EU To Monitor All Internet Searches

Xemu writes "The European Parliament is issuing a written declaration about the need to set up an early warning system to combat sexual child abuse. However, the substance of the declaration is to extend the EU data retention directive to search engines, so that all searches done on for example Google will be monitored. If you are a citizen concerned about the right to privacy and freedom on the Internet, you can help by sending e-mail to the MEPs from your country and explaining the issue to them."

Comments

Well, shit

[Andorin]

I guess search engines like StartPage (also known as Ixquick) that don't keep logs of your IP address are gonna see a nice jump in traffic.

Re:Well, shit

[klui]

This site is really cool.

I just used FF's Add to SearchBar to add it to my searchbar.

1. You can generate a custom preference URL (no additional filter, # of search results, etc.) without the use of a cookie and its preference hash is the same regardless of your IP or ISP.
2. You can use their proxy.
3. Google's site:xyz works.
4. You can force SSL for all communication with their site.

I really hope they don't change their policy.

Re:Yeah OK

[Andorin]

Mod this AC up. Channels through which child pornography passes are almost certainly outside the reach of simple monitoring of Google searches.

It's a declaration.

[RyanFenton]

This declaration doesn't seem like a law, more like the equivalent to a US Congressional Non-Binding Resolution, having no force of law on its own, and hoping the parties being addressed will react to the non-binding request. In other words, it seems to me like hot air to feed special interests.

Here's the actual text:

---

"I am pleased to inform you that, together with my colleague Ms Anna Záborská MEP, I have submitted
Written Declaration No 29 requesting the establishment of a European early warning system for
paedophiles and sex offenders. A normal childhood for our children means a solid future for our, and
for their, European Union. Any act of violence suffered by a woman or a child is an indelible defeat of
the rules of civilised coexistence. We would therefore be very grateful if, as many other colleagues
have already done, you could support this important Written Declaration No 29 'On setting up a
European early warning system (EWS) for paedophiles and sex offenders'. The proposal does
not involve the establishment of a new European agency but rather greater levels of cooperation
between the public authorities and civil society in order to defend the weaker members of society
and protect the rights of all.
I may be contacted as follows:
Tiziano Motti MEP
ASP 9E209
Tel. 45247
tiziano.motti@europarl.europa.eu
Declaration No 29 may be signed:
- Outside the Hemicycle during the part-sessions
- At the office of the Members' Activities Unit in Brussels, PHS 2A 019
Thank you in advance,
Tiziano Motti MEP"

---

They seem to do these a lot, in terms of declaring a condemnation of Israel, or having a declaration on violence against women - hot air to feel good and influence constituents, without any real legal meaning on its own.

To put it in programming terms, it seems to me they're declaring an intention - not instantiating a law. Bad in terms of intentions towards what little privacy remains, but not yet acting to change law.

My interpretation could certainly be wrong - but that seems to be how the wording strikes me.

Ryan Fenton

Re:SSL Google?

[Andorin]

No, because Google can still keep logs of your searches if you use SSL.

Re:This will never fly

[zondag]

If the EU doesn't uphold this, it's members will.

From what I have observed, members don't tend to have much say or power. Look at the whole issue with Greece or even how laws are being steam rolled into the UK with the Lisbon treaty with no way out.

Would that be the Lisbon Treaty that was ratified by all the members' national parliaments, and which for the first time formalised how a member can exit the union?

Re:All searches?

[Halo1]

It's mainly a good opportunity to correct some sensationalist misreporting:

• A written declaration is just that: a declaration. It's not a legislative proposal and has no legislative value. So the title "EU To Monitor All Internet Searches" is complete bullshit. If it is adopted, at most it can be used to remind MEPs later on that they supported this text, and hence should support legislative proposals in the same vein. However...
• ... as TFA explains, MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) have been misled into signing it, because the statement that "data retention should be extended to search engine queries" is hidden in the text. "Data retention" is not mentioned, it just says, amongst many other statements, "implement Directive 2006/24/EC and extend it to search engines in order to tackle online child pornography and sex offending rapidly and effectively". There are tons of directives and most MEPs won't have looked up what this specific directive is.

