| Ben Hayes on Tue, 28 May 2002 05:15:36 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> online petition against unlimited data retention |
Re the online petition to the European Parliament against
unlimitted data retention (posted last week), people maybe
interested (if perhaps not surprised) that the (conservative) chair of
EP "Citizens Freedoms and Rights" committee is pushing a deal
with the Council of the EU (the 15 governments) that would sell
data protection in telecommunications down the river for good.
Looks like the "socialist" groups going to join them as well. Full
story:
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR TRIES TO
REACH A "DEAL" WITH THE COUNCIL ON THE SURVEILLANCE
OF COMMUNICATIONS
from Statewatch News Online <<<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>http://www.statewatch.org/news<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>>
There were extraordinary moves last week involving the Council of
the European Union (the 15 EU governments) and the chair of the
Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Ana Palacio (EPP,
conservative group, Spain) to reach a "deal" over the retention of
telecommunications data for law enforcement agencies use - a
"deal" which would have seen the European Parliament adopting as
a negotiating position acceptable to the Council.
The parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights
agreed its 2nd reading position on the proposed revision of the
1997 Directive on 18 April. On the critical Article 15.1. the
Committee voted 25 votes to 19 to maintain its 1st reading position
opposing the retention of communications data (except in specific,
authorised, investigations - as at present). The EPP group
(conservative) of which Ana Palacio, Spanish MEP and chair of the
Committee is a member, led the opposition to the majority view.
Following this vote the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the
European Union undertook:
"a number of informal contacts... [with] interested members of the
European Parliament with a view to exploring the possibilities for a
pre-negotiated agreement on a set of compromise amendments to
be adopted at the plenary vote, now scheduled for 30 May 2002"
On 3 May and Monday 13 May the Council's Telecommunications
Working Party examined "a number of compromise texts" including
that for Article 15.1.
On Wednesday 15 May, a new amendment to Article 15.1. was
circulated by Ana Palacio, committee chair, which was to be
presented to the Council on behalf of the European Parliament as a
"compromise" agreement - an amendment which was virtually the
same as the one rejected by the Committee and which accepts the
Council's demands for data retention. It was intended that this
amendment be sent to the Council for agreement by COREPER
(the permanent representatives of the 15 EU governments based in
Brussels) - however this formal approach was blocked by the
parliament's negotiating team when it learnt of the move.
However, the Spanish Presidency of the Council simply picked up
the amendment lodged in Ana Palacio's name (amendment no 31)
and presented a report addressed to COREPER dated 16 May (the
next day) saying that it was:
"acceptable with small modification"
which is not at all surprising as it is has the same effect as the
Council's common position. It also accepted with small
modification another linked amendment (no 32) lodged by Ana
Palacio changing the "Recital" linked to Article 15.1. This would:
"allow Member States to require the provider of a public
communications network or publicly available electronic
communications service to retain traffic and location data in
accordance with the law"
The parliament's Committee's report proposed 23 amendments to
the Council's common position and further amendments, numbered
24 to 43 have been put forward to be considered at the plenary
session. Of the 23 amendments put forward in the parliament's
committee report only 2 minor changes are accepted by the
Council.
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:
"The EU governments already have all the powers they need under
the existing Directive to combat terrorism, this measure has
nothing to do with terrorism. The proposal by the EU governments
is a cynical exploitation of public sentiment to introduce draconian
powers topotentially place the whole population of Europe under
surveillance. It took years to agree and put in place the 1997 EU
Directive on privacy in telecommunications in every member state.
The right to privacy and freedom from surveillance once lost will be
gone forever. The European Parliament took a principled stand in
November 2001 and on 18 April. Now it appears that the two
largest parties - the EPP and PSE - may simply turn tail and
accept the governments' demands. It is the job of the parliament to
defend to the hilt citizens' freedoms and rights, it is to be hoped
that each MEP will look to their conscience before they vote."
Article 15.1 - the different positions
1. The Amendment (rapporteur: Marco Cappato) agreed by the
Committee on Citizens's Freedoms and Rights on 18 April as its
2nd reading position, maintaining the 1st reading position agreed in
November 2001 (amending the Council's common position under 4
below) reads as follows:
15.1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict
the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5,
Article 6, Article 8(1)(2)(3) and (4), and Article 9 of this Directive
when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate,
proportionate and temporary measure within a democratic society
to safeguard national security, defence, public security, the
prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal
offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic communication
system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. These
measures shall be entirely exceptional and based on a specific law
which is comprehensible to the general public, and shall be
authorised by the judicial or other competent authorities on a case-
by-case basis. Under the European Convention on Human Rights
and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and pursuant to rulings
issued by the European Court of Human Rights, any form of
widespread general or exploratory electronic surveillance is
prohibited.
