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."

50 of 77 comments (clear)

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

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

  2. 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 Vermonter · · Score: 1

      The system seems to work.

      Even a broken clock etc etc

    4. 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.
    5. 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!”
    6. 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.
    7. 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*
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

  3. 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*
  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 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.
    5. 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."

    6. 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.

    7. 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?
    8. 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.

  5. 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 Arker · · Score: 1

      Piraterna should make that an election issue.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. 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*
    4. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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...
  9. Re:Europe, here I come! by Anonyme+Connard · · Score: 1

    No, that's just the Parisian waiters.

  10. 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.

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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!"
  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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.