It's always good to see news like this when you first wake up. Not my country, but just knowing that some courts in the world can rule intelligently on these issues gives me hope.
The wikipedia article on this directive [1] links to [2], which seems to give a fair amount of details on how exactly the directive is being implemented in each country.
I do not fully agree, my neighbour was hit in a car accident. The driver was some young idiot, driving at 90kmph (56 mph) on red on zebra crossing.
Later he said that the car had been stolen. The only proof that led to conviction was data gathered from BTSes and data about 2 calls he made (times, location).
But for the Data Retention Directive, this reckless, young man would have been found innocent. Now imagine the same thing happening to someone who is important to you. What would you say?
Asking people how they would legislate while in the grip of rare but extreme emotional distress tends to produce the kinds of law that grievously undermines the sorts of open democracies that are - generally speaking - far safer, healthier, and more peaceful than those in which this kind of manipulative fear-mongering drives policy making.
[Exhibit A] The Patriot Act. [Exhibit B] "Freedom Pats" by the TSA. [Exhibit C] Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit D] Retroactive Immunity for Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit E] Suspension of habeas corpus.
Do you really need me to go on?
And about your neighbor: you say the "only proof" was provided by telcom records. But does that mean this was the only evidence available? Or was this the only evidence the police actually gathered? Specifically, how do you KNOW that, in the absence of this resource, the police would not - and could not - have realized that the story about the stolen car was a lie?
[+] [-] zcid|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
The German Constitutional Court had already rejected the law. But the battle goes on in many other countries ...
[+] [-] mohsen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warp|15 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC
[2] http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Transposition
[+] [-] jakubmal|15 years ago|reply
But for the Data Retention Directive, this reckless, young man would have been found innocent. Now imagine the same thing happening to someone who is important to you. What would you say?
[+] [-] swombat|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexqgb|15 years ago|reply
[Exhibit A] The Patriot Act. [Exhibit B] "Freedom Pats" by the TSA. [Exhibit C] Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit D] Retroactive Immunity for Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit E] Suspension of habeas corpus.
Do you really need me to go on?
And about your neighbor: you say the "only proof" was provided by telcom records. But does that mean this was the only evidence available? Or was this the only evidence the police actually gathered? Specifically, how do you KNOW that, in the absence of this resource, the police would not - and could not - have realized that the story about the stolen car was a lie?
[+] [-] ordinary|15 years ago|reply
I found this typo/mistranslation mildly amusing.