2. The EPP/Ana Palacio amendment to the above on 18 April and
rejected by the Committee (amending the Council's common
position under 4 below) reads as follows:
15.1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict
the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5,
Article 6, Article 8(1)(2)(3) and (4), and Article 9 of this Directive
when such restriction constitutes a necessary measure to
safeguard national security, (i.e. State security) defence, public
security or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution
of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic
communications system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive
95/46/EC. To this end Member States may inter alia provide for the
retention of data for a limited period justified on the grounds laid
down in this paragraph, in accordance with the general principles of
Community law, in particular the European Convention on Human
Rights and pursuant to rulings issued by the European Court of
Human Rights.
3. The new Ana Palacio amendment put forward on 15 May
"acceptable" to the Council (amending the Council's common
position under 4 below) reads as follows:
15.1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict
the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5,
Article 6, Article 8(1)(2)(3) and (4), and Article 9 of this Directive
when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate and
proportionate measure within a democratic society to safeguard
national or State security, defence, public security, the prevention,
investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of
unauthorised use of the electronic communication system, as
referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. To this end
Member States may inter alia adopt legislative measures providing
for the retention of data for a limited period justified on the grounds
laid down in this paragraph. All the measures included in this
article shall be in accordance with the general principles of
Community law including those referred to in Article 6 paragraphs 1
and 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
4. The Council's common position on data retention in Article 15.1,
adopted 28 January, reads as follows:
15.1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict
the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article 5,
Article 6, Article 8(1)(2)(3) and (4), and Article 9 of this Directive
when such restriction constitutes a necessary measure to
safeguard national security, (i.e. State security) defence, public
security or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution
of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the electronic
communications system, as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive
95/46/EC. To this end Member States may inter alia provide for the
retention of data for a limited period justified on the grounds laid
down in this paragraph, in accordance with the general principles of
Community law.
Comment: the Council's position is intended to deflect criticism by
arguing that the proposal is non-binding and therefore up to each
member state to enact. This ignores the evidence on the record
that the Council's plans assume that every EU state allows the
retention of data and allows access to this for the "law enforcement
agencies".
Background
At the plenary session on 29-30 May in Brussels the European
Parliament will be discussing a crucial amendment to the position
on the retention of telecommunications data. The European
Commission put forward a proposal on 12 July 2000 to introduce a
number of non-controversial amendments to the 1997 EU Directive
on privacy in the telecommunications sector. By early last year it
became clear that the Council intended to use this opportunity to
effect major changes to meet the long-standing demands of the
EU's law enforcement agencies (police, customs, immigration and
internal security agencies) for the retention of all traffic and location
telecommunications data (phone-calls, e-mails, faxes and internet
usage) and access to it.
In reaction to 11 September the Council decided that the issue of
data retention - not to combat terrorism but crime in general -
should be a priority.
In November 2001 the plenary session of the European Parliament
adopted its 1st reading position which opposed the Council's
demands. After the Council made its view known in December (it
was formally adopted on 28 January) the European Commission
caved in and withdrew its long-standing opposition. The proposal
therefore returned to the parliament for a 2nd reading and on 18
April the Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights re-interated
its opposition and maintained its previous view, see: the vote in the
Committee on 18 April If the parliament maintains its position the
issue will move into the co-decision process and a conciliation
committee (involving the Council European Parliament and
Commission) will be set up.
As Statewatch has revealed, a number of EU governments are
working on a draft Framework Decision (under Article 34.2.b) to
make it binding on all 15 EU states to implement a new law
requiring public communications network or publicly available
electronic communications service to retain traffic and location data
- as soon as opposition in the European Parliament is overcome,
see: Binding Framework Decision
For more background please see Statewatch' Observatory on
Surviellance in Europe <<http://www.statewatch.org/soseurope.htm>
View this story online:
<<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/may/08survep.htm>
To receive regular announcements from Statewatch on civil liberties
issues in Europe, simply send an e-mail to
<<[email protected]>
On 21 May 02, at 19:34, Sjoera Nas wrote:
Dear Nettimers,
On 29 May the European Parliament will vote on a very important
new Privacy Directive, regulating communications privacy and data
retention. Members of GILC, the Global Internet Liberty Campaign
(www.gilc.org) are seeking endorsement for their urgent letter to the
President and Members of the European Parliament. If you
represent an NGO,
please send your support to Marc Rotenberg
<<[email protected]>, director
of EPIC, including your (full) name, e-mail adress and url of the
organisation.
Two GILC-members, stop1984.com and quintessenz have also
launched an online mechanism for individual signatures:
http://www.stop1984.com/index2.php?text=letter.txt
The deadline for this letter is 22 May 2002, so please sign on today
if you support this protest!
Thank you,
Sjoera Nas, public affairs XS4ALL
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]