Common Declaration
Aus Freiheit statt Angst!
| Zeile 7: | Zeile 7: | ||
-- | -- | ||
| - | + | Sebastian Lisken – kein Muttersprachler, aber seit langem Übersetzer von Texten ins Englische für den FoeBuD – schlägt eine Umbenennung in "Joint Statement" vor und hat den Text bearbeitet. Anmerkungen: | |
| + | *Weil die Änderungen sich teilweise minimal vom deutschen Text entfernen, weiß ich nicht, ob ihr sie vollständig übernehmen wollt. | ||
| + | *Auch habe ich einen neuen englischen Namen für den Arbeitskreis vorgeschlagen. | ||
| + | *Ein Problem sehe ich mit den zeitlichen Ausdrücken "published today" and "last Friday", das müsste mit Daten versehen werden. | ||
| + | *Ich hatte schonmal eine Übersetzung für "Verbraucherzentrale", die ich besser fand, habe aber vor 6.8.2007 keinen Zugriff auf diese alten Daten. | ||
| + | *Der als Zitat ausgezeichnete Satz "Somit ist nicht erkennbar, dass eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung die Sicherheit der Bevölkerung stärkt" fehlt sowohl im englischen als auch im deutschen Wortlaut der Erklärung. | ||
| + | [[Benutzer:127.0.0.1|127.0.0.1]] 19:57, 29. Jul 2007 (CEST) | ||
| - | + | -- | |
| - | + | '''Unanimous rejection of the coalition’s plans to store telecommunication data''' | |
| - | + | In a joint statement published today, 27 organisations (as of 22 January 2007) are rejecting a bill introduced by the Federal Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, which would force communications providers to store data about every single telephone, mobile phone, email and internet connection (so-called „telecommunications data retention“) and make this data available to the police and public prosecution authorities. The organisations call it “unacceptable” that sensitive information about social contacts, movements and individual life circumstances of more than 80 million citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany is to be stored without any suspicion of a criminal offence. The joint statement is supported by associations for civil rights, data protection and human rights, by journalist organisations and media associations, by the internet industry and the German crisis helpline, by associations of lawyers and jurists and by the German consumer advice centre. | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | In addition to aiding criminal investigation, the Federal Government argues, the retention bill is to implement an EU directive on telecommunications data retention that was adopted in March 2006 and requires national legislation. Patrick Breyer, a lawyer and member of the ''telecommunications data retention action committee'', rejects this point: “The directive on telecommunications data retention is so obviously unlawful that Germany is not obliged to implement it.” Today’s joint statement explains: “The directive is in direct violation of the basic rights safeguarded by European Law and the way in wich it was adopted constituted a breach of treaties.” Since July 2006, an action of nullity against the guideline has been pending with the European Court of Justice. The organisations are demanding to wait at least for the outcome of this action before legislating that “the German population’s behaviour is to be recorded in this drastic way”. | |
| + | The alleged benefits of telecommunications data retention are questioned by a detailed analysis published on Friday by the telecommunications data retention action committee. According to this analysis, prosecutors rarely found themselves in need of more communications data. A study of the Federal Criminal Police Office concluded that telecommunications data retention could raise the average detection rate “from currently 55% to 55.006% at best”. Telecommunications data retention would not have had a significant influence on the crime rate in Ireland or other states. “Thus, it is not perceptible that telecommunications data retention would strengthen security.” | ||
| - | + | Instead, data retention would “cost millions of euros, endanger the privacy of innocent people, affect confidential communications and pave the way for ever-increasing mass accumulation of information about the whole population.” If everyone has to fear that large parts of his communication behaviour, his movements and internet usage are being recorded, “communication distortions and changes of behaviour” are to be expected. Therefore, mass data storage harms the “liberal society as a whole”, the telecommunications data retention action committee said in a statement to the Federal Ministry of Justice. | |
| - | + | The joint statement of 22 January 2007 in full: | |
| - | + | '''''Joint statement on the draft bill on telecommunications data retention''''' | |
| - | + | According to the draft bill on the reform of telecommunications surveillance, telecommunications companies will be required, from autumn 2007, to store data about their customer's communications. In order to improve criminal investigation, the authorities want to be able to trace who communicated with whom in the last six months by telephone, mobile phone or email. In the case of mobile telephone calls and text messages, the respective location of the user must also be recorded. By 2009 at the latest, internet usage is to become traceable as well. | |
| - | + | We consider it unacceptable that the German population’s behaviour is to be recorded in this drastic way. Without any suspicion, sensitive information about social contacts (including business contacts), movements and individual life circumstances (e.g. contacts with physicians, lawyers, psychologists, helplines) of over 80 million citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany would be registered. Telecommunications data retention thus undermines the discretion of lawyers, physicians, spiritual advisers, helplines and other professions and promotes industrial espionage. It undermines the protection of journalistic sources and thus damages the freedom of the press. The enormous costs of telecommunications data retention are to be borne by telecommunications providers. This will increase prices, end special offers and also indirectly put pressure on consumers. | |
