The group, which monitors civil liberties issues within Europe,
obtained a leaked copy of a document showing that “EU governments
always intended to introduce an EC law to bind all member states to
adopt data retention.”
According to Statewatch, a binding Framework Decision is
currently being worked on and could be passed as soon as next
month. The Decision would oblige Member States to amend their
domestic laws so that all communications traffic data is retained
for 12-24 months, in order to allow law enforcement agencies to
have access to the data.
Statewatch noted that the agencies would still need a judicial
order to access a user’s data. However, it claims that this
obligation cannot minimise privacy risks which have already been
side-stepped by internal security agencies in many countries.
Statewatch further claims that the Framework Decision carries “a
strong hint” that another measure to allow law enforcement agencies
to access communications’ content as well as traffic data is being
considered.
The civil liberties group claims that there is no reference to
supervisory agencies or to the individuals’ right to correct,
debate and block data. Finally it complains that there are no
provisions for checking the admissibility of data searches.
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, commented:
"EU governments claimed that changes to the
1997 EC Directive on privacy in telecommunications to allow for
data retention and access by the law enforcement agencies would not
be binding on Members States - each national parliament would have
to decide. Now we know that all along they were intending to make
it binding, 'compulsory', across Europe.
"The right to privacy in our communications
- e-mails, phone-calls, faxes and mobile phones - was a hard-won
right which has now been taken away. Under the guise of fighting
"terrorism" everyone's communications are to be placed under
surveillance.
"Gone too under the draft Framework Decision
are basic rights of data protection, proper rules of procedure,
scrutiny by supervisory bodies and judicial review"
