oh course the logic is faulty, he WAS caught without the data retention directive, so it wasn't necessary. He was caught because he didn't know his phone could be tracked, post data retention, everyone knows it, so he would have thrown away the phone now.
The basic idea that everyone is a future potential criminal to be monitored, is very powerful. Because the police never reveal the millions of times they've poked into people lives without finding anything, only the few times they poke into the lives of people and arrest a terrorist/pedo and occasionally the times they get caught snooping into a celebrities lives for Murdoch, but mostly only the pro-surveillance marketing stuff is ever visible, with the rest kept secret.
Re:Data Retention, Bush and Blair (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Blair was one of the bigger assholes. He was effective and essentially had basically no morals.
I've also been saddened by the public response to such things as terrorist attacks.
I have been deeply impressed by the Norwegian response though. They're not going to let some guy murder a bunch of people and destroy the civility of their legal system. I wish the public in the UK would respond more like that, rather than (in general) "oe noes!!! some one died! Lets spend an arbirtary amount of money trying to prevent this one death! Screw freedoms! Please think of teh children!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, Blair was one of the bigger assholes. He was effective and essentially had basically no morals."
Blair was a direct clone of Bush in disguise.
Re: (Score:1)
" there is a risk that the data can be abused"
Understatement of the year.
Re:Data Retention, Bush and Blair (Score:4, Insightful)
It is also worth noting that some of the shakier democracies in Eastern Europe tried to use these provisions to introduce large-scale spying systems. I have a friend from Bulgaria who told me how the threat from blanket legal monitoring of internet communications by the government was narrowly averted by protests, and how the police beat up some of the protesters during one or two demonstrations a couple of years ago. I think there were similar measures elsewhere.
The directive was bad in form and in spirit, and to my eye caused more harm and damage than good overall. Which happens often if the full implications of a law are not discussed and taken seriously. But we and the children are safe, I suppose.
Re:Data Retention, Bush and Blair (Score:5, Interesting)
Wiretapping is important, the evidence collected through it helped identify many criminals (and save many innocents). But it must be done only under the warrant of a judicial authority, and it should be performed only by trusted (and accountable) professionals. That's what the constitutions of many europen states say, and the reason they do is not because, back in the time when they were written, mass surveillance was not as easy as it is today.
Re:Data Retention, Bush and Blair (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also worth considering why our political and financial elite are so keen with data retention laws:
National Intelligence Council's Global Trends 2030 report [bloomberg.com], quotes:
"...major trends are the end of U.S. global dominance, the rising power of individuals against states, a rising middle class whose demands challenge governments, and a Gordian knot of water, food and energy shortages, according to the analysts."
"[enormous caches of data] will enable governments to ' figure out and predict what people are going to be doing' and 'get more control over society,'
We (collectively) pose a risk to the power of the 0.1% going forward, and bills like this are being pushed through in "democratic" nations worldwide to "get more control over society".
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, by introducing laws that hamper privacy to gain more control, the governments are agitating the public and provoke more and more hostilities towards the ruling elite. And it's spreading outside the Internet Generation too. I recently had had a conversation with a guy who owns his own company selling window blinds. He's been in business for the last 30 years and the closest he gets to a computer is when he needs to read emails from his customers every time his son is not around to do it for him.
there's a precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
This sort of thing is done in many many EU member states, that it does not violate EU-law is not that strange. However, it is strange that the German constitution does not ban it with respect to the background.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Which ones? Because, AFAIK, Merkel had to go back to the EU and ask for the EU regulations to be changed specifically so that the German practice remained legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Sweden for example have church tax for church members, this tax is taken out directly on your salary payed to the tax office.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There was a similar conflict when the German government wanted to collect information about everybody's religion and communicate that to their employers and churches (ostensibly for taxation purposes). If that isn't a grave violation of privacy in a country that murdered millions because of their religious affiliation, I don't know what is. There was a lawsuit over it. The outcome? The EU declared it legal. Logic apparently goes out the window when European governments or large special interests themselves want to collect data on their citizens.
Logic goes out the window?
Consider yourselves lucky you had logic this long. Logic and common sense left US law decades ago.
Re:there's a precedent (Score:4, Informative)
That case is far more complicated. The only collect the data for the religious communities that want their church tax collected by the government. And what people need to specify is which church people belong to, not what they believe.
A lot of people even of those still going to church will not specify their religion because they don't want to pay the church tax (in theory that also means they can't get married in church etc. but usually you can just join the church again for a little while if you really want that).
And you forgot that you're also supposed to report that information to your bank, since they too are involved in taxation nowadays.