| - | As representatives of the citizens, the media, | + | Studies show that currently available communications data are usually sufficient for effective criminal investigation. It could not be proved that telecommunications data retention would provide better protection against crime. Instead it would cost millions of euros, endanger the privacy of innocent people, affect confidential communications and pave the way for ever-increasing mass accumulation of information about the whole population. |
| - | We appeal to | + | |
| + | Law experts expect the Federal Constitutional Court to rule that a requirement to retain telecommunications data without any suspicion is unconstitutional. They also expect that the EU directive on telecommunications data retention will not survive in the European Court of Justice. The directive is in direct violation of the basic rights safeguarded by European Law and the way in wich it was adopted constituted a breach of treaties. Ireland has already taken action against the directive. Governments should at least wait for the outcome of this action before issuing national legislation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As representatives of the citizens, the media, independent professionals and industry we collectively reject the proposal of telecommunications data retention. We appeal to politicians to distance themselves categorically from the plan to record this data comprehensively and regardless of suspicion. | ||
| Zeile 87: | Zeile 94: | ||
| - | Detailed statement | + | Detailed statement by the telecommunications data retention action committee ... |
Direct link to this site | Direct link to this site | ||
| - | http://erklaerung.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de | + | http://erklaerung.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/ |
[[Kategorie:English]] | [[Kategorie:English]] | ||
Version vom 17:57, 29. Jul. 2007
Englische Übersetzung der Gemeinsamen Erklärung über das "Languages Without Borders" Netzwerk ist fertig.
Wenn ein Muttersprachler zu gegen ist, bitte noch mal Korrektur lesen.
Liebe Grüße, Ingmar 18:28, 28. Jul 2007 (CEST)
--
Sebastian Lisken – kein Muttersprachler, aber seit langem Übersetzer von Texten ins Englische für den FoeBuD – schlägt eine Umbenennung in "Joint Statement" vor und hat den Text bearbeitet. Anmerkungen:
- Weil die Änderungen sich teilweise minimal vom deutschen Text entfernen, weiß ich nicht, ob ihr sie vollständig übernehmen wollt.
- Auch habe ich einen neuen englischen Namen für den Arbeitskreis vorgeschlagen.
- Ein Problem sehe ich mit den zeitlichen Ausdrücken "published today" and "last Friday", das müsste mit Daten versehen werden.
- Ich hatte schonmal eine Übersetzung für "Verbraucherzentrale", die ich besser fand, habe aber vor 6.8.2007 keinen Zugriff auf diese alten Daten.
- Der als Zitat ausgezeichnete Satz "Somit ist nicht erkennbar, dass eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung die Sicherheit der Bevölkerung stärkt" fehlt sowohl im englischen als auch im deutschen Wortlaut der Erklärung.
127.0.0.1 19:57, 29. Jul 2007 (CEST)
--
Unanimous rejection of the coalition’s plans to store telecommunication data
In a joint statement published today, 27 organisations (as of 22 January 2007) are rejecting a bill introduced by the Federal Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, which would force communications providers to store data about every single telephone, mobile phone, email and internet connection (so-called „telecommunications data retention“) and make this data available to the police and public prosecution authorities. The organisations call it “unacceptable” that sensitive information about social contacts, movements and individual life circumstances of more than 80 million citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany is to be stored without any suspicion of a criminal offence. The joint statement is supported by associations for civil rights, data protection and human rights, by journalist organisations and media associations, by the internet industry and the German crisis helpline, by associations of lawyers and jurists and by the German consumer advice centre.
In addition to aiding criminal investigation, the Federal Government argues, the retention bill is to implement an EU directive on telecommunications data retention that was adopted in March 2006 and requires national legislation. Patrick Breyer, a lawyer and member of the telecommunications data retention action committee, rejects this point: “The directive on telecommunications data retention is so obviously unlawful that Germany is not obliged to implement it.” Today’s joint statement explains: “The directive is in direct violation of the basic rights safeguarded by European Law and the way in wich it was adopted constituted a breach of treaties.” Since July 2006, an action of nullity against the guideline has been pending with the European Court of Justice. The organisations are demanding to wait at least for the outcome of this action before legislating that “the German population’s behaviour is to be recorded in this drastic way”.
The alleged benefits of telecommunications data retention are questioned by a detailed analysis published on Friday by the telecommunications data retention action committee. According to this analysis, prosecutors rarely found themselves in need of more communications data. A study of the Federal Criminal Police Office concluded that telecommunications data retention could raise the average detection rate “from currently 55% to 55.006% at best”. Telecommunications data retention would not have had a significant influence on the crime rate in Ireland or other states. “Thus, it is not perceptible that telecommunications data retention would strengthen security.”