Since MEPs have been mostly misled into signing onto that particular statement, it is quite unlikely to have any clout if cited back at them later on. If someone tricked you into signing a declaration containing stuff you don't support, you'd probably not be very motivated to strongly care about it later on either. In that sense, overblowing the whole thing like in this Slashdot summary is completely counterproductive, because you give the MEPs signature more weight and make them actually more bound to it then they would be otherwise!

Christian Engström's blog post (TFA), where he explains how MEPs are misled, is good because it can help getting rid of the declaration altogether by exposing it for the deceit that it is.

This summary on the other hand is just a bunch of misinformation that will cause a lot of misguided mails to be sent. It might also raise awareness and cause MEPs to withdraw their signatures, but it will probably cause at least as many MEPs to disregard the complaints because it will be clear that people sending a mail don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Re:Take off and nuke the Vatican from orbit

[couchslug]

Given the over ONE BILLION dollars in pedo payoffs worldwide and the ongoing investigations turning up pedo priest after pedo priest, that's no troll.

No one hides a pedo unless they are a pedo. There is no reason for the systematic and effective pedo-shuffling policy of the Catholic Church except rampant pedophilia through the ranks. That they didn't give the pedos to the police, and excommunicate them, proves it beyond doubt.

Latest catch, Google for a vast number of other examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/europe/03briefs-Germany.html

Re:All searches?

[Halo1]

A written declaration is not preparation any more than a (common) press release or blog post is. It's a rallying document. The preparation for directives happens with white/green papers, consultations amongst the ministers of the member states and externally ordered studies (although the Commission often messes those up, but that's another discussion).

Re:Eh, this is to stop child abuse, not CP

[PeterBrett]

The Church is opposed to freedom of expression.

Wrong.

Doesn't that make you at best, a bad catholic?

No.

I mean, if you disagree with the church's or pope's interpretation of the bible in public, you're a heretic.

Yes. But I don't think any modern Catholic would argue that you shouldn't be free to choose to be a heretic, if you so wish. It's your immortal soul, not mine. I do of course reserve the right to disagree with you and possibly even to attempt to explain to you where you've gone wrong. ;-)

Re:Eh, this is to stop child abuse, not CP

[drinkypoo]

The Church is opposed to freedom of expression.

Wrong.

Say goodbye to your remaining credibility — two examples relating to Catholicism are trivially located on Wikipedia through google. You didn't even try to be honest.

I don't think any modern Catholic would argue that you shouldn't be free to choose to be a heretic, if you so wish. It's your immortal soul, not mine. I do of course reserve the right to disagree with you and possibly even to attempt to explain to you where you've gone wrong. ;-)

The church has disagreed throughout history. If they had the power I am quite sure that they would make it a criminal act to be a heretic today. The Catholic church has a history of punishing people for unbelief when they are in a position of sufficient power, and there is no reason to believe that they would act any differently today. Given what they do to [a percentage of] believers, which is to say raping them homosexually while preaching that both rape and homosexuality are wrong, I'd say there's every reason to believe that the church hasn't changed its stripes whatosever since high officials are still covering up this abuse, which proves collusion rather than simply implying it. Every time your church hides a child molester, they are condoning child molestation.

Supporting this church is an unconscionable act. Describing yourself as a member of this church is condoning child molestation in the same way that describing yourself as a member of the KKK is condoning lynching and cross-burnings. Furthermore, it is a foolish act, as this is clearly a church that will not hesitate to throw you to the wolves, or even tear you apart themselves if it furthers their goals. Given how Jeshua supposedly treated the money-changers in the temples, he would certainly have been appalled at the gold dripping from Catholic churches while followers starve in the streets — all too common in Latin America.