Pro and Contra data retention

From Freiheit statt Angst!

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (15:52, 19 October 2008) (edit) (undo)
m (Weiterleitung nach Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons erstellt)
(37 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 1: Line 1:
''' "Communications data record is essential for the abatement of terrorism and organised crime" <br />Wrong.''' Even without logging all use of telephone, cell phone, e-mail and internet there are '''enough data available''' for the abatement of crime: <br /> * Certain call data are saved already for charging purpose, up to six months in germany. <br /> * Furthermore, authorities can request a warrant which allows the communications data record on certain suspects, if needed. <br /> * The terrorist attacs in Madrid in 2004 were solved via call data that were already available. No data retention was needed. <br /> * Until the data retention directive was passed in 2006 there were only a few countries in the world which practised data retention. In no country in the world there was such all-embracing logging as planned in the EU directive. International authorities always did without the total logging of telecommunication until now. <br /> <br /> In a survey, the Federal Criminal Police Office names 381 cases in wich investigators needed further call data - compared to 6 million crimes that are commited each year this is a marginal rate of 0.01%. In this
#REDIRECT [[Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons]]
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> IN ARBEIT

Current revision

  1. REDIRECT Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons
Personal tools
  • What links here
  • Related changes
  • Upload file
  • Special pages
  • Printable version