European civil liberties groups are calling on MEPs to reject a Telecoms Package amendment that, if passed in its present form, could permit network operators to collect and mine users Internet and email data.

European Digital Rights (EDRi), France's La Quadrature du Net, and Germany's AK Vorrat have jointly  issued a  warning  about  Amendment 181 in the e-Privacy directive of the e-Privacy directive. They say it is so badly worded that it potentially allows operators to collect an unlimited amount of personal data related to our communications usage, including email traffic records and web surfing data. Vast 'pools' of data could be  stored for an unlimited amount of time, which goes much further than  the existing EU law in the Data Retention directive. 

The problems lie in both the European Parliament and the Council versions of the amendment.  The European Parliament version provides some protection for end-users but also could be interpreted as allowing the data to be passed to a third party.

 The Council version removes all data protection requirements whilst limiting the scope to security purposes.

 They are joined by the European

Report from Brussels

Pushed by an AT&T lobbyist, some revised amendments to the Telecoms Package could usher in filtering, and have rocketed net neutrality from a non-issue to one of the hottest under discussion in the Telecoms Package trialogues.

A raft of new "compromise" amendments to the Telecoms Package is circulating in Brussels. On the surface, they state that telcos, network operators and ISPs should be able to "address unjustified degradation of service", and impose "reasonable usage restrictions, and price differentiation" without any regulatory interference. The sub-agenda however, is that these legal texts could enable network operators to shrug off accountability for filtering, throttling and degrading user traffic, including access to content. With obvious implications for the neutrality of the network.

I first reported on these amendments at the end of last year, when three amendments were proposed - two Recitals addressing 'network management' and 'degradation of service', and a revision to Article 22(3) of the Universal Services directive. Since then however, a new Recital and an amendment to Article 21 have been added, which re-introduce the concept that users should be informed of 'restrictions on access to content and services'. This language shifts the onus back from the network operator to the user. It had been deleted by the Council.

The main driving force behind the amendments is the Brussels lobbyist for the American telecoms operator AT&T, who has been actively promoting his amendments inside and outside of the European Parliament. I have spoken to at least half a dozen people on this topic, who have all given me the same name. It's also my understanding however, that the issue of net neutrality is the subject of a document being circulated by other lobbyists working for

Report from Brussels

An amendment to the Telecoms Package which supports the principles established in the Bono report is back on the European Parliament agenda for the Telecoms Package trialogues.

This is Article 32(a) of the Universal Services Directive ( Amendment 166 to the Harbour report). The amendment sets out the principle that any sanctions on end users, and notably any restrictions on users rights to access content, applications and services, must be proportionate to the alleged ‘offence’ (full text below). It is an important amendment, given that elsewhere in the Universal Services Directive, there is language concerning restrictions on users access to content. And as long as the 'co-operation' amendment (Article 33 (2a) or Harbour report Amendment112) remains in, which would establish in the law a process for telecoms regulators to oversee joint programmes for copyright enforcement between ISPs and rights-holders,  it is an essential safeguard for users' rights.

It is my understanding that this amendment is now being considered among a list of political issues related to the Harbour report. The Parliament is to look at

Report from Brussels 

The controversial Amendment 138 has set EU officials searching for the rule books as they attempt to work out how to re-introduce it in the Second Reading of the Telecoms Package.

Amendment 138 states that sanctions cannot be applied against Internet users without a prior judicial ruling. It positions itself against measures such as graduated response or 3 strikes, where it is proposed to sanction users without going to court.

It was dropped without explanation by the Council of Ministers in their political agreement last November, but it is understood that MEP Guy Bono plans to re-introduce it. The rules for MEPs to table amendments in Second Reading are different from the first reading, where 40 signatures are required. It seems that even

Report from European Council Meeting (Telecommunications Council) 27 November 2008

Political agreement in the Council on Telecoms Package. Key compromises on functional separation, pan-European regulator and regulatory remedies. UK, Sweden and Netherlands abstain from agreement. Amendment 138 rejected. No explanation available.

The European Council has confirmed that it wants to drop the controversial amendment 138 from theTelecoms Package. In doing so, it sets itself clearly in the opposite corner to both the Commission and the Parliament and it puts a stumbling block in the way of the negotiations which will now take place between the three institutions. It also positions the Council as unfriendly to citizens rights, in spite of its somewhat hypocritical attempts to rename the Universal Services Directive as 'the citizen's rights directive'.

Amendment 138 states that no restrictions may be put on users rights to access content on the Internet without a court order. In one sense, it re-affirms the existing legal situation. In another sense, it puts a barrier in the way of the French government and its plans for graduated response / 3-strikes (the Creation and Internet law).

The French Industry Minister, Luc Chatel, was unable to