Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European Court of Justice Strikes Down Data Retention Law

Posted by timothy on from the wish-the-u.s.-would-one-up-'em dept.

New submitter nachtkap (951646) writes with some good news, as reported by the BBC: "The EU's top court has declared 'invalid' an EU law requiring telecoms firms to store citizens' communications data for up to two years. The EU Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2006. The European Court of Justice says it violates two basic rights — respect for private life, and protection of personal data. Germany's supreme court did call on the ECJ to look into this issue as well."

77 comments

  1. Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to see how my country find a way to work around that ruling so they can keep logging every TCP connection I make.

    1. Re:Can't wait by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      It's not difficult. How would you ever know? The "workaround" is just doing it without telling anybody. You will never be able to prove a thing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Can't wait by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      The "workaround" is just doing it without telling anybody. You will never be able to prove a thing.

      Because, of course, European telecoms are staffed entirely by intelligence agents of unquestionable loyalty.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure they are ... most likly though not european intelligence agents ;)

    4. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, of course, European telecoms are staffed entirely by intelligence agents of unquestionable loyalty.

      Yeah, actually. I found some of the younger hackers in the Netherlands to be a bunch of selfish state-apologist toolbags. America is also full of little men who like fapping to authority and fantasizing about discipline. Just look at how they appreciate the ridiculous military fetish on Star Trek. I'm only saying, don't expect the Dutch collaborator barrel to be as empty as it was a decade ago.

    5. Re:Can't wait by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      All they have to do is sell the data to private companies then buy it back later, or buy an option to have permanent access to it. ...The merger of state and corporate power.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:Can't wait by CeasedCaring · · Score: 1

      "Not required to..." != "Prohibited from..."

  2. Europe, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Privacy protection, government run health care, Mediterranean climate, keeping religion in check - why am I still in the US?

    1. Re:Europe, here I come! by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the english speaking countries in the E.U. don't have that much of each?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy protection, government run health care, Mediterranean climate, keeping religion in check - why am I still in the US?

      Wut?

      Theo van Gogh disagrees.

      Well, he would, but he was murdered by religious fanatics. In Europe.

      And if you Google "youths riot in france" you get over 12,000,000 hits. Ever wonder what religion those "youths" espouse?

      Religious law in England? Say it ain't so!

      "Keeping religion in check"? My ass.

    3. Re:Europe, here I come! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, because in the US, you're so much safer from religious fanatics. And you can even get by on your own, without having to involve immigrant Muslims. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get by with English in most of the EU, with the notable exception of France, where people will understand you but pretend that they don't.

    5. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change "most of the EU" to "parts of Scandinavia" and you're right.

    6. Re:Europe, here I come! by nospam007 · · Score: 0

      "You can get by with English in most of the EU, with the notable exception of France, where people will understand you but pretend that they don't."

      No, that's just the french waiters, it has nothing to do with English.

      If you talk French, they ignore you as well, only after a required minimum of sulking time they begin to make snide remarks and get rude with you.

    7. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonyme+Connard · · Score: 1

      No, that's just the Parisian waiters.

    8. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because in the US, you're so much safer from religious fanatics. And you can even get by on your own, without having to involve immigrant Muslims. ;-)

      And that refutes claims of out-of-control religious extremism in Europe how? The original post referred to Europe and claimed Europe is "keeping religion in check", which at best appears to be wishful thinking.

      This entire thread is about Europe. Why are you referring to the US?

    9. Re:Europe, here I come! by jalopezp · · Score: 2

      Denmar, Norway, Iceland, and Greece all have a state religion. Spain, Portugal and Ireland, though without a state religion, give legal privileges to the Catholic church (Finland has a similar relationship with the Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church). The UK not only has a state religion, but the Head of State is also the Supreme Head of the Church of England. North of this line, the climate sucks. South of that line, trains don't run on time.

