European Court of Justice Strikes Down Data Retention Law

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."

Comments

Can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Can't wait

[fustakrakich]

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.

Good for them.

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Good for them.

[Opportunist]

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...

Re:Good for them.

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Good for them.

[Sique]

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.

Re:Europe, here I come!

[Sique]

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

Almost makes me want to live there

[kheldan]

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

Re:Almost makes me want to live there

[famebait]

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.

Re:Almost makes me want to live there

[arth1]

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.

Re:Almost makes me want to live there

[polar red]

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)

We need another cold war

[GodfatherofSoul]

Those European communists appear to be stealing our freedom.

Re:We need another cold war

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Europe, here I come!

[jalopezp]

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.

Re:Europe, here I come!

[Zumbs]

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.