European Officials Seek Accord on Data Retention Legislation
European leaders said Wed. they'll try to bridge the divide over retention of Internet and telecom traffic data by seeking accord on the substance of a measure first and then working out its legal basis under European law. But even as U.K. Home Secy. Charles Clarke touted the unpopular current Council framework decision on data retention -- the U.K. now holds the Presidency the European Commission (EC) said it will shortly unveil a package of data retention and protection measures. EC Vp- Justice, Freedom & Security Franco Frattini said the 2 proposals would move ahead in parallel while ministers sought agreement on the need for data retention, and its scope.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Clarke, who chairs the Justice & Home Affairs Council, faced tough questions Wed. from the EP’s civil liberties (LIBE) committee over the draft framework decision, whose current version provides for traffic data to be retained up to one year but would let member states chose 6-48 months. Clarke stressed the need to balance human rights against security, saying citizens have a right to use public transportation without being blown up that may supersede other rights.
Intelligence is “our best means of attacking” terrorism, but intelligence-gathering methods such as data retention must also be proportionate, Clarke told MEPs. He asked LIBE members to decide by balancing privacy intrusions against govts.’ obligation to protect their citizens.
The EP, which in June rejected the Council’s proposal, is furious at having been essentially left out of the decision-making process Parliament has only an advisory role in this case because agreements among member states require less scrutiny from the EC and EP. Clarke assured them he’s ready for open discussions about the costs and benefits of mandatory data retention. He also rejected the suggestion that the European Union is moving toward mass general surveillance.
Alexander Alvaro -- who, as reporting member of the EP’s legal affairs committee -- wrote the anti data retention report adopted in plenary session, told Clarke “you have our support but you will not get blind obedience.” Alvaro criticized govts.’ rhetoric on terrorism: “You argue that intelligence units are the best weapons but they failed in New York, Madrid and London.” “I do not want blind obedience,” Clarke retorted. He said he doesn’t expect a lack of agreement between the 2 sides, but he expects a “good dialog” and an attempt to find common ground.
At a later news briefing, EP Pres. Jose Barroso said it’s clear data retention is needed to fight terrorism, but that privacy and cost concerns must be addressed and the instrument must be based on solid legal grounds. Frattini said the EC will present its data retention proposal in Sept. The Commission wants to make as much information as possible available to law enforcement agencies, he said, but the EC’s offering will also include a data protection scheme. He said he hopes the legislation is approved this year.
The EC opposes the Council proposal on the ground that its legal foundation is improper. Everyone is aware of the EC’s position, Frattini said, but now isn’t the time to worry about it. Instead, he said, it’s time to agree on the substance of such a measure.
Following their emergency session yesterday, justice and home affairs ministers said they'll agree on a data retention framework decision -- presumably the one they provisionally endorsed in June. Under that measure, communications services providers would first have to retain fixed and mobile telephony data, with Internet traffic information retention beginning later.
One observer said later that talks appear to have left data retention where it was before the London attacks. “Apparently the European Commission doesn’t want be caught between a Parliament that remains sceptical and the Council,” said attorney Axel Spies, who represents the German Competitive Carriers’ Assn. Spies said he hopes Clarke is right that the discussion will now focus on such substantive matters as “why retention of billions of communications data is necessary and who should pay for it.”