    10. Re:Europe, here I come! by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      And the Dutch. They even teach entire university courses in English there.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    11. Re:Europe, here I come! by Zumbs · · Score: 2

      Having a state religion is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. In Denmark (where I live) the state religion is Lutheran Christianity, run by the People's Church. And the name is intended to be taken literally: At the local level, the Church is controlled by the Congregation Council, whose members are elected by the members of the congregation. Among other things, they hire the local priest(s). Priests (and other religious officials) are not allowed to use the Church floor (or in any other official capacity) to do political propaganda, whether it is against abortion or for a certain politician. The People's Church is also open to a wide array of ideas among its members - it is acceptable to believe in reincarnation, that the bible is just a book of wisdom. A priest even managed to get away with publicly stating that he did not believe in a creating god.

      In Denmark, the effect of having a People's Church is that the Church plays no political role. Even though I am an Atheist, and ideologically opposed to the idea of having a state religion, I cannot help realizing that this particular instance helps secularization rather than impede it. I am also not a member.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    12. Re:Europe, here I come! by lordholm · · Score: 1

      This is the case in many EU states. Higher education (master's level courses) are in general given in English in a lot of universities, including in France.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    13. Re:Europe, here I come! by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      These are bachelor's level (undergraduate degrees).

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    14. Re:Europe, here I come! by nachtkap · · Score: 1

      The solution seems to be to live on/near the line then. as far as I can make out the areas to live in would include Paris, Frankfurt, a sizable chuck of the Rhine, Stuttgard, Lake Constance, Vienna.
      Just view the state religions as Europe's 2nd Amendment. A somewhat annoying relic from a bygone age where the (hardcore) adherents ruin the general climate for everyone. Assuming religion while be around for good while longer, having state religions in secular state isn't as bad as one might think. In my opinion it keeps the religions from going of the rails because they would lose their befits if they don't play nice.

    15. Re:Europe, here I come! by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      I have only travelled in nothern France and the last 15 years has changed a lot and it seems to be possible now to use English(have never been to Paris).
      Unless they think I am German, then nothing is possible and there are no rooms available, they can't understand a word of what I am saying etc.

    16. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Huffington post is a tabloid and like any other tabloid paper they have a tendency basically make stuff up or twist it so far out of context that what gets printed have nothing to do with reality, and this is what happens here. There is no real meat on that story.

      Sharia have not been written into any law by any act of parliament, no matter how much the tabloid press decides to spin it like that. What were dealing with here is only civil contracts between free individuals, and all that happened here is that a bunch of capitalists decided to standardize a product catering to a market segment, no official acts of government were passed or changed in the process. The basic principle here is and have always been that anyone can sign any legal contract and that contracts between free individuals only bind the parties who signed it.

      Arbitration clauses is also an old tradition in contract law with the majority of all contract disputes settled by private arbitration councils.

  3. Good for them. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The EU does a lot wrong and it also does a lot right.

    The thing is when the EU does something wrong that governments don't like, they piss and moan and make a fuss. Of course, the various governments pretty much cackled with glee when the EU came up with the data retention law, because it appealed to their creepy, snoopy, power hungry side.

    But now the EU court has struck it down.

    The system seems to work.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Good for them. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The system seems to work.

      Yes, people might think that, but how can you verify your data is not being harvested?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Good for them. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yes, people might think that, but how can you verify your data is not being harvested?

      You can't. But the first step is to make sure the laws are sane. Then worry about getting them enforced.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the various governments pretty much cackled with glee

      By which you mean America was happy they'd be able to get the data for everyone on the planet?

      Fuck you guys.

    4. Re:Good for them. by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      The system seems to work.

      Even a broken clock etc etc

    5. Re:Good for them. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I believe that once the various governments also strike the laws down.

      Read the fine print. The EU did not disallow data retention. They only made it no longer mandatory. The various governments only lost their convenient "we have to, the evil, evil, EU forces us to" strawman. But since data retention is already in place pretty much everywhere, that straw man is no longer necessary.

