Slashdot Log In
EU Approves Data Retention
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:44 AM
from the finally-someone-is-being-data-retentive dept.
from the finally-someone-is-being-data-retentive dept.
submanifold writes "The EU have ratified rules that will force ISP's and other telecommunication companies to retain data for two years. This data includes the time, date and locations of both mobile and landline calls (as well as whether or not they were answered) along with logs of internet activity and email.
Apparently the content itself would not be accessible, merely the data concerning it. However, despite being touted as an anti-terrorist measure, the record industry has already admitted interest in aquiring such data."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: U.S. to Gain Access to EU Retained Data 323 comments
shenanigans writes "After the EU recently ratified controversial data retention laws for ISPs and other telecommunication companies, it now looks like the US government will get full access to the data. From the article: 'US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected'. Apparently, the US has been calling members of the EU to 'ensure that the data collected [...] be accessible to them'."
[+]
IT: FBI Head Wants Strong Data Retention Rules 256 comments
KevHead writes "Speaking at a conference of international police chiefs, FBI Director Robert Mueller called for strict data retention guidelines for US ISPs. Echoing DHS head Michael Cherthoff's assertion that the Internet was enabling terrorists to telecommute to work, Mueller went further and said that the US needs stricter data retention guidelines. '"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. The solution? Forcing ISPs to retain data for set periods of time.' If that happens, how long before the MPAA and RIAA start asking to take a peek at the data too, as they have in Europe?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I am going to be rich! (Score:5, Insightful)
Press release from FFII (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
two years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:two years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...I think about that ever time I go across the damned toll bridge down here. Was supposed to be toll only as long a period till it was paid for, which by now is way overly paid for.
I think now...the only operating cost is the actual toll booths they have to pay to maintain and man....
As for actual laws being repealed...about the only one I can think of in the US is the amendments for prohibition. Anything else repealed since then?
Parent
Volumes of Data (Score:5, Insightful)
There had better be some incentives for housing that kind data. For a busy ISP, that would mean GBs and GBs of data. Where's it going to be stored and who's going to pay for it?
Re:Volumes of Data (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Volumes of Data (Score:5, Insightful)
EU ISP customers. One way or the other.
Parent
Re:Volumes of Data (Score:5, Insightful)
And where are the ISP's going to get the money to pay for this?
So for 50 bonus mod points,
Parent
Re:Volumes of Data (Score:5, Interesting)
I should have said TBs and TBs of data.
You mean YBs and YBs of data.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte [wikipedia.org])
Parent
This story belongs in "Your Rights Online" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This story belongs in "Your Rights Online" (Score:5, Funny)
You might change your mind after a few months...
Parent
encrypted proxies (Score:5, Insightful)
Why this is not ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to pack up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I caught by this? It sounds like I am. Am I now expected to keep mail logs for two years and be legally liable if I don't? If so, I am almost certainly out of the business. Just not worth the risk to me.
Cheers,
Ian
Phew, that's a relief (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to get off the grid (Score:5, Interesting)
Having every aspect of my life recorded just scares the hell out of me. We have countried collecting Internet and phone usage. Many cities are putting cameras up to monitor your travel. All your purchases made via credit card are recorded. At work, your company probably monitors your email. Even companies like Tivo monitor your tv viewing habits. What else is left?? Governments/corporations will know damn near everything about you and what you do. I say to hell with this... I'm buying an island in the Pacific and starting my own country.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Exemptions for individuals (Score:5, Funny)
European individuals can gain exemptions from having their data retentioned if they sign a waiver giving away all rights to their first-born to the audio-video retail industry.
Those without children may instead put their signature at the bottom of a blank terrorist confession sheet and mail it to their local secret service. This will also automatically enter them into a free prize draw with many chances to win free flights to a European location of the CIA's choice.
--I for one welcome our new data-retentive overlords
I run a small startup telco in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
Any arguments from telcos who complain about the volumes of data are only using it so that they are not liable if someone arse deletes it.
Under UK privacy laws you have to delete the data identifying the particular person after you're done with the connection and the billing thereof.
Almost all transaction data is anonymised by a one way hash. Say md5sum. All the keys are done this way. Hashing removes the particular identification, and satisfies this. Almost always this hash uses more space than the original data anyways.
telcos use the hashed equivalents to evaluate aggregate data.
The law could ask for a tap and require you to retain those records anyway. These new laws just put into legislation what was already happening, and creating an offence for not doing it properly.
Make the records publically available. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the _reason_ they want these is to maintain social/political power over people. An elite with privileged access to all that information can control society. In a free society, either everyone should have the communications metadata, or no-one: It's unbalanced information availability that would give the police power to become the classic Big Brother. I'm a lot safer if everyone knows I have a particular embarassing sexual inclination or whatever than if only a small, powerful subset knows.
See David Brin's book "The Transparent Society: Will Technology force use to choose between privacy and freedom?"
