Pátek 29. března 2024, svátek má Taťána
130 let

Lidovky.cz

Telecoms data retention: an Alice in Wonderland world

  8:33

Police and BIS shouldn’t cry over the Constitutional Court’s move to quash measures forcing telecoms operators to store data on clients

foto: © ČESKÁ POZICEČeská pozice

The Constitutional Court (ÚS) last month overturned part of a controversial data retention law, stemming from a European Union directive, that obligated telecoms operators to maintain records of their customers’ Internet and telephone usage — a mass amount of data. The court’s findings on the Electronic Communications Act have fostered a series of surrealistic reports in the media that have underlined the difference between myth and reality — with many of the former aspects themselves bordering on absurdity.

One of the first of these is the fact that some of the main lawmakers who have been complaining about the law are the very same ones who passed the measure on electronic communications not three years ago. The ÚS diplomatically overlooked that fact as well as the fact that most of them then — and now — belonged to the government majority.

Achieving a balance of telecommunications monitoring for security purposes and privacy has been problematic in Europe and the United States since the “9/11” terrorist attacks. But why did those who are so convinced now about the anti-constitutional nature of the measure not react in the simplest and most standard way — by passing an amendment in parliament? That they turned to the court was labeled by it as a face-saving exercise. It also warned that next time around it will reject dealing such complaints.

Now to turn to the crux of the issue and the way telecommunications companies stored data. Sometimes they might have gone off the rails, but the companies are often innocent of the media charges that they were the ones behind all the spying.

No, the basic obligation to store data stemmed from a European directive following heated discussion by interior ministers. All EU member states were obliged to put into effect this law on data storage according to national rules (although Austria and Sweden have yet to do so). The Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade (MPO) kept its data storage proposal on the modest side.

On the positive side, the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade (MPO) kept its data storage proposal on the modest side, only demanding a six month retention of information when the directive talked of 12 months. But operators still had to start saving every detail of telecoms traffic created by their customers including location, failed connection attempts, topping up pre-payment cards, and a lot more. All this was undertaken apparently for the benefit of police, the Security Information Service (BIS) and military intelligence.

Ironically, the operators themselves did not require most of this mass of stored details for themselves. To go after customers who have failed to pay their bills, they just needed a fraction of that data. Location detail was not needed at all. And even if you were looking for the nearest pizzeria, hair dresser or bank cash dispenser, the locations details needed about you would cease to be required as soon as the desired information was given.

It is simply not true that operators will still need 90 percent of the information, which according to the modified law which should be published on April 12 is now not required.    

The provisions of the act on electronic communications have now been in force for two years. So I would have expected opponents of its abolition to have flourished exact figures about the precise number of crimes, and I would have expected the figure to run into hundreds or even thousands, that had been prevented, uncovered or punished. Alas, those naive expectations were never fulfilled. No such statements ever appeared, but there is still time for it to come along…

Instead, all we have had from highly placed police officers is a regret that now they will have to find some new means of cooperation with the operators now that it is now laid out by a “clearly defined law.” Am I the only one who shudders at that newspeak-type jargon?  Added to that is the contention that the only thing that was cancelled was the obligation for operators to store data for at least six and at maximum of 12 months, so they will still be obliged to save data which is older than a year. What rankled with the ÚS the most was the vague and wide definition of institutions that could call on the stored data to be handed over.

From the court ruling, it is clear that that what rankled with the ÚS the most was the vague and wide definition of institutions that could call on the stored data to be handed over. The purpose for which the data could be used was for the prosecution of any, not just, as in the case of the EU directive, serious crimes. An amendment limiting the breadth of the law could have been easily passed, cutting the impressive total of 120,000 data requests in nine months, quite easily.

Before the data retention measure came into force, police could still carry out investigations. The only difference was that they had to request data in advance. The logic was clear: First get the suspect, and then amass the incriminating details. Since the law came into force the tables have been turned. Now, in advance, we all fall into the bracket of being a priori suspects.

On my travels I stated listening to an audio book version of George Orwell’s “1984.” It is a very instructive work. Up till now I have been able to distinguish the border between reality and literary fiction. But some of the expressions from representatives of the Ministry of Love just leave me at a loss for words.

 

Akční letáky
Akční letáky

Všechny akční letáky na jednom místě!