EU privacy chief slams data retention directive
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 31 May 2011
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Peter Hustinx, has today issued a call for radical changes to the directive which mandates ISPs and phone companies to store users' traffic data.
In a public statement, he says that the Data Retention directive does not meet the requirements imposed by the rights to privacy and data protection, both of which are guaranteed as fundamental rights under EU law.
Mr Hustinx was commenting on a report by the European Commission, released in April, which evaluates the implementation of the directive. Whilst he understands that retained traffic data is sometimes needed, for example, in criminal investigations, he says
that the directive could have been less intrusive, and should have been more clear on the purpose for which the data was to be retained.
He is critical of the vague and imprecise language of the Data Retention directive, which allows for very different implementations in the different Member States. And he argues that this means there is little harmonisation across the European Union, which is a problem.
He also draws attention to the failure of the European Commission to demonstate a need for this law.
Mr Hustinx makes three key recommendations for any revision of the directive, or replacement law. The law should be proportionate, and not go further than necessary, it should have a clear and precise purpose which cannot be circumvented, and it should provide for a consistent implementation across all 27 Member States.
The Data Retention directive was bullied through the European Parliament in 2006 under the British Presidency. Its language is indeed imprecise and was described by experts at the time as being technically nonsense.
The European Commission is considering whether to amend the Data Retention Directive.
Pleae attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) EU data protection chief slams data retention directive http://www.iptegrity.com 31 May 2011 .
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed.
- Article Views: 11346
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill