German court orders overhaul of data retention law
-
Author: Monica Horten
-
Published: 02 March 2010
In a landmark ruling, Germany's highest court orders major changes to the German data retention law, which will provide tighter protection for users' privacy. German ISPs have to delete all communications data stored to date.
Germany's highest court has ordered the law on data retention to be tighted up. This is the law which orders ISPs to store their users' communications traffic data, specifically records of email communications. This ruling by the German court is in a radical move which poses a challenge to EU law. The judgement follows a class action from 35,000 German citizens. The action was led by the German pressure group AK Vorrat, who have consistently opposed the data retention law.
The ruling states that
users should have more protection of their privacy in respect of their communications. In particular, it calls for a judicial ruling before retained data can be used, and then only if it is necessary in individual cases. The ruling puts the existing law into suspension until the changes ordered by the court have been made, and hence ISPs have been ordered to delete data which they currently store.
The German law is based on the EU Data Retention directive. The directive does not specify a judicial ruling, and is arguably weak in terms of the conditions under which retained communications data can be used. It is also badly drafted at a technical level, and was heavily criticised at the time of going through the EU legislature.
The Data Retention directive was rushed through the European Parliament under the British Presidency of 2005. It was controversial because the European Parliament ignored the recommendation of the rapporteur, Alexander Alvaro, and supported the Presidency.
Sweden, Austria and Romania also have concerns regarding the directive, and have not yet implemented it.
For more details see:
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. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2010) German court orders overhaul of data retention law http://www.iptegrity.com 2 March 2010
-
Article Views: 10249
IPtegrity politics
- Social media ban for kids: simple message, tough choices
- How could they ban X?
- Grok AI images: can compliance be enforced?
- AI and copyright – an author’s viewpoint
- UK climb-down over Apple back-door was foreseeable
- Copyright wars 3.0: the AI challenge
- Why would the UK take on Apple?
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- 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?
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy analyst: 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
- Social media ban for kids: simple message, tough choices
- How could they ban X?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- 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?
