From Freiheit statt Angst!
(Difference between revisions)
|
m |
| (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
- REDIRECT Übersetzung/English/Pros and cons
