U.S. to Gain Access to EU Retained Data

shenanigans writes "After the EU recently ratified controversial data retention laws for ISPs and other telecommunication companies, it now looks like the US government will get full access to the data. From the article: 'US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected'. Apparently, the US has been calling members of the EU to 'ensure that the data collected [...] be accessible to them'."

Comments

"Through existing agreements"

[the_skywise]

That's the key phrase. The FBI, Scotland Yard and other equivalent government police forces already share data of this nature. (IE large bank transactions, criminal histories, etc)

The article

[AlanS2002]

US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms' and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected, reports Swedish daily Sydsvenskan.

The EU data retention bill, passed in February after much controversy and with implementation tabled for late 2007, obliges telephone operators and internet service providers to store information on who called who and who emailed who for at least six months, aimed at fighting terrorism and organised crime.

A week later on 2-3 March, EU and US representatives met in Vienna for an informal high level meeting on freedom, security and justice where the US expressed interest in the future storage of information.

The US delegation to the meeting "indicated that it was considering approaching each [EU] member state to ensure that the data collected on the basis of the recently adopted Directive on data retention be accessible to them," according to the notes of the meeting.

Representatives from the Austrian EU presidency and from the European Commission said that these data were "accessible like any other data on the basis of the existing ... agreements" the notes said.

The EU representatives added that the commission would convene an expert meeting on the issue.

Under current agreements, if the FBI, for example, is interested in a group of EU citizens from a member state who are involved in an investigation, the bureau can ask for help with a prosecutor in that member state.

The national prosecutor then requests telephone operators and internet service providers for information, which is then passed on to the FBI.

This procedure opens the way for US authorities to get access under the EU data-retention law, according to the Swedish newspaper.

In the US itself meanwhile, fury has broken out in the US congress after reports revealed that the Bush administration covertly collected domestic phone records of tens of millions of US citizens since the attacks in New York on 11 September 2001.

President George Bush did not deny the allegations in a television statement last night, but insisted that his administration had not broken any laws.

Re:Tell us again...

[Lord Kano]

Who said it wasn't a big deal?

Pretty much every Brit who dismisses American surprise about the London camera system.

But at least I have power over my own government (and to some small extent, over the EU). If G. W. Bush wants to put me in one of his camps, I cannot vote him out of office ...

He can't run again, he'll be out of office in 2.5 years regardless.

LK

Not likely

[denoir]

What the article doesn't mention is that the European Parliament would have to approve it, which won't happen. It's a typical EU Commission vs. Parliament situation. The Commission would like us all to wear mandatory RFID tags and tracking devices while being urine tested twice a day. Then the Parliament steps in and passes water on their plans. The Parliament was very reluctant to approve the data storage directive in the first place - the final version was a very reduced version of the original proposal. They placed an emphasis on that data mining without a court order was strictly forbidden, so it's extremely unlikely that they would allow the Americans to do what they are not allowing their own law enforcement agencies.

Ultimately this will end like the US-EU air passenger data deal - with no data being turned over.

Re:Not likely

[bvdbos]

You must be kidding right? Here's a nice overview, also EDRI has quite some information...

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[ericspinder]

Sorry that I don't have enough time to write a more elaborate response, but this is wrong. The Republicans already controlled Congress, and had for some time (about 6 years I believe).

Actually, you're wrong, Clinton was impeached during a lame duck session of congress, as Newt and his buddies knew that the next congress wouldn't have the votes. Largely because just enough of their supporters were voted out.

One might be able to argue (well, I for one) that the marginal success which the Democrats had during that electition caused the Repblicans to understand that they needed to fully attack Clinton on 'moral issues' as they couldn't go after his largely successful policies. I don't think that any of them really expected the Senate to convict (Heck, did they really want to take the chance of making 'Mr Clean' Gore a sitting incumbant in a good economy).

I believe that it was really just a ploy to give 'talking points' to Republican pundits in the next couple of elections. You know, the implied moral high ground which one gets by knocking down others, it should also be noted that the era saw a massive increase in 'negitive advertisment' in political races (not that it was new, just that we saw a lot more of it).