Background (Score:5, Informative)
According to their own Press Service: Deal on EU data retention law [eu.int]; more comprehensive version in German: Ja zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung bis zu zwei Jahren - Keine Speicherung der Kommunikationsinhalte [eu.int]. Incidentally, even the latter "limitation" (allegedly no storage of the contents of communications) is void in particular with respect to URLs - these being identifiers for the contents transmitted anyway.
Loopholes aplenty have already triggered plans e.g. in Poland to extend the storage even further, to a staggering 15 years (!), and remaining safeguards (if any) are not expected to last: The media industry wants access to that data, too [zdnet.co.uk] (and a further directive is in the works, cf. the EU Legislative Observatory [eu.int]).
How soon we forget... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't just that the data wasn't retained, the data was never even collected unless you requested it -- otherwise the only billing information that would be kept was a running counter.
Today, the supposedly-democratic countries want to use surveillance that would have given Gestapo and Stasi wet dreams; it's probably no coincidence that the prime ministers in the countries that have pushed the most (UK and Sweden) have been ones acting like power is a God-given right to them personally.
Send in your data voluntarily in protest (Score:5, Interesting)
When you click on the "Skicka"-button, the information will be sent to the Swedish minister of justice (the guy on the picture), so that he has access to the data immediatelly instead of having to look through the ISPs.
Now, the point with this protest is to make mr. Bodström realise how much data that is going to be stored. So, slashdot-people, you can do it.
Re:Gimme a break (Score:5, Insightful)
In order for this to happen, you have to stop supporting them. Don't buy (or download) their products. Don't listen to their mass marketed drivel. Tell your friends, your family, and everyone else you think will listen that every time you support these companies, you are chipping away at your freedoms.
As long as the majority of us continute to pay the record industries money, they will simply continue in their quest to make sure that we all pay them more money. If we stand up for our rights, stop buying their products, and make sure that they realize that they are here to sell entertainment to us, and that we do not exist to buy entertainment from them, then that will be a start.
All this talk of "screw them" and "I hope they die off" and whatever else will do nothing to protect our rights, especially when governments are making it easier and easier for these corrupt and greedy companies to infringe on our privacy.
Parent
Re:Filesharing and this law (Score:5, Insightful)
No ports, no IP's. The folks who came up with this don't think that far.
They think that:
- e-mail is just like phone
- spam does not exist
- ISP's only handle private traffic
- ISP's handle ALL traffic, and have full access to it
- Only EU citizens use ISPs in Europe
- Encryption does not exist
- No-one has his own mailserver
- No-one is going to try to make money by offering tunneling services to non-EU countries
- Terrorists are dumber than they are
It's not that they want every ISP to scan all packets. They're just thinking like lusers. They think internet is managable.
Their plan sucks. It doesn't work, it's leaking like a raincloud, it's unconstitutional for a lot of member states, and they bombard ISPs with costs, work and responsibilities they never asked for and they KNOW is bullcrap.
It's absurd.
Parent
Re:A scenario (Score:5, Interesting)
What you need to do instead is look at the opposite situation - what bad can come from it? Why stop at just the ones you talk to directly? Maybe you're talking through secrect codes on mailing lists, so we need to up the net to the ones you've talked to AND the ones that the ones you've talked to have talked to. Two degrees of seperation. Then we'll be getting somewhere. And we can then get a much clearer picture.
Of course, the terrorists know this, so they'll be very elaborate and set up systems with three degrees of seperation. Might even get brilliant and go to four.
Then what? Even with two degrees of seperation, just how many people do you think will come under suspicion (which of late seems to equate with guilty until proven innocent - but we won't give you that chance)? Me, I have maybe 50 people I talk to directly in any given month. Two degrees of seperation that's at LEAST 2,500 people suspected of whatever I am. Go to three, and it's 125,000.
You'll be throwing out nets so far, you'll drown in useless data. So now you have information you can't use AND you've incriminated 125,000 people because you suspect one guy. They're now on your watch list - just in case.
Me - I'd rather we said "fuck the best case scenario" and concentrate on the worst case scenario. And by that I don't mean me barely surviving being near $explosion. I mean me getting assraped by $government_agency for no aparent reason and no way of redeeming myself - after all, I wouldn't be on their list if I hadn't done something bad, would I?
It's like torture. Sure, the upside is "suppose we know for a fact, 100% irrefutable, that $person knows what we need to do to prevent $bad_thing" - do we torture him to get the information? That's not an interesting question - the interesting question is - "we are fairly confident that YOU (yes, you, Syberghost) know what we need to do to prevent $bad_thing. You refuse to tell us (because you are innocent), but we are even more confident that we can break your spirit and make you tell us what we want to know - how to stop $bad_thing from happening." Do we torture you?
THAT is the question you need to ask. Best case scenarios are like dreaming of getting blowjobs from beautiful women while being served great food prepared by the best chefs in the world - not very useful.
Parent