3 ms·

In Norway, politicians have promised that they want to go ahead with data retention regardless of the legality of the EU directive. It has been postponed multip

by haakon 13y ago

In Norway, politicians have promised that they want to go ahead with data retention regardless of the legality of the EU directive. It has been postponed multiple times due to cost and technical issues, but we'll probably get it eventually :-(

danbruc 13y ago
Then just join the EU and the problem is solved.
- widdershins 13y ago
  This ruling just means that the law requiring ISPs to retain data is invalid. It doesn't ban national governments from passing their own laws to the same effect.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    There are probably a lot of technical details involved but I don't think you can make such national laws or in case you can you probably can challenge them and get them retracted. The decision is more or less based on universal human rights and they should apply to EU and national law in the same way.
    - ctolsen 13y ago
      The Data Retention Directive has already been struck down locally in every state where it has reached the highest courts, so especially after this, a similar law will probably not survive. It might actually be better if a high court deems the national law to be just fine, since you might get a verdict in the European Court of Human Rights.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - higherpurpose 13y ago
    That's probably pretty unconstitutional in most countries, though. And if the EU court has a problem with ISPs keeping this data for privacy/human rights reasons, I would imagine it would be even more aggressive against governments doing that.
    - walshemj 13y ago
      Actually the opposite is true the EU governments have the national security get out clauses which a private company does not have access too.
vidarh 13y ago
The only two parties in favour are Ap (labour party) and Høyre (conservatives) and in the latter there was substantial dissent. It only went through in the first place because the conservative leadership used the party whip in parliament. Even though they still have a majority in parliament together, the conservatives are strengthened, and labour weakened, and a large part of the argumentation was that the EU "required" it. With this legal opinion I'd imagine at least some people in the labour party will consider opposing it, and more people in the conservative party - it's quite possible they'll find it hard to muster a majority to defend a challenge against the law.

by haakon 13y ago

danbruc 13y ago

Then just join the EU and the problem is solved.

widdershins 13y ago
This ruling just means that the law requiring ISPs to retain data is invalid. It doesn't ban national governments from passing their own laws to the same effect.
- danbruc 13y ago
  There are probably a lot of technical details involved but I don't think you can make such national laws or in case you can you probably can challenge them and get them retracted. The decision is more or less based on universal human rights and they should apply to EU and national law in the same way.
  - ctolsen 13y ago
    The Data Retention Directive has already been struck down locally in every state where it has reached the highest courts, so especially after this, a similar law will probably not survive. It might actually be better if a high court deems the national law to be just fine, since you might get a verdict in the European Court of Human Rights.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  That's probably pretty unconstitutional in most countries, though. And if the EU court has a problem with ISPs keeping this data for privacy/human rights reasons, I would imagine it would be even more aggressive against governments doing that.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Actually the opposite is true the EU governments have the national security get out clauses which a private company does not have access too.

vidarh 13y ago

The only two parties in favour are Ap (labour party) and Høyre (conservatives) and in the latter there was substantial dissent. It only went through in the first place because the conservative leadership used the party whip in parliament. Even though they still have a majority in parliament together, the conservatives are strengthened, and labour weakened, and a large part of the argumentation was that the EU "required" it. With this legal opinion I'd imagine at least some people in the labour party will consider opposing it, and more people in the conservative party - it's quite possible they'll find it hard to muster a majority to defend a challenge against the law.