5 ms·

Czech Constitutional Court cancels storage of data on all e-mails, calls, etc...

61 points by warp 16y ago

zcid 16y ago
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.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Yeah really! The German Constitutional Court had already rejected the law. But the battle goes on in many other countries ...
  - hucker 16y ago
    It is indeed inspiring to see other countries behave intelligently on this matter. Here in Norway the struggle is still going, I was out in the streets demonstrating yesterday. I really hope our politicians are beginning to fathom what is at stake here and veto the law. It doesn't look very good right now though, especially considering that the largest and second largest parties (Labour Party and the conservative party) are both in favor. The fact that Norway has yet to veto a single law pushed on us from the EFTA doesn't help either.
mohsen 16y ago
Does anyone know of a site that lists all countries who have either rejected or canceled this law?
- warp 16y ago
  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. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC [2] http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Transposition http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Transposition
  - mohsen 16y ago
    Thank you
jakubmal 16y ago
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?
- swombat 16y ago
  I would say: hurting everyone to save potential harm for a very few is worthy of the best thinkers at the typical western airport security department.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  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?
  - jakubmal 16y ago
    Specifically, because they get rid of the car very quickly and it was never found. But I want to ask you about something. And please don't downvote me. I believe that 6 months of keeping data about calls/ips/others is reasonable approach. If you're not commiting any crimes, only situation when it might be harmful is some kind of political situation. But then, I'm sure you can provide other means of communication. So what is this actually about? Listen guys, I just want to know, so no flames, no downvoting please.
ordinary 16y ago
"The law inadequately infringes on people´s privacy" I found this typo/mistranslation mildly amusing.

61 points by warp 16y ago

zcid 16y ago

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.

jdp23 16y ago
Yeah really! The German Constitutional Court had already rejected the law. But the battle goes on in many other countries ...
- hucker 16y ago
  It is indeed inspiring to see other countries behave intelligently on this matter. Here in Norway the struggle is still going, I was out in the streets demonstrating yesterday. I really hope our politicians are beginning to fathom what is at stake here and veto the law. It doesn't look very good right now though, especially considering that the largest and second largest parties (Labour Party and the conservative party) are both in favor. The fact that Norway has yet to veto a single law pushed on us from the EFTA doesn't help either.

mohsen 16y ago

Does anyone know of a site that lists all countries who have either rejected or canceled this law?

warp 16y ago
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. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC [2] http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Transposition http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Transposition
- mohsen 16y ago
  Thank you

jakubmal 16y ago

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?

swombat 16y ago
I would say: hurting everyone to save potential harm for a very few is worthy of the best thinkers at the typical western airport security department.
alexqgb 16y ago
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?
- jakubmal 16y ago
  Specifically, because they get rid of the car very quickly and it was never found. But I want to ask you about something. And please don't downvote me. I believe that 6 months of keeping data about calls/ips/others is reasonable approach. If you're not commiting any crimes, only situation when it might be harmful is some kind of political situation. But then, I'm sure you can provide other means of communication. So what is this actually about? Listen guys, I just want to know, so no flames, no downvoting please.

ordinary 16y ago

"The law inadequately infringes on people´s privacy" I found this typo/mistranslation mildly amusing.