In 2006, the European Union passed the Data Retention Directive (DRD), which is considered an extrusive law for data reservation.
This law emphasizes that Internet providers retain users’ personal information, such as incoming and outgoing phone numbers, IP addresses, geolocation, and other key telecom and Internet traffic data, for six months to 2 years. However, the people who are not accused or suspected of any crime are under the Data Retention law.
Law implementation to the national legislation of countries
Many countries such as Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Norway, and the United Kingdom have swapped the laws into national legislation. Also, some of the countries outside the European Union, such as Serbia and Iceland, have adopted the data retention Directives.
Conversely, constitutional courts in some countries oppose laws that violate human rights. Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, and Romania are among the nations fighting against unfair Directives.
However, in some countries, the law was upheld after being imposed. Those include Romania, where the DRD was announced unconstitutional in 2009. Cyprus also declared the data retention law unconstitutional in February 2011. The Bulgarian constitutional court opposed the law, and in March 2010, Germany also declared retention directives unconstitutional.
This law is facing opposition and resistance from many nations. In March 2011, the DRD was reversed from the Czech Republic constitutional court’s adoption. In Lithuania, the data retention law was declared unconstitutional even before its enforcement.
Besides, the constitutional court of Hungary is still examining whether or not to implement Data Retention directives. However, some European Union nations have also denied implementing the law.
With the German execution of delayed adoption of the DRD directive, Sweden also shows the same behavior. Therefore, the European Commission handed Sweden’s case to the European Court for not implementing the EU data retention law. Also, an NGO, the European Information Society Institute, opposes Slovakia’s implementation of EU legislation.
Masses’ reaction to the law
Although the Data Retention Directives have been implemented as national law, the dispute remains. The conflicting DRD directives face extreme opposition and criticism from the masses. The lawmakers of the European parliament argue that this law violates fundamental human rights and is the way to create a surveillance society. The matter of Irish opposition to the law has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which will also review the legality of the DRD directive.
The European Commission announces influential judgment and probable revision of the DRD directive. However, some of the leaked documents affirm that the Commission has intentions to portray DRD directives as an essential need for the EU. Also, some unnamed parties are trying to expand the DRD’s use to incorporate the prosecution of copyright infringement.
The Commission published an evaluation report in April 2011, exposing the disparity between how the EU members implement the legislation and the data that authorities could access. Criticizing the report, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has said that the Commission has not demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of the EU Data Retention law. Yet, the legality of the directives would only be approved if they fulfill both requirements.
The EDSP has argued that data retention could be implemented in a less privacy-intrusive way, but the Commission does not determine that. According to the EDSP, the Data Retention Directive gives nations ample opportunity to decide data usage, conditions, and who can access the data.
However, the opponent is compelled to provide evidence to demonstrate that if the mandatory data retention law is unavailable, the essential traffic data for the investigation of severe crimes wouldn’t be available to law enforcement. They are also demanding the commission allow citizens to monitor the impacts of DRD directives on their privacy.
Whereas, to stop targeted traffic data collection by DRD, European Digital Rights (EDRI), a Brussels-based NGO with organizations like EFF and AK Vorrat, is fighting against it.
However, these directives are still implemented, and it is not confirmed what changes these oppositions could compel you to incorporate to protect your privacy. So, you should be vigilant about securing your privacy and be aware of the measures to protect yourself from Mandatory Data Retention.
Share this article
About the Author
Zehra Ali is a Tech Reporter and Journalist. She has done her Masters in Mass Communication. Topics related to cybersecurity, IoT, AI, Big Data and other privacy matters are extensively covered by her on various platforms. You can follow her on twitter.
More from Zehra AliRelated Posts
Data Retention Law in United States
Mandatory Data Retention Law in the United States is not implemented. However, according to the law ...
Review of the Mandatory Data Retention Law
KEY TAKEAWAYS Mandatory Data Retention Law is against every user’s privacy, as it allows ISPs ...
How to Protect From MetaData Retention? Qucik and Easy Tips
Many countries worldwide, such as the United States, Australia, and European Union, have Mandatory D...
Metadata Retention Law in Germany
In 2010, one of the German courts declared the German mandatory data retention law unconstitutional ...
Surveillance practices in Canada, Facing Criticism
With the revelation that the Canadian Revenue Agency(CRA) regularly supervises social networking sit...
What is Australia Data Retention Law? How to Protect Yourself
The countdown for ‘intrusive data surveillance’ has expired after the 18-month deadline. From this d...
