On 13 May 2005 the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers adopted a declaration on human rights and Internet that was prepared by a special committee of academic experts and government representatives. According to the press release, "the declaration is the first international attempt to draw up a framework on the issue and breaks ground by up-dating the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights for the cyber-age."

Indeed the declaration contains a very reassuring confirmation of the fact that "all rights enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) remain fully valid in the Information Age and should continue to be protected regardless of new technological developments" and a firm statement that "Both the content and traffic data of electronic communications fall under the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR and should not be submitted to restrictions other than those provided for in that provision."

On 20 April 2005 the civil liberties group Statewatch, together with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two other NGOs launched the Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS), calling on all national governments and intergovernmental organisations to turn away from antiterrorism efforts that are oriented around mass surveillance.

The campaign started with an in-depth report on 'The emergence of a global infrastructure for registration and surveillance'. "Driven largely by the United States, a growing web of anti-terrorism and security measures are being adopted by nations around the world. This new 'security' paradigm is being used to roll back freedom and increase police powers in order to exercise increasing control over individuals and populations." The report describes 10 signposts that clearly mark the general erosion of human rights. To some extent, all of the signposts have already been realised. To another extent, the report reads like a manual for an awesome uncle of Big Brother.

The rapporteur for the European Parliament on telecommunication data retention, Alexander Alvaro, has organised on 3 May a round table discussion with the title 'How does the internet work and how does data retention effect industry and society'. A broad cross section of civil society and industry representatives criticised the current Council framework proposal on data retention for its content and procedure. The meeting was held under the flag of the alliance of liberals and democrats (ALDE) in the European Parliament. Several MEPs attended the meeting, including Mastenbroek, Cederschiöld and Duquesne.

"We need a genuine debate, one which has been sorely missing", said Alexander Alvaro. "The current proposal lacks a proper legal base, is disproportionate and ineffective. It needs a thorough rethink", he added. Almost all speakers attacked the European Council's proposal regarding proportionality, necessity and costs. Both industry and civil society organisations agreed on the grave impact that data retention will have on civil liberties, internal market and consumer trust.

European privacy developments and counter strategies from civil society was one of the topics at the annual US privacy conference, Computers, Freedoms and Privacy (CFP), last week in Seattle.

During the specific debate devoted to developments in Europe it became clear that while EU countries used to be known for their strong privacy legislation and oversight mechanisms, the last couple of years represent a serious set-back in human rights protection. Examples discussed included mandatory data retention, ID cards such as the recent French proposal, transfer of passenger data and biometric identifiers on passports. The mainly American audience was quite astonished about the amount of privacy invasive measures, which have been introduced in Europe as part of the 'war on terror'.

On Wednesday 13 April the Dutch news agency ANP broke the news that the European Council of Justice and Home Affairs had definitely withdrawn the data retention proposal from their schedule and would wait for a proper 1st pillar proposal from the European Commission, following devastating legal advice from both the Commission as well as the internal legal service. Thanks to the civil rights organisation Statewatch the two documents (in French only) had been leaked to the public on 10 April 2005. Both texts suggest that the Council is wrong in assuming it can create mandatory data retention in the third pillar (criminal law and policing). The proposal will have such a major impact on the internal market and the existing e-privacy directive of 2002 that only the Commission, with full

EDRI-gram has obtained 2 secret documents about the draft framework decision on data retention that unveil the positions of individual Member States when it comes to the scope, cost, scale and length of retention. The first document, published on the EDRI website, is the uncensored version of the latest draft framework decision from 24 February 2005, from the Working Party on cooperation in criminal matters to the Article 36 Committee. Both groups are made up of senior officials in the Justice and Home Affairs area, with the Committee in a general coordinating role for the Council.

In this document the Working Party reminds the Committee that the European Commission "had entered a scrutiny reservation on the legal basis for the proposal." Three explanatory paragraphs about the position of the

The Council of European Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA council) seems set for a frontal collision with the European Commission with the proposal for a framework decision on mandatory data retention. On 14 April 2005 the Council will discuss the proposal, possibly including a functional list, in spite of the urgent request from EU Justice Commissioner Frattini to drop the proposal completely and wait for a proper democratic initiative from the Commission. For national members of parliament all over Europe the national preparatory debate about the agenda for this JHA Council will probably be the last chance to stop their ministers from agreeing and first demand a thorough investigation into the necessity and proportionality of data retention.

The last publicly available Council document dates from 24 February 2005. The proposal now

Europe was crowned 'Internet Villain' of the year at the 7th Annual UK Internet Industry Award Ceremony, for "threatening the Country of Origin principle, which has encouraged e-commerce across the EU, and for the Draft Framework on Data Retention." The awards are an initiative of the UK Internet Service Providers' Association Council. Previous winners include the UK Home Office (twice) and Verisign. The negative price is part of a large commerce-celebrating ceremony with lots of positive prices for a.o. best light, medium or heavy consumer or business broadband provider.

Europe crowned as Internet Villain (25.02.2005)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,39189185,00.htm

Press release ISPA (25.02.2005)
http://www.ispaawards.org.uk/categories/villain.htm