ePrivacy: MEPs urged to limit traffic data processing
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 21 March 2009
MEPs are urged to limit traffic data processing by network operators.
ePrivacy directive Article 6: Amendment 85 and Amendment 150
The following comments have been emailed to me by the German campaigning group AK Vorrat:
Recommendation
Am 150 ACCEPT
Am 85 REJECT
The council compromise wording of Article 6 (2a) in column four is a little better than the previous versions
- specification of who may process data ("data controller")
- no exception from confidentiality (article 5)
- no inclusion of information society services (i.e. content providers)
- provider interest may be overridden.
But the core problems remain:
- retention is not limited to specific occasions and may thus take place permanently
- no maximum retention period specified, so data may be stored forever
- the disclosure of data to third parties is not exluded ("may be processed")
- data retained for security purposes can later be used for any other purpose, including disclosure to government authorities (no purpose limitation).
Amendment 150 tabled by Eva-Britt Svensson is better:
- retention is limited to "specific cases" and my thus not take place permanently
- maximum retention period of seven days is specified, so data may not be stored forever
- the disclosure of data to third parties is not covered ("may be collected, stored and used")
- data retained for security purposes cannot later be used for other purposes such as disclosure to government authorities (purpose limitation included).
Overall, it would still be best to refrain from any amendments to article 6 at all.
A position paper with a detailed analysis of the issues with the ePrivacy directive Amendment 6 is available from Patrick Breyer of AK Vorrat
Analysis with voting recommendation at La Quadrature du Net
- Article Views: 9706
IPtegrity politics
- Shadow bans: EU law says users may not be left in the dark
- 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
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.
Online Safety
- Shadow bans: EU law says users may not be left in the dark
- 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