So to summarize:
1) They do not and never did collect info on one's religion, but only church membership
2) It is only done for some churches (which actually is a part of another lawsuit, more churches want the government to collect money for them).
3) All of the churches on that list are on it because they want to be
4) To my knowledge there is no legal problem with you not specifying this to the government etc. as long as you can reach a different agreement with your church (you likely won't be able to, but that's not the government's fault).
Which all makes this not really a privacy issue, since the only case in which you have to specify anything is if you _choose_ to be part of a church that forces you to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That case is far more complicated. The only collect the data for the religious communities that want their church tax collected by the government. And what people need to specify is which church people belong to, not what they believe. A lot of people even of those still going to church will not specify their religion because they don't want to pay the church tax (in theory that also means they can't get married in church etc. but usually you can just join the church again for a little while if you really want that). And you forgot that you're also supposed to report that information to your bank, since they too are involved in taxation nowadays. So to summarize: 1) They do not and never did collect info on one's religion, but only church membership 2) It is only done for some churches (which actually is a part of another lawsuit, more churches want the government to collect money for them). 3) All of the churches on that list are on it because they want to be 4) To my knowledge there is no legal problem with you not specifying this to the government etc. as long as you can reach a different agreement with your church (you likely won't be able to, but that's not the government's fault). Which all makes this not really a privacy issue, since the only case in which you have to specify anything is if you _choose_ to be part of a church that forces you to do it.
Not in Scotland.,.... anything paid to the church by members is volountary such as donations and collections. ... in fact just looked it up.
i have not heard of a tax being collected for the purposes of giving it to the church happen in Scotland for for a wee while and was in fact officially abolished in think in 2000. in practise though
Here comes the lobbying. (Score:2)
Watch the law get changed in Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if this is found to break the fundamental charter, which is part of the treaties, it is not that easy to lobby for it to change. That would require a massive effort which would not be very practical.
Yeah, it's just the Constitution (Score:2)
To translate what you said to American: "Watch the Constitution get changed".
That does not happen often in the US or EU. It's fundamental EU laws we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
It only happens when it's in the EU's ( not the people's ) best interest.
Charter of Fundamental Rights (Score:2)
I beg to differ in general and in this specific case. In this case Austria claims the Data Retention Directive is in conflict with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which sets out the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU (including the European Convention on Human Rights). At what point has the Charter or the [non-EU] ECHR ever been changed?
I find that many European citizens that are hostile towards the EU i
Best Place To Live On Earth, Indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been living in Austria for a little while now, and it makes me happy that the government here is not just filled with pushovers when it comes to the EU's lawyers churning out horrible, impractical, technically retarded ideas.
Who knows what will actually be passed, though :-(. Austria is like a little chunk of paradise in the first world; I doubt people here realize how close they're coming to screwing it up. This is, after all, a country where every murder makes the evening news, police violence is completely unknown, people start getting perceptibly nervous when a train/streetcar/subway is 2 minutes late, and everyone likes to complain how tough life is while they're on their 5 weeks of paid vacation, collecting their 14-months-a-year paychecks, and living with dignity (not to mention enough disposable income to buy iPhones etc) even if they're cleaning toilets for a living.
*deep breath*
Point is, I hope that this actually prevents the law (and similar laws) from being passed, but I'm not exactly holding out hope that the Austrian government suddenly understands, on a deeply intuitive level, that these laws are actually dangerous and designed to subtly erode the freedom in a country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Austria is like a little chunk of paradise in the first world;
Because of the kangaroos, right?
I've been living in Austria for a little while now, and it makes me happy that the government here is not just filled with pushovers when it comes to the EU's lawyers churning out horrible, impractical, technically retarded ideas.
You say that, but it's a battle of EU laws, one good, one bad, it would seem. Hard to see the more fundemental one as retarded. Most legal systems will push out bad ideas. Let's hope that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The governments are represented in the Council, they are the assholes that pushed this through in the first place, the leading culprits where the British and the Swedish (previous) government under lead of the Swedish minister of justice Thomas Bodström. The Parliament did approve of it, but only after the Council said that if you don't approve, we will treat it as a matter of "criminal and justice cooperation", an area where the Parliament had no co-legeslative rights with the Council before the Lisbo
Re:Independence day. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I dislike lots of stuff about the EU.
But at the same time, I love it. It has knit Europe together so that it has a shared destiny. This prevents wars.
It has knit Europe together, so that we don't have shitloads of border controls. We can travel between countries without passports (Well, at least between the schengen members).
Now - there are plenty bad things about the EU - but there are so many good things too.
Re:Independence day. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are an idiot. Whenever I travel to the US or even Canada, I am remined of how horrible the passing of borders can be (the Canadians are nice and polite about it, but the concept of some guy asking me where I am going without having any cause tu suspect me is highly disagreeable).
