On 22 June 2005 the Dutch Erasmus University published a report about the usefulness and necessity of data retention for law enforcement purposes. The report is the first public research in Europe into the actual use by law enforcement of historical traffic data.

The researchers looked at 65 police investigations that were provided by the Dutch ministry of justice as good examples of the usefulness for traffic data for law enforcement. They conclude 'in virtually all cases' the police could get all the traffic data they needed, based on average availability of telephony traffic data of 3 months. The researchers also warn they can't qualify the usefulness of these data as direct or indirect evidence, or the representativeness of the sample of cases for law enforcement in general.

By massive raise of hands on 7 June 2005 the European Parliament adopted the very critical report of Alexander Alvaro on the proposal for mandatory data retention. The European Parliament thus sent a clear signal to the Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers that they completely reject the current approach in the third pillar. Under this procedure, the European Parliament only has an advisory role, but no power to amend or reject a proposal. The JHA Council immediately responded in the EP that they would not withdraw the draft framework decision but continue to work on it.

According to the report about the meeting of the JHA Council the ministers reached agreement on mandatory data retention, in principle for 1 year for all kinds of data, both for data that are already processed as well as for data that are only generated but never used by providers, for the purpose of investigation, detection and prosecution of all kinds of criminal offences.

On 7 June 2005 the European Parliament has adopted the report of LIBE-rapporteur Alexander Alvaro with a large majority. The report finds the proposal for mandatory data retention disproportionate. The report also questions the necessity, effectiveness and high costs for industry and telecommunication users.
The JHA Council immediately explained to the MEPs that their advice will be ignored. The Council refuses to withdraw the draft framework decision and will continue to work on it.

The Open Letter to the European Parliament on data retention from EDRI, Privacy International and Statewatch is now available in 4 languages.

The Open Letter in English

Lettre Ouverte Version Française

Offener Brief auf Deutsch

Carta abierta en Espanol

EDRI press release, Monday 6 June 2005

European Digital Rights (EDRI) has sent an open letter today to the European Parliament calling for a rejection of the European ministers of Justice and Home Affairs plan to keep all telephone and internet traffic data.

Tomorrow, the European Parliament will vote in plenary on a report by Parliament member Alexander Alvaro on the mandatory data retention plan. Alvaro's report concludes that the proposal is disproportionate. The report also questions the necessity, effectiveness and high costs for industry and telecommunication users. EDRI asks the members of Parliament to adopt Alvaro's report.

=>PDF version of this letter in English.

=>Voir la version Francaise sur le site d'IRIS. Également disponible en PDF.

=>Dieser Brief auf Deutsch. Auch in PDF

=>Esta Carta en Espanol.

To the presidents of the political groups in the European Parliament

Monday 6 June 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

We kindly request your attention on the matter of the plenary vote (scheduled for 7 June 2005) on the report from LIBE rapporteur Alexander Alvaro on mandatory data retention, nr. 2004/0813(CNS). We are appealing to you on behalf of European Digital Rights, a not-for-profit association of 17 digital civil rights organisations from 11 European countries, Privacy International, an international non-governmental organisation with members in over 30 countries and Statewatch, an organisation that monitors civil liberties in Europe with correspondents in 14 European countries.

Communications data retention is a policy that significantly expands powers of surveillance in an unprecedented manner. It simultaneously revokes many of safeguards in European human rights instruments, such as the Data Protection Directives and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The district court of Helsinki, Finland, has decided telecommunication company Sonera seriously violated telecommunication privacy between 1998 and 2001. On 27 May 2005 the court handed down suspended sentences to five employees for their unauthorised use of mobile telephone records. Sonera executives ordered a detailed examination of the telephone behaviour of employees, to find out who had been leaking information to the press. But on another occasion the security staff also voluntarily and without any legal basis provided traffic data to the National Bureau of Investigation, the Security Police and the Helsinki Police to help investigate the murder of a prostitute.

The Finnish newspaper Helsingi Sanomat reports: "The harshest sentence was handed down to former Information Security Manager Juha E. Miettinen, who got a ten-month suspended jail term. (....) The defendants claimed that digging up the information was part of a legal investigation into suspected wrongdoing. (....But) the court did not believe the claims of Miettinen, generally seen as the main defendant, who said that he had misunderstood the law. The court noted that Miettinen had written books on data protection, spoken at seminars in the field, and taken part at least to some extent in legislative work on the matter."

Tomorrow 3 June at 13.00 PM the ministers of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA Council) will give a press conference about their achievements with regards to the introduction of mandatory data retention, item B5 on the agenda. On 7 June 2005 the European Parliament will vote in plenary on the report from Alexander Alvaro. The report finds the proposal disproportionate and ineffective and not in compliance with the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. It is widely expected that the report will be adopted with a large majority, thus sending a clear signal to Council and Commission that the Parliament is angry about its advisory role and wishes a much stronger public debate about the need, necessity and costs of data retention. On 26 May 2005 the Europarl LIBE commission already adopted this report almost unanimously, with only 1 vote against.