DR-Action-Plan

The coming weeks give an excellent window of opportunity to influence the report evaluating the data retention directive. So this is the time to set the tone and launch a lot of critique.

Please find a list of actions below which you are welcome to edit. We need to divide the workload, so please write where you can help.

Action plan

Letters and Parliamentary Questions from Member States that haven't implemented

1) We need letters to the Commission from MS that haven't implemented the directive, saying that a 'pressing social need' for DR is lacking, i.e. that their law enforcement effort has been functioning good without DR measures in place. You should also express concern that the barrier for justifying surveillance measures (i.c. DR) seems to be lowering from 'necessary in a democratic society' to 'proportionate'.

If you campaign against DR from a country that hasn't implemented the Data Retention Directive, here's what you need to do:

1. You should send such a letter "to" the responsible Commissioners (Malmström, Reding, Kroes). 2. "CC" the 'College of Commissioners'. The Commission is a "college" - which means that all decisions are taken (and subsequently defended) by all Commissioners. As a result, all Commissioners fall all issues to some extent. Even the Fisheries Commissioner has a cabinet member responsible for Justice and Home Affairs. 3. Mark the subject line of the letter very clearly states "Home Affairs: Data Retention Directive" - to make sure it gets to the right person in each cabinet. 4. Follow up with however many/whichever Commissioners/cabinets that you have the time, capacity and linguistic capacity to contact. If in doubt, use English.

Links to each Commissioner's website are available on this page: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/index_en.htm. Pick out the Commissioner of your country, follow the link to "my team" to find the right person responsible for Justice and Home Affairs (or 'Data protection', 'Citizens rights', etc).

Status:

• If you have sent such a letter, put a link to it here

2) Parliamentary questions from MEPs of those countries would be useful, asking questions like "If law enforcement in ... is working well without data retention, why does the Commission still want to force all Member States to adopt blanket retention legislation?" The more MEPs are asking questions, and the less they are the "usual suspects/critics", the more will the Commission accept that there is serious pressure to abolish compulsory data retention. We have been assured that if many MEPs asked questions this would be very effective.

Status:

• List of parliamentary questions that have been submitted so far
• List of contacted MEPs

Can you help?

Talk to the Commission

You or your European umbrella organisation should discuss the data retention directive directly with the Commission. Member states and industry are constantly doing so, and civil society needs to let its voice be heard much more than in the past. It may be possible for you to get a direct appointment with the Commissioners in charge (Malmström, Reding, Kroes). Alternatively, get an appointment with their Cabinet members in charge of data retention:

• in Malmstroem’s Cabinet: Søren Schønberg, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/myteam/default_en.htm
• in Reding’s Cabinet: Jan Ostoja-Ostaszewski / Telmo Baltazar, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/about/team/index_en.htm
• in Kroes’ Cabinet: Arnoud Bader, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/about/team/index_en.htm

Ask the Commission to completely end compulsory data retention by - at least - allowing Member States to opt out of the directive.

Status:

• Patrick and Joe met Cabinets first.
• Axel, Joe and others had a meeting in September.
• Kasia will arrange a meeting in October.

Can you help?

Press coverage

We need to demonstrate that the anti-DR movement is not only big, but influential. We need a lot of press coverage and critical articles - especially in the countries that haven't implemented DR. Those articles should also appear in the media that are read by the constituencies of the single Commissioners: Sweden, Britain, Netherlands (Kroes for example is a liberal, The Dutch Financial Times or NRC Handelsblad suffices).

Status:

Can you help?

Data protection institutions

The Commission can ignore us, but can't ignore the art. 29 WP and the EDPS. We need strong messages from those institutions, denouncing blanket retention. When approaching the Art 29 WG, we should point out that their technical and unambitious review is being used politically to ignore critics. The Art. 29 WG report has had a bad influence on the evaluation, since it did not criticize the principle of DR. It would make sense to write them a letter. The same counts for the EDPS.

Status:

• Kasia has drafted a letter to the Article 29 Working Party: http://europeandigitalrights.pad.telecomix.org/3 (password: storage1). We are waiting for the politically opportune moment to send it.
• Joe is in touch with the EDPS
• Axel is setting up a meeting with the EDPS on 25 October.

Can you help?

Evaluation standards

We need to reach consensus on what the absolute minimum standards are for the evaluation by the Commission, i.e. how the subcriteria for the 'necessary in a democratic society' test should be fulfilled. This could be achieved through a memo by a well-known criminologist.

Status:

• Axel has not yet found a criminologist willing to write a paper to this effect in the Netherlands.
• Katta will ask a criminologist in Germany

Can you help?

FAQ

We need a FAQ on the most common arguments surrounding DR, so that activists, journalists, politicians, 'we' speak the same language.

Status: The FAQ has been drafted here by Patrick. I feel the draft still needs some work to its language and may also be too long in parts. Please help to improve it directly in the wiki, and to add other frequently asked questions if you have any.

Official assessments of proportionality

What I think would be useful to have the institutions legal services assess those questions, particularly with regard to the ECtHR and Romanian judgement, and use possible negative assessments politically.

Suggested questions:

1. On the basis of the judgement given by the European Court of Human Rights on 4 December 2008 (No. 30562/04 and 30566/04), is a blanket and indiscriminate retention of communications data as currently mandated by directive 2006/24/EC "proportionate" and "necessary in a democratic society"?
2. On the basis of the judgement given by the Constitutional Court of Romania on 8 October 2009 (No. 1258), is a blanket and indiscriminate retention of communications data as currently mandated by directive 2006/24/EC "proportionate" and "necessary in a democratic society"?
3. What options are available to ensure the conformity of directive 2006/24/EC with all applicable fundamental rights instruments?"

Status:

• Patrick asked Alexander Alvaro in this regard; he will advocate LIBE asking the Parliament's legal service for an opinion.

Can you help?

Own proposal

The Commission has no clue to proceed, we need to provide an elegant exit route. A joint proposal with industry would make our position more attractive.

Status:

• Patrick proposed an industry meeting with EuroISPA member eco in Germany. The request is pending.

Can you help?

S&D support

The support of the S&D fraction in Parliament will be crucial to reach a majority.

It should be possible to get Schulz and his group to vote against DR, if a) there are good arguments to explain why he changed his mind and b) he smells a possible victory against EPP.

Other contacts in S&D who should be on our side and willing to help:

• Claude Moraes (UK, LIBE coordinator)
• Stavros Lambrinidis (Greece)
• Birgit Sippel (Germany)

Can anybody arrange meetings to talk to them?

Status:

Can you help?

Useful information

• Frequently asked questions on data retention (24 September 2010)
• Joint letter on data retention and list of supporters (22 June 2010)

Time table

Calendar of data retention-related events:

• The data retention expert group meets on 11 October