DRletter: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
| Zeile 6: | Zeile 6: | ||
Dear Madam, | Dear Madam, | ||
| − | The EU data retention directive 2006/24 requires telecommunications companies to store data about all of their customers' communications. | + | The EU data retention directive 2006/24 requires telecommunications companies to store data about all of their customers' communications. Although ostensibly to reduce barriers to the single market, the Directive was proposed as a measure aimed at facilitating criminal investigations. The Directive creates a process for recording details of who communicated with whom via various electronic communications systems. In the case of mobile phone calls and SMS messages, the respective location of the users is also recorded. In combination with other data, Internet usage is also to be made traceable. |
| − | We | + | We believe that such invasive surveillance of the entire population is unacceptable. With a data retention regime in place, sensitive information about social contacts (including business contacts), movements and the private lives (e.g. contacts with physicians, lawyers, workers councils, psychologists, helplines) of 500 million Europeans is collected in the absence of any suspicion. Telecommunications data retention undermines the professional secrecy of lawyers, physicians, clergy, helplines and other professionals, creating the permanent risk of data losses and data abuses and deters citizens from making confidential telecommunication. It undermines the protection of journalistic sources and thus compromises the freedom of the press. Overall it damages preconditions of our open and democratic society. In the absence of a financial compensation scheme in most countries, the enormous costs of a telecommunications data retention regime must be borne by the thousands of affected telecommunications providers. This leads to price increases as well as the discontinuation of services, and indirectly burdens consumers. The lack of a financial compensation scheme also means that Member States fail to avail of a useful method of limiting the demands that law enforcement authorities place on private companies. |
| − | Studies prove that the communications data available without data retention | + | Studies prove that the communications data available without data retention are generally sufficient for effective criminal investigations. Blanket data retention has proven to be superfluous, harmful or even unconstitutional in many states across Europe, such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Romania and Sweden. These states prosecute crime just as effectively using targeted instruments, such as the data preservation regime agreed in the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. There is no proof that telecommunications data retention provides for better protection against crime. On the other hand, we can see that it costs billions of euros, puts the privacy of innocent people at risk, disrupts confidential communications and paves the way for an ever-increasing mass accumulation of information about the entire population. |
Legal experts expect the European Court of Justice to follow the Constitutional Court of Romania as well as the European Court of Human Rights's Marper judgement and declare the retention of telecommunications data in the absence of any suspicion incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. | Legal experts expect the European Court of Justice to follow the Constitutional Court of Romania as well as the European Court of Human Rights's Marper judgement and declare the retention of telecommunications data in the absence of any suspicion incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. | ||
| − | As representatives of the citizens, the media, professionals and industry we collectively reject the directive on telecommunications data retention. We | + | As representatives of the citizens, the media, professionals and industry we collectively reject the directive on telecommunications data retention. We urge you to propose the repeal of the EU requirements regarding data retention in favour of a system of expedited preservation and targeted collection of traffic data as agreed in the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime. In doing so, please be assured of our support. |
Yours faithfully, | Yours faithfully, | ||
Version vom 26. Mai 2010, 11:39 Uhr
Recipients
- Viviane Reding, European Commission Vice-President in charge of Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
- Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Home Affairs, BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Draft text
Dear Madam,
The EU data retention directive 2006/24 requires telecommunications companies to store data about all of their customers' communications. Although ostensibly to reduce barriers to the single market, the Directive was proposed as a measure aimed at facilitating criminal investigations. The Directive creates a process for recording details of who communicated with whom via various electronic communications systems. In the case of mobile phone calls and SMS messages, the respective location of the users is also recorded. In combination with other data, Internet usage is also to be made traceable.
We believe that such invasive surveillance of the entire population is unacceptable. With a data retention regime in place, sensitive information about social contacts (including business contacts), movements and the private lives (e.g. contacts with physicians, lawyers, workers councils, psychologists, helplines) of 500 million Europeans is collected in the absence of any suspicion. Telecommunications data retention undermines the professional secrecy of lawyers, physicians, clergy, helplines and other professionals, creating the permanent risk of data losses and data abuses and deters citizens from making confidential telecommunication. It undermines the protection of journalistic sources and thus compromises the freedom of the press. Overall it damages preconditions of our open and democratic society. In the absence of a financial compensation scheme in most countries, the enormous costs of a telecommunications data retention regime must be borne by the thousands of affected telecommunications providers. This leads to price increases as well as the discontinuation of services, and indirectly burdens consumers. The lack of a financial compensation scheme also means that Member States fail to avail of a useful method of limiting the demands that law enforcement authorities place on private companies.
Studies prove that the communications data available without data retention are generally sufficient for effective criminal investigations. Blanket data retention has proven to be superfluous, harmful or even unconstitutional in many states across Europe, such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Romania and Sweden. These states prosecute crime just as effectively using targeted instruments, such as the data preservation regime agreed in the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. There is no proof that telecommunications data retention provides for better protection against crime. On the other hand, we can see that it costs billions of euros, puts the privacy of innocent people at risk, disrupts confidential communications and paves the way for an ever-increasing mass accumulation of information about the entire population.
Legal experts expect the European Court of Justice to follow the Constitutional Court of Romania as well as the European Court of Human Rights's Marper judgement and declare the retention of telecommunications data in the absence of any suspicion incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
As representatives of the citizens, the media, professionals and industry we collectively reject the directive on telecommunications data retention. We urge you to propose the repeal of the EU requirements regarding data retention in favour of a system of expedited preservation and targeted collection of traffic data as agreed in the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime. In doing so, please be assured of our support.
Yours faithfully,