      What is now necessary is someone asking when and how governments will not only backpedal but outright outlaw data retention again. And yes, outlawing it will be necessary if you don't want it to happen. Why? Because else telcos will do it because it might be a convenient additional venue of income in case someone, let's say a government, needs some information...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Good for them. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, you know the routine. You gotta elect somebody that will write sane law.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Good for them. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Simple. Outlaw data retention, the way it used to be in the EU before the whole terrorist craze set in. Yes, it was actually ILLEGAL to retain data beyond what is absolutely the bare minimum necessary to do business (i.e. meter phone calls so you know what to charge) and tack some insane fines to it. Install a government position that has nothing better to do than follow up claims of misconduct. Then watch the telcos try to get at each other's throat by finding out how a competitor breaks that law, hoping to break their competitors' back with the fines.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Good for them. by Sique · · Score: 2

      Read the fine print again: The E.U. considered the current data retention laws according to the directive to be incompatible with the human rights as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. So this actually invalidates the data retention laws in all countries who adhered to the directive, e.g. all of them with the exemption of Ireland, Germany, where struck down before by the German Constitutional Court, and Austria, which never got the act together.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Good for them. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, the council of ministers has to get together quickly to make the data retention directive compatible with human rights.

      You don't expect them to simply drop it because it's incompatible with something as negligible as human rights, do you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Good for them. by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, ISPs were forced to implement the data retention. For them, even if they aren't opposed to it on privacy grounds, it's additional infrastructure costs that they would rather get rid of.

    11. Re:Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck expecting the UK government to follow suit, those knuckle dragging bastards in the UK should be kicked out of office.

    12. Re:Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In other words, the council of ministers has to get together quickly to make the data retention directive compatible with human rights. You don't expect them to simply drop it because it's incompatible with something as negligible as human rights, do you?

      And the spokesbot for the UK said "fuck it, we'll just pass the law again with slightly different wording, keep doing what we've been doing, and if it takes 7 more years for the next ECJ court to strike it down, we'll just do it all over again...":

      From TFA: Responding to the ruling, a British government spokesman said the retention of communications data was absolutely fundamental to allowing law enforcement authorities to investigate crime and ensure national security. "We cannot be in a position where service providers are unable to retain this data," the spokesman said.

      Actually, Mr. GCHQ spokesdrone, you can, you just don't want to.

    13. Re:Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of depends, if the Human Rights Court is used after this against them, then they could end up in a position where they have no choice but give it up. Some times EU governments will change course after some strongly worded statements as well, just because when they finally finish the analysis for their over all position, they realize they're going to get hammered in the end and just lose out even worse.

      So we'll have to wait and see really what happens in the coming months really.

    14. Re:Good for them. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a little more complicated than that because the EU rules have to be transposed into each country's laws, although often nothing actually happens because the existing laws already meet the EU requirements. As such people in each country will have to bring human rights cases against their government's particular laws, unless the government takes the usually moral route of removing them without being forced to.

      Still, it's good to know we can now proceed with human rights cases against our governments.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B.S... Pure and simple. That is not what the law said, nor does this have any affect what so ever on those laws.

      The two most anal countries, when it comes to privacy, Denmark and Germany have never made it "ILLEGAL" to retain data; both have a provision that states it is legal to retain data, as long as it is necessary for doing business - so if you are selling advertisement, you are absolutely allowed to retain the data for targeted branding (you are *not* allowed to give this information to 3rd parties).

      This ruling has nothing to do with those laws and it wont make any changes to those laws, as they are part of the privacy laws, not the anti terror laws.

      IANAL, I do however work with tracking and data mining, and know my shit, when it comes to these laws.

    16. Re:Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains why the Conservatives are so bent on removing said human rights...

    17. Re:Good for them. by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      My first, cynical thought was that they did it because the businesses told them that doing so would reduce their profit margins.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    18. Re:Good for them. by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Well, here in Czech republic, the previous prime minister's party went from 2nd place with 20.22% of votes in 2010 (with tiny difference between 1st and 2nd place) to 5th place with 7.72% in 2013 early elections, barely making the election threshold of 5%. So yes, there's still hope at least for my country. It doesn't guarantee that the next guy in power will be sane, but at least it's nice to know that voters can actually kick the worst ones out really hard when they run out of patience.

    19. Re:Good for them. by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      UK and Poland didn't adopt the EU charter of fundamental rights so they can just ignore this ruling. But the rest of EU must follow it, including Czech republic which finally decided to adopt the charter as well.

