December 2005
Data Retention Directive
The European Parliament has passed the controversial Data Retention Directive on 14 December 2005.
The Directive, promoting as a key tool to fight terrorism, must be implemented in 18 months’ time for telephone data and in three years’ time for Internet data.
A variety of telephone and Internet data will have to be kept for up to two years and six months respectively and will be made available to the judiciary and the police to help investigating serious crimes and acts of terrorism.
These data identify the caller and the means of communication but this does not include the actual content of the message. It will however retain details of connected but answered calls, which could be used as digital signals to communicate with criminals or detonate bombs. The data retained will only be disclosed in specific cases and will be subject to strict data protection rules. Any abuse will be subject to sanctions.
The question of reimbursements by national governments of the costs incurred by the telecommunication industry in retaining data has not been harmonised. This has been left to the individual Member States to decide. The new legislation could be implemented early next year.
BRIFFA Comment:
Britain, in its role as President of the EU, has been the champion of toughening up security and anti terrorist measures but the new legislation has raised serious concerns about human rights, data protection, the costs of implementation and who will bear them.
Even if there is some legitimacy in introducing harsher measures for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminals after terrorist attacks, the EU has gone even further than the US, always branded as the ultimate villain when civil liberties are concerned.
The EU's plan for data retention will also necessitate the creation of a new body of law enforcement agents.
There are rumours that it could cost companies £26 million per year to set up and run the necessary systems. It is also likely to put a substantial financial burden on telecoms operators and ISPs, which could be wrongly perceived as enforcement agencies. This would be passed on to the consumer either in the form of raised bills or through government subsidies funded by the taxpayer.