EU approves data retention rules

ro2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4527840.stm

cgarvey

I just got a reply from Gay Mitchell who voted against it, and explained (very well) why. Fair play (even if it's irrelevant in the greater scheme of things).

.cg

dahamsta

I suppose the next step is a legal challenge. I've got €100 here towards it, I could probably stretch to €250, maybe a little more. Anyone else?

adam /dead serious

Tom Young

cgarvey wrote:

I just got a reply from Gay Mitchell who voted against it, and explained (very well) why. Fair play (even if it's irrelevant in the greater scheme of things).

.cg

I believe the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was in-fact against this also.

Problem with the 'pillars' ho humm.

Tom

Those of you who saw it will have noticed that Ireland was opposed and noted as such in the UK/EU press release.

Duffman

Another legislative decision that displays a mind boggling lack of technical awareness. The beginning of the end for privacy, anonymity and indeed freedom online. A sad day indeed.

Duffman

Tom Young wrote:

I believe the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was in-fact against this also.

McDowell was opposed to it because he didn't want to accept the maximum retention periods. He wants more sweeping powers. Not surprising really.

Ken Shabby wrote:

I suppose the next step is a legal challenge. I've got €100 here towards it, I could probably stretch to €250, maybe a little more. Anyone else?

I just wrote a paper on this for college. I think a case before the European Court of Human Rights would be well worth arguing. My 2c is that data retention is totally illegal.

dahamsta

Can you skip the Irish courts on this and go straight to the ECHR? Arguing it locally might be difficult, but building a European-wide defense fund would be much easier.

In all honesty, whatever people say about Europe, we are generally stronger on human rights than the US. I think there would be a good chance of defeating this before it gets into local legislation.

adam

Tom Young

Duffman wrote:

McDowell was opposed to it because he didn't want to accept the maximum retention periods. He wants more sweeping powers. Not surprising really.



I just wrote a paper on this for college. I think a case before the European Court of Human Rights would be well worth arguing. My 2c is that data retention is totally illegal.

My learned friend, you will no doubt be aware of the 2005 Counter Terrorism Act then, mandating telecom traffic DR for 3 years? (Albeit annonymous)

McDowell's position in my view is not as you opine. I state this with first hand knowledge from the Dept. It's a Pillar 1 versus 3 argument that I guess you know with requisite levels of detail.

I wholly agree with the Data Privacy aspects, but from reading the draft you will have noted that the DP aspects are cut down.

My view is that the DP noise will help with the Head of Bill consultation and transposition process.

Some of the more dynamic DR proposals are just impossible to undertake.

Some government initiatives like the GBS and PPPs with Telco's might just die all of a sudden.

Tom.

*Buys shares in EDS*

Tom Young

Ken Shabby wrote:

Can you skip the Irish courts on this and go straight to the ECHR? Arguing it locally might be difficult, but building a European-wide defense fund would be much easier.

In all honesty, whatever people say about Europe, we are generally stronger on human rights than the US. I think there would be a good chance of defeating this before it gets into local legislation.

adam

Problematic. The Von Colson precedent of the indirect effect of directives whereby domestic implementing legislation is interpreted in light of the wording and purpose of a directive in order to ensure that a directive is given full effect. Case 14/83 Von Colson v Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891

dahamsta

While I appreciate you being here Tom, please remember that we're not all lawyers; in fact the majority of people reading here probably aren't. So if you could dumb it down a little and not refer to cases unless there's something we can actually look at, I for one would appreciate it.

Anyway, you've pointed out a problem with the course of action I was thinking about, which is good, however what would be better - assuming you believe something should be done - would be nudges in the right direction. Is there anything that can be done, and if so, what is it please?

And most importantly, what will it cost?

Thanks,
adam

cgarvey

I'm with adam as we chant WTF in a beautiful harmony

Tom Young

Tom Young wrote:

I believe the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was in-fact against this also.

Problem with the 'pillars' ho humm.

Tom

Those of you who saw it will have noticed that Ireland was opposed and noted as such in the UK/EU press release.

Refer to Damien M's thread.