  4. Almost makes me want to live there by kheldan · · Score: 3

    Is it just me, or is the EU government showing more respect for people's privacy than here in the U.S.?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I'm actually planning on making the move (for real). I'm in the process of obtaining my birthright citizenship in one of the Shengen countries, after which I intend to move my family over there.

      No country is perfect, but America is being so badly run these days, I think Europe (Germany) is worth a try for me.

    2. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by famebait · · Score: 2

      Nope, the EU 'government' created the damn thing in the first place. The EU *court* struck it down.

      OTOH, at least the whole scheme was out in the open, as opposed to the plain illegal surveillance in the US.

      OTTH, who knows how many of the national goverrments are doing that as well.
      There is also the neat trick (used by the UK among others) of turning a blind eye to, say, US surveillance of european citizens in return for access to the data. That way noone is offiically spying on their own citizens, but the net result is the same.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    3. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Is it just me, or is the EU government showing more respect for people's privacy than here in the U.S.?

      That has been the case for a very long time. In Europe, privacy is seen as an inalienable right, while in the US, it is a commodity you're allowed to sell for a mouse click.

    4. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or is the EU government showing more respect for people's privacy than here in the U.S.?

      >Court< , not government. It's like the US supreme court declaring a law unconstitutional. The governments created the laws in the first place...

    5. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The reason for this is that the "council of ministers" that created it is about as undemocratic as it can possibly get in the EU, the entity that struck it down was one of the few remaining and working democratic parts of it.

      Draw your conclusions about the EU and its purpose, if you want.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by carton · · Score: 1

      Don't let todays' positive news cycle make you forget that the "EU government" are also the ones who passed the mandatory data retention law, which is worse than anything going on above the table in the US.

      This shouldn't be reduced to an ad-hominem comparison of countries, but I admit I also thought, "Now it's harder for the US to pass a mandatory data retention law."

    7. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Call me the day the Patriot Act is repealed. At least we realise when a law is bad and remove it.

    8. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by polar+red · · Score: 3, Informative

      the council has its power reduced and it's power partially handed over the european parliament (= what I consider th e most democratically elected body on earth).
      purpose of the EU ? PEACE nothing else - and its doing a fine job. (check history ... western europe was basically waist-deep in blood up from before the dark ages until 1945)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    9. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Well, why bother going to war when you can simply buy countries? It's cheaper.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      If you ask me, there's a very simple and understandable reason for this sensibility: Europe hosted its share of tyrannic oppressive regimes over the centuries, all of which used accumulated data to oppress their opponents. For once people seemed to have learned a thing from history.

    11. Re:Almost makes me want to live there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, why bother going to war when you can simply buy countries? It's cheaper.

      Added benefits include, leaving infrastructure intact, and no casualties or fatalities of either civilian or military.

  5. They need more statists on their court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, we all know that the government knows best.

    Rights? Who cares?

  6. Payment Gateways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will be the next target. If they can't force a VPN provider to log communication and (subsequently) force them to turn over said logs, they'll simply make it unprofitable to run a VPN in the first place. After all, everybody using a VPN does so for nefarious purposes.

  7. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bahnhof, the swedish ISP announced that they would delete all stored data and stop all recording something like an hour after the announcment. It will be interesting to see what our government thinks about it, since it is still in swedish law. But since they had to pay the EU fines for having delayed the implementation of the directive I can't imagine they will be too upset.

    Also, to everyone saying this proves that the EU is great, it was the EU who forced this crap on us to begin with.

    1. Re:Sweet! by mtempsch · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see what our government thinks about it, since it is still in swedish law. But since they had to pay the EU fines for having delayed the implementation of the directive I can't imagine they will be too upset.

      Since it was invalid, will we be getting the fines, for nor timely implementing it, back?

    2. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was the EU who forced this crap on us to begin with.

      _Some_ Swedes were quite happily pushing for it in the EU...

    3. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, and the Swedish law will probably not be revoked unless someone is willing to drag the government to court over it.