Instead, data retention would “cost millions of euros, endanger the privacy of innocent people, affect confidential communications and pave the way for ever-increasing mass accumulation of information about the whole population.” If everyone has to fear that large parts of his communication behaviour, his movements and internet usage are being recorded, “communication distortions and changes of behaviour” are to be expected. Therefore, mass data storage harms the “liberal society as a whole”, the telecommunications data retention action committee said in a statement to the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The joint statement of 22 January 2007 in full:
Joint statement on the draft bill on telecommunications data retention
According to the draft bill on the reform of telecommunications surveillance, telecommunications companies will be required, from autumn 2007, to store data about their customer's communications. In order to improve criminal investigation, the authorities want to be able to trace who communicated with whom in the last six months by telephone, mobile phone or email. In the case of mobile telephone calls and text messages, the respective location of the user must also be recorded. By 2009 at the latest, internet usage is to become traceable as well.
We consider it unacceptable that the German population’s behaviour is to be recorded in this drastic way. Without any suspicion, sensitive information about social contacts (including business contacts), movements and individual life circumstances (e.g. contacts with physicians, lawyers, psychologists, helplines) of over 80 million citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany would be registered. Telecommunications data retention thus undermines the discretion of lawyers, physicians, spiritual advisers, helplines and other professions and promotes industrial espionage. It undermines the protection of journalistic sources and thus damages the freedom of the press. The enormous costs of telecommunications data retention are to be borne by telecommunications providers. This will increase prices, end special offers and also indirectly put pressure on consumers.
Studies show that currently available communications data are usually sufficient for effective criminal investigation. It could not be proved that telecommunications data retention would provide better protection against crime. Instead it would cost millions of euros, endanger the privacy of innocent people, affect confidential communications and pave the way for ever-increasing mass accumulation of information about the whole population.
Law experts expect the Federal Constitutional Court to rule that a requirement to retain telecommunications data without any suspicion is unconstitutional. They also expect that the EU directive on telecommunications data retention will not survive in the European Court of Justice. The directive is in direct violation of the basic rights safeguarded by European Law and the way in wich it was adopted constituted a breach of treaties. Ireland has already taken action against the directive. Governments should at least wait for the outcome of this action before issuing national legislation.
As representatives of the citizens, the media, independent professionals and industry we collectively reject the proposal of telecommunications data retention. We appeal to politicians to distance themselves categorically from the plan to record this data comprehensively and regardless of suspicion.
Signatories:
Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger e.V. (BDZV) Chaos Computer Club e.V. (CCC) Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (dju) in ver.di Deutsche Liga für Menschenrechte e.V. Deutsche Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Deutscher Journalisten-Verband (DJV) Deutscher Presserat eco Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. Evangelische Konferenz für Telefonseelsorge und Offene Tür e.V. Förderverein für eine Freie Informationelle Infrastruktur e.V. (FFII Deutschland) Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung e.V. (FIfF) Gesellschaft für Datenschutz und Datensicherung e.V. (GDD) Gustav Heinemann-Initiative (GHI) Humanistische Union e.V. Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte (ILMR) Komitee für Grundrechte und Demokratie e.V. Netzwerk Neue Medien e.V. netzwerk recherche e.V. Neue Richtervereinigung e.V. (NRV) no abuse in internet e.V. (naiin) Organisationsbüro der Strafverteidigervereinigungen Republikanischer Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein e.V. (RAV) STOP1984 Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger (VDZ) Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (vzbv) Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen e.V. (VDJ)
Further signatories:
Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. (BDP) Bund demokratischer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler (BdWi) Bundeskoordination Internationalismus (BUKO) Bundesverband deutscher Pressesprecher e.V. (BdP) Bundesverband Digitale Wirtschaft e.V. (BVDW) Bundesverband Frauenberatungsstellen und Frauennotrufe (bff) Bundesverband junger Autorinnen und Autoren (BVjA) Berufsverband unabhängiger Handwerkerinnen und Handwerker e.V. (BUH) Deutscher Anwaltverein e.V. (DAV) Deutscher Fachjournalisten-Verband (DFJV) FREELENS e.V. - Verband der Fotojournalisten Initiative Bayerischer Strafverteidigerinnen und Strafverteidiger e.V. Reporter ohne Grenzen e.V Verband der Internet-Cafes Deutschland e.V. (VICD) Verein zur Förderung der Suchmaschinen-Technologie und des freien Wissenszugangs e.V. (SuMa-eV) Verein zur Förderung des öffentlichen bewegten und unbewegten Datenverkehrs e.V. (FoeBuD) Verein zur Politischen Jugendpartizipation e.V. (VPJ)
Detailed statement by the telecommunications data retention action committee ...
Direct link to this site
