Digitalcourage: Criticism of the EU Commission's study on retained data
is : In the contract on the data retention study, the benefit of data retention is assumed to be given (p. 1). For example, it is assumed that data retention is a necessary and means of combating child pornography. We criticie that the necessity and of mass surveillance still has not been proven. A neutral study should not assume the benefit of mass surveillance, but should first prove it.
Core question ignored: The study the question of regulating access to retained data as a possible to mitigate the encroachment of fundamental rights by mass surveillance (p. 2). this could lead to decisive of data retention being overlooked: the collection and storage of the population's communication data is already a disproportionate encroachment on fundamental rights, regardless of who accesses the data at a later date, and for what purposes.
Legal expansion instead of law enforcement: The EU Commission is in favour of harmonising the regulations for data retention in the EU. At present, there are EU countries with data retention obligations of varying , countries with no data retention obligations, and countries where constitutional courts are currently reviewing data retention. While the study asks how member states enforce their mass surveillance by limiting it to certain categories of data or periods of time despite the rulings of the EU Court of Justice, it the question of how the rulings of the EU Court of Justice can be enforced in order to achieve harmonisation.
The goal is surveillance, not freedom or security: In our view, the above-mentioned objectives of the study are lacking some essential points. For example, it does not 1. an overview of investigation methods that do not require mass surveillance, 2. an evaluation of the necessity and of data retention regimes, 3. an assessment of the technological impact, 4. an evaluation of the consequences for democracy and civil , 5. an evaluation of the 6. identification of the of democracies and the rule of law, 7. an evaluation of investigative errors and weaknesses both the police and the secret services (Germany: NSU, Anis Amri and others).
of stakeholders: For a study like this, all stakeholders should be interviewed. However, only the following are explicitly mentioned: investigative authorities, telecommunications companies, telecommunications supervisory authorities and EU institutions (p. 6). Not explicitly mentioned are for example: data protection supervisory authorities, fundamental rights organisations or other civil society.
Facts beyond court rulings: A retrospective fact finding support study is to be prepared. facts that : the EU member states have declared before the EU Court of Justice that they do not wish to implement its ruling on data retention, we reported on this.
Since surveillance is pursued so zealously that even rulings of the EU Court of Justice are no longer respected as facts, and the EU Commission to enforce the, we assume that law enforcement agencies, secret services and governments will ignore all other facts as well.
T: For the identification of national data retention practices, which data are stored for which period of time, and . (p. 6f). The lists 13 detailed questions, none of which deals with the of data retention, data or misuse, even though there is ample reason to do so (see article on heise.de).
ignored: While the identification of of data retention is formulated as a separate study task under point 4.3 in the contract, the contract does not contain an explicit requirement to assess the risks of data retention. For example, the study , Are the communications metadata non-content data used for the purpose of preventing crime? The follow-up question is, What is the benefit of such use of data? No questions are asked about the of preventive mass surveillance – th