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."
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: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: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.