DR-FAQ
Aus Freiheit statt Angst!
(→Does data retention help to cut crime?) |
|||
| Zeile 3: | Zeile 3: | ||
==Does data retention help to cut crime?== | ==Does data retention help to cut crime?== | ||
| + | |||
| + | No. According to official police statistics, the introduction of data retention legislation has not lead to a decrease in crime, nor even to an increase in clearance rates. States that have a system of expedited preservation and targeted collection of traffic data in place do not have higher crime rates or lower crime clearance rates than states relying on a system of blanket data collection. Even statistics regarding cybercrime do not show any influence of blanket retention on crime or crime clearance rates. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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, 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. | ||
==Are there alternatives to data retention?== | ==Are there alternatives to data retention?== | ||
Version vom 11:15, 24. Sep. 2010
It is important for us all (including members that aren't involved yet) to have a very clear message on all common questions and - above all - avoid contradicting ourselves! We are preparing an "faq" initially for internal use and subsequently to use as lobby material for the Parliament, journalists, politicians, activists, etc., like the one on SWIFT - http://www.edri.org/faq-2-swift-agreement-edri.
Inhaltsverzeichnis |
Does data retention help to cut crime?
No. According to official police statistics, the introduction of data retention legislation has not lead to a decrease in crime, nor even to an increase in clearance rates. States that have a system of expedited preservation and targeted collection of traffic data in place do not have higher crime rates or lower crime clearance rates than states relying on a system of blanket data collection. Even statistics regarding cybercrime do not show any influence of blanket retention on crime or crime clearance rates.
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, 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.
