Europe's Plan to Track Phone and Net Use

[RedGlitter]

By VICTORIA SHANNON Published: February 20, 2007

PARIS, Feb. 19 — European governments are preparing legislation to require companies to keep detailed data about people’s Internet and phone use that goes beyond what the countries will be required to do under a European Union directive.

In Germany, a proposal from the Ministry of Justice would essentially prohibit using false information to create an e-mail account, making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal.

A draft law in the Netherlands would likewise go further than the European Union requires, in this case by requiring phone companies to save records of a caller’s precise location during an entire mobile phone conversation.

Even now, Internet service providers in Europe divulge customer information — which they normally keep on hand for about three months, for billing purposes — to police officials with legally valid orders on a routine basis, said Peter Fleischer, the Paris-based European privacy counsel for Google. The data concerns how the communication was sent and by whom but not its content.

But law enforcement officials argued after the terrorist bombings in Spain and Britain that they needed better and longer data storage from companies handling Europe’s communications networks.

European Union countries have until 2009 to put the Data Retention Directive into law, so the proposals seen now are early interpretations. But some people involved in the issue are concerned about a shift in policy in Europe, which has long been a defender of individuals’ privacy rights.

Under the proposals in Germany, consumers theoretically could not create fictitious e-mail accounts, to disguise themselves in online auctions, for example. Nor could they use a made-up account to use for receiving commercial junk mail. While e-mail aliases would not be banned, they would have to be traceable to the actual account holder.

“This is an incredibly bad thing in terms of privacy, since people have grown up with the idea that you ought to be able to have an anonymous e-mail account, Mr. Fleischer said. “Moreover, it’s totally unenforceable and would never work.

Mr. Fleischer said the law would have to require some kind of identity verification, “like you may have to register for an e-mail address with your national ID card.

Jörg Hladjk, a privacy lawyer at Hunton & Williams, a Brussels law firm, said that might also mean that it could become illegal to pay cash for prepaid cellphone accounts. The billing information for regular cellphone subscriptions is already verified.

Mr. Fleischer said: “It’s ironic, because Germany is one of the countries in Europe where people talk the most about privacy. In terms of consciousness of privacy in general, I would put Germany at the extreme end.

He said it was not clear that any European law would apply to e-mail providers based in the United States, like Google, so anyone who needed an unverified e-mail address — for political, commercial or philosophical reasons — could still use Gmail, Yahoo or Hotmail addresses.

Mr. Hladjk said, “It’s going to be difficult to know which law applies. Google requires only two pieces of information to open a Gmail account — a name and a password — and the company does not try to determine whether the name is authentic.

In the Netherlands, the proposed extension of the law on phone company records to all mobile location data “implies surveillance of the movement of large amounts of innocent citizens, the Dutch Data Protection Agency has said. The agency concluded in January that the draft disregarded privacy protections in the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, the German technology trade association Bitkom said the draft there violated the German Constitution.

Internet and telecommunications industry associations raised objections when the directive was being debated, but at that time their concerns were for the length of time the data would have to be stored and how the companies would be compensated for the cost of gathering and keeping the information. The directive ended up leaving both decisions in the hands of national governments, setting a range of six months to two years. The German draft settled on six months, while in Spain the proposal is for a year, and in the Netherlands it is 18 months.

“There are not a lot of people in Germany who support this draft entirely, said Christian Spahr, a spokesman for Bitkom. “But there are others who are more critical of it than we are.

[Galbally]

I think its important to remember that the nation states do have the power to enact and interpret EU law as they see fit, as long as it doesn't contravene the strict legal criteria of a given directive. Sometimes they are wise in what they do, sometimes unwise. But its important that the EU doesn't become some form of blunt instrument of super-national law in terms of implementation because it contravenes some aspects of national sovereignty too much in my opinion and people become unhappy with that, which is entirely understandable.

I do think that in general European countries need to take a deep breath about these legislative ideas, because there are issues that would make many people in their respective countries uncomfortable, and rightly so. Though they do need to balance that with a very real need to actually police effectively aspects of their own states. A tricky question as ever, and when in doubt, err on the side of liberty, thats my belief, so I am with the British people (if not their government) on that one.

[Bill Sikes]

It's rotten legislation, open to different interpretations, the content of messages

is not to be kept[1], and it's being challenged. If it does come to be, I've no idea

how the use of (e.g.) mixmaster remailers would be affected, if at all. The whole

thing doesn't look very useful, and certainly does not seem desirable.

[Bill Sikes]

Galbally;555106 wrote: I think its important to remember that the nation states do have the power to enact and interpret EU law as they see fit, as long as it doesn't contravene the strict legal criteria of a given directive.


Eorope is a whole tin of worms - with the majority vote, and no veto, all sorts

of things can get through. The Irish Government, for instance, wanted more

stringent measures, and may go to the "European Court of Justice". There's

some stuff at Ther Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/24 ... _ratified/

which explains some interesting bits and pieces.

[Galbally]

Bill Sikes;555110 wrote: Eorope is a whole tin of worms - with the majority vote, and no veto, all sorts

of things can get through. The Irish Government, for instance, wanted more

stringent measures, and may go to the "European Court of Justice". There's

some stuff at Ther Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/24 ... _ratified/

which explains some interesting bits and pieces.


I think there are aspects of the EU that are difficult, certainly, and it is not straightforward at all. I think the phrase "can of worms" is loaded though. But I understand that you do not really like any of this EU idea and I respect that opinion. I don't share it though, though also I am aware that there are many aspects of trying to develop this EU project where they are making mistakes at the EU level, but then the national governments are also responsible for a lot of what is going on, in fact, for the vast majority of what is happening, but its convenient to put the blame in Brussels' door all the time, is it not?

I do think that this is slightly to one side of the EU thing though, because these legislative ideas would be live issues in all the major EU countries anyway, whether the EU was there or not, because its being driven by events on the ground and geopolitics, this is not the result of a brainwave by a Brussels "technocrat" but a response to something that is going on, whether its actually a correct and proper response, well yes, that is the question, certainly.

[Bill Sikes]

Galbally;555116 wrote: But I understand that you do not really like any of this EU idea and I respect that opinion.


I didn't say that. I don't like it as currently espoused. It will create much work for virtually no benefit, as you will know if you've looked into it.

Galbally;555116 wrote: I don't share it though, though also I am aware that there are many aspects of trying to develop this EU project where they are making mistakes at the EU level, but then the national governments are also responsible for a lot of what is going on, in fact, for the vast majority of what is happening, but its I]convenient to put the blame in Brussels' door all the time, is it not?


In this case, it seems to be accurate, too.

[Galbally]

Bill Sikes;555122 wrote: I didn't say that. I don't like it as currently espoused. It will create much work for virtually no benefit, as you will know if you've looked into it.




Yes Bill I have actually "looked into it" quite a lot, I am also an EU citizen as well as an Irish one, and we all have our issues about this thing, so there is no need to patronize me. Not all intelligent opinion is actually anti-EU (as it is), not even in Britain, whatever image the right-wing media like to portray, is that fair enough? I do respect the opinion of Euro-sceptical people though, and find on many issues they make valid points, so I don't want to sound unfair.

[Bill Sikes]

Galbally;555152 wrote: COLOR="Red"]

there is no need to patronize me.


I am not.