Also, you misunderstand History: the Treaty of Rome in 1957 is the treaty that started it all. The ECSC became the EU, eventually. and the EU is nmot the end point. It is a unique experiment in the History of the world to create a nation from countries with thousands of years of war behind them. It makes sense economically: 30 sets of norms are a clear hindrance to commerce, and a common market without this makes no sense. Nor does it make sense without union-wide supervision.
More importantly, it ensures my freedom to go wherever I please in Europe and work there. It ensures that no citizen is SOL when their government goes bonkers: higher norms must be obeyed. To me, the guarentee of fundamental freedoms is more important that the guarentee that my government can be arbitrarily dickish to me without external interference. People moaning about "sovereingty" really mean "I don't like them foreigners" and "why can't we be horrible to people we don't like?".
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it ensures my freedom to go wherever I please in Europe and work there. It ensures that no citizen is SOL when their government goes bonkers: higher norms must be obeyed. To me, the guarentee of fundamental freedoms is more important that the guarentee that my government can be arbitrarily dickish to me without external interference. People moaning about "sovereingty" really mean "I don't like them foreigners" and "why can't we be horrible to people we don't like?".
If that's how you feel, why not let the UN run a world government? People don't want to be governed by far away places that don't really care about the local opinion or have their best interests at heart. The idea that we need the EU to be civilized democracies is rather absurd, there are very many equally free independent countries. What is happening in the EU is in many ways stronger than in the US where you have state law and federal law, in the EU you don't create law directly you pass directives that r
Re: (Score:2)
You should consider the difference in the national governments. Living in Portugal, the European Directives are often much more aligned with our population's interests than our own legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Given our millennium-long history, we know that in Europe we need it to be civilized democracies. (This is how the Greeks managed to get along too, BTW).
Re: (Score:2)
unelected government
Source ? This is an absurd statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I think parent's talking about the fact that the executive body (the European Commission) is not directly elected but appointed by the European Council, and then approved by the European Parliament, so there's a lot of layers between the citizens and the EC members.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a fucking EU to travel between countries without passports. You don't need a stinking EU for peace.
We got all that before the EU. The Schengen agreement dates back to 1985. 7 years before the EU came into power. A stable peace between european countries was archieved since WW2. Decades before the EU.
There is NOTHING good about the EU. NOTHING.
Fucking hell!!! it's either Nick Griffin [wikipedia.org] or Nigel Farage! [wikipedia.org] ... wtf ? this is slasdot.. no place for either of you two pricks! :P
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, the big thing to work upon currently (but it seems that this is not only a EU problem) is to instil in the people of the European Commission, that it is their duty to uphold the law, and if they want to achieve something where the law blocks them, the first thing is to start up a debate about why the law is that way, not try to change the law as fast as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are advantages to the EU.
But's there's also a whole lot done wrong.
I see two problem :
- The EU top is power hungry, and wants to expand no matter the cost ( created a United States of Europe ), making them go way too fast, and thus losing a lot of people, and implementing untested laws ( for example the design of the Euro which has a number of flaws ).
- The people in Europe are not very different from each other, both economically and culturally. We simply see things in other ways.
Re: (Score:3)
And this AC post excellently defines to our non-UK colleagues, exactly how a reader of the Daily Mail [wikipedia.org] thinks. They think that things like the ECtHR do nothing but prevent us deporting scrounging asylum seekers without giving any thought to how it's absence could affect the government's treatment of each and every citizen of the country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The EU is not just the institutions, it is an idea as well. Governments do indeed blame the Union for things they have been along negotiating in the council, this being quite unfair in many cases.
You complain that the commission is not elected, well firstly, strictly speaking, neither is any government of any member state in the Union. The main problem has been that the commission has not actually represented the parliamentary election results. Will you be happy to know that from the next elections (in 2014
Re: (Score:2)
It's main purpose : being the bogeyman for governments for unpopular laws ("Sorry, we must do that. Ze EU said so.")
It's 100% true that governments use the EU as a justification for unpopular laws. But this tells more about the governments than about the EU itself.
More than 40000 people ^H^H^H^H^H^H assholes are leeching tax payers money for doing nothing important or worthy
Wait, until now you've said that the EU has the power to force your government to pass unpopular laws, and now you say they do "nothing important"? If you send, as you call them, assholes to the EU, that's because you elected them (usually, the national parties try to shovel into the EU parliament their members who didn't manage to get elected in some national
Re: (Score:2)
E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights, 'nuf said
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany already said so in 2010.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/defending-privacy-german-high-court-limits-phone-and-e-mail-data-storage-a-681251.html [spiegel.de]