    4. Re:Sweet! by Arker · · Score: 1

      Piraterna should make that an election issue.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:Sweet! by Sique · · Score: 1
      I think it shows a deeper problem. Data retention was active already (PRISM is one of the programs that are known), but in the hand of the intelligence agencies. Police departements were envious of the capabilities of the agencies (and probably got some information considered useful from them) and rallied for their own data retention programs, but they had to be legal to be admissible in court.

      So in each country where the Minister of Interior affairs or a top police officer was always pressuring for a data retetion law, there was probably a data retention program already in place, whose results were just unusable in public (e.g. in court).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehm, didn't the court just do that or am I missing something?

    7. Re:Sweet! by rioki · · Score: 1

      Yes you are. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a body that rules about European directives. A directive is not a law per see, but a guideline how national laws should be implemented. Once a directive is passed, each national Government needs to somehow integrate the directive into their local laws. So the net result the directive has no real meaning to the people, the national laws have, which are influenced by the directive.

      In this case the ECJ ruled that the directive was invalid. The result is that the directive is meaningless, but the national laws are unchanged by the ECJ directive. Now the Swedish government (and other) must change their laws accordingly. What GP is alluding to is that the Swedish government will probably do nothing until someone contests the Swedish law in a Swedish court. The only way the ECJ comes into play is as a reference decision.

      The only other option would be if Swedish citizens file a complaint at the European Human Rights Court, which could then pressure Sweden to change it's laws. But that only applies if the the citizen brought up the issue in Swedish courts first and failed.

  8. We need another cold war by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those European communists appear to be stealing our freedom.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:We need another cold war by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, the price of freedom is vigilance. If you don't watch over it, it will be taken from you.

      Doesn't take those pesky evil Commies for that, your own government is plenty if you let it run amok unchecked.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:We need another cold war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't realize your freedom is in the Cloud now. Good-bye to personal property.

    3. Re:We need another cold war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you will have pry it from my cold, dead hands! Soon the Russians think we are all Slavs, occupy and we get to live in the Ender's word. Then you get your freedom back very easily, for I will have cold, dead and bloody hands then.

  9. With weasel words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll use weasel words to undercut your rights.

    See, for example, the arguments for limiting political speech in Breyer's dissent recently. "We need to limit free speech in order to protect First Amendment interests"

    What the FUCK is a "First Amendment interest" and how the hell does that justify limiting free speech because it's political in nature? Oh, yeah. It's a weasel word used to get around the actual wording of the First Amendment and restrict speech someone in power doesn't like. "Your speech is OK, but your's is not!"

    Hooray for treating the Constitution as a "living document", eh? "Congress shall make no law ..." gets reinterpreted as "unless we really want to". Yeah. Weasel words because you want to do what it says you CAN'T.

    Want to remove the right to bear arms? Hang your weasel words on an explanatory clause that enumerates one reason for that right.

    Want to regulate something obscure? Call it "interstate commerce" and hang your weasel words on the Commerce Clause.

    Want to penalize someone for not buying health care? Ignore the language of the law and use your weasel words to call it a "tax".

    Want the government to "do something" that you like, but can't find explicit authorization for it in the Constitution? Use your weasel words and utterly ignore the 10th Amendment.

    And your rights that the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular was meant to protect get flushed.

    It's SUCH a good thing we have a self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar as President so he can protect us from all this....

    1. Re:With weasel words by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Well at least they're only violating the SPIRIT of the law, not the actual letter.

      They're not all-out criminals who just do whatever the hell they like (like the leaders of some other countries...)

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:With weasel words by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, what has this to do with the EU again?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:With weasel words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you'd take your meds like you're supposed to Zontar, you'd understand more. Meds, Zontar. Meds! Hahahahahaha

  10. Company data vs Big Gov Data by onproton · · Score: 1

    The US currently has no law that requires companies to retain data, but they all pretty much do anyway. It's interesting because somehow requiring companies to retain data "stifles free speech" but the actual government collecting it in massive databases is apparently A-Okay!

  11. Zontar - sockpuppeteer & libelous troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

    Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

    ---

    You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

    ---

    Why, Lastly?

    You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

    "The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

    (Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)

    ... apk