Open letter to all the Members of the European Parliament (3 pages)– URGENT / IMPORTANT
Subject: privacy in the electronic communications (Cappato report)
Brussels, 28 May 2002
Dear colleagues,
The report on privacy in the electronic communications I am rapporteur on will be voted in second reading during this plenary mini-session. I would like to draw your attention on the issue of « data retention », or the power for the State to impose on Telecoms operators and Internet service providers the generalised retention of personal communication data (that is the storing of informations on telephone calls, SMSs, faxes, location data, emails, Internet navigation, etc). On this issue two amendments will be voted.
Text of the Citizens' rights and freedoms committee – amendment 20 (unanimