Sign in / up

back to article Sweden postpones EU data retention directive, faces court, fines

Sweden is to delay the implementation of the controversial EU data retention directive for a year, risking a heavy fine of up to €68m, whereas Austria has decided to implement the directive after a European Court of Justice ruling in 2010. The Swedish government this week decided to postpone the implementation of the law for …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Not Fred31
    Flame

    Commissioner Malmstroem... total failure

    It is amazing that Austria capitulated. The EU Commissioner responsible fought against the Directive when she was a parliamentarian. She then went on to become a Minister in the Swedish government, which chose not to implement the Directive. Now she's an EU Commissioner who suddenly believes the Directive is essential! Pathetic and sad in equal measures.

    2 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      @Not Fred31: How do you know if a politician is lying?

      Their lips move.

      0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great protest

    >>"In the summer of 2007, the famous Vienna Ringstraße – which circles the city centre of Vienna – was partially blocked for about an hour as a 150 strong demonstration organised by the Austrian Pirate Party walked along it to protest against the planned data retention legislation."

    Well, I'm sure that really helped convince everyone that objections were all about individual rights, and nothing to do with people hoping to leave minimal trace of illicit online activity.

    To be honest, I sometimes wonder if the RIAA or similar is actually behind one or more of the 'pirate parties'.

    0 1
  3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Flame

    "Swedish Green Party and the Left Party believe the directive restricts basic rights and freedoms"

    Damm right.

    Tony Blair and NuLabor's little gift to the whole EU. Thank you *so* much M. Blair.

    AFAIK this was drafted by the UK Home Office, but it could have come straight from ACPO's a-citizen-is-just-someone-we-have-not-got-round-to-arresting-yet.

    BTW. Has anyone noticed how many governments went *straight* to the 2 year *maximum* period rather than the minimum 6 months.

    Flames because this should *never* have got to law (Spain, whose Madrid rail bombing was the *supposed* reason for having it did not *want* it) and *should* have been challenged in the ECHR by now (as it has in the German courts).

    3 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not the government

    > The Swedish government this week decided to postpone the implementation of the law

    Not the government, well maybe strictly formally it was... - it was a minority in the parliament that forced the pause in the process (if large enough, IIRC at least 1/6th of the 349 seats, a minority can pause a gov proposal for 1 year)

    1 0
  5. Oldfogey
    Thumb Up

    So what's the problem?

    If the regulation is quoted correctly,

    "the data retained by ISPs and phone companies will be made available only to national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with national law"

    So just pass the "National Law" that the data is required to be retained, but cannot be accessed by anyone in any circumstances.

    Simples!

    0 3
  6. dephormation.org.uk
    Stop

    Roll on encryption

    .. because ISPs, Police, and Government cannot be trusted to abide by the law in the EU.

    This has little or nothing to do with prevention of terorism, or detection of crime.

    And more to do with online marketing, industrial espionage, political surveillance, and censorship of communications.

    Data Retention was among the justifications claimed by BT/Phorm, TalkTalk/Huawei, Vodafone/Bluecoat and others.

    "The Government made us do it....".

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like