Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Zeile 10: | Zeile 10: | ||
* Until the decision to introduce data retention based on a EU Directive in the year 2006, only very few countries worldwide were specifically retaining telecommunications data. In no country were the retention practices as comprehensive as stipulated in the Directive. The wordwide security agencies have so far always been able to go without exhaustive logs of telecommunications data. | * Until the decision to introduce data retention based on a EU Directive in the year 2006, only very few countries worldwide were specifically retaining telecommunications data. In no country were the retention practices as comprehensive as stipulated in the Directive. The wordwide security agencies have so far always been able to go without exhaustive logs of telecommunications data. | ||
− | In a study, the German Federal Criminal Police Office mentions 381 cases where law-enforcement agencies were missing telecommunications connection data – compared against the more than 6 Million criminal offenses conducted every year | + | In a study, the German Federal Criminal Police Office mentions 381 cases where law-enforcement agencies were missing telecommunications connection data – compared against the more than 6 Million criminal offenses conducted every year this represents a marginal 0.01%. Furthermore, these cases were about the resolution of already committed crimes and not about the prevention of crimes and in addition, in only two of these 381 cases a link to terrorism was found, despite the repeated claims that terrorism is one reason for retaining telecommunications data. According to the German Federal Criminal Police Office, connection data is generally not missing for combating terrorism or organized crime but more so when tracking down the exchange of child pornography on the Internet or when investigating cases of fraud. However, for these offenses, the highest rate of resolution is achieved even without explicit data retention. Moreover, prevention is much more effective in the case of fraud than subsequent prosecution. For example, sensitizing Internet users can prevent them from becoming credulous victims of identity theft (e.g. through "Phishing Mails"). |
− | |||
Eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung ist gegen Terrorismus und organisierte Kriminalität wirkungslos: | Eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung ist gegen Terrorismus und organisierte Kriminalität wirkungslos: |
Version vom 27. September 2008, 01:28 Uhr
Arguments of Data Retention advocates critically discussed:
Telecommunications connection data is indispensable in the fight against terrorism and organized crime
Wrong. Even without exhaustive logs on every use of phones, cell phones, e-mail, and the Internet, sufficient connection data is available for fighting crime:
- Certain connection data is stored for billing purposes in any case - up to six months in Germany.
- In addition, security agencies can obtain a court warrant on demand, stipulating the recording of a suspect's connection data.
- The terrorist bombings of Madrid in 2004 were resolved by utilizing connection data which was available in any case. An explicit data retention was not needed.
- Until the decision to introduce data retention based on a EU Directive in the year 2006, only very few countries worldwide were specifically retaining telecommunications data. In no country were the retention practices as comprehensive as stipulated in the Directive. The wordwide security agencies have so far always been able to go without exhaustive logs of telecommunications data.
In a study, the German Federal Criminal Police Office mentions 381 cases where law-enforcement agencies were missing telecommunications connection data – compared against the more than 6 Million criminal offenses conducted every year this represents a marginal 0.01%. Furthermore, these cases were about the resolution of already committed crimes and not about the prevention of crimes and in addition, in only two of these 381 cases a link to terrorism was found, despite the repeated claims that terrorism is one reason for retaining telecommunications data. According to the German Federal Criminal Police Office, connection data is generally not missing for combating terrorism or organized crime but more so when tracking down the exchange of child pornography on the Internet or when investigating cases of fraud. However, for these offenses, the highest rate of resolution is achieved even without explicit data retention. Moreover, prevention is much more effective in the case of fraud than subsequent prosecution. For example, sensitizing Internet users can prevent them from becoming credulous victims of identity theft (e.g. through "Phishing Mails").
Eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung ist gegen Terrorismus und organisierte Kriminalität wirkungslos:
* Ernsthafte Kriminelle bleiben unentdeckt, weil sie Umgehungsstrategien einsetzen (z.B. wechselnde Benutzung unregistrierter Prepaid-Handykarten) oder auf andere Kommunikationskanäle ausweichen (z.B. Post, persönliche Treffen). * Der Präsident des Europäischen Verbands der Polizei Heinz Kiefer warnte 2005: "Für Kriminelle bliebe es einfach, mit relativ simplen technischen Mitteln eine Entdeckung zu verhindern, z.B. durch den Einsatz und häufigen Wechsel im Ausland gekaufter, vorausbezahlter Mobiltelefonkarten. Das Ergebnis wäre ein enormer Aufwand mit wenig mehr Wirkung auf Kriminelle und Terroristen, als sie etwas zu verärgern." * Klaus Jansen, Vorsitzender des Bundes Deutscher Kriminalbeamter, klagt bereits heute: "Da es sich herumgesprochen hat, dass Telefongespräche relativ leicht abgehört werden können, reden die Verdächtigen nur noch selten offen am Telefon". Wenn eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung kommt, werden sich Kriminelle auch darauf schnell einrichten.
Auch sonst verhindert eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung keine Kriminalität. Irland, das 2002 eine dreijährige Vorratsdatenspeicherung eingeführt hat, hat keinen Rückgang der Kriminalität vermelden können.
Wirklich nützlich für die Arbeit der Sicherheitsbehörden wären andere Maßnahmen, etwa verbesserte Zugriffsmöglichkeiten auf ausländische Verbindungsdaten. Sicherheitsbehörden klagen, dass Auskünfte über Verbindungsdaten aus anderen EU-Staaten nur sehr langsam, aus Nicht-EU-Staaten überhaupt nicht zu erlangen sind. Dies beeinträchtige ihre Arbeit viel stärker als das Fehlen von Verbindungsdaten im Inland. Etwa 80% der Ermittlungen im Bereich Terrorismus und organisierte Kriminalität weisen internationale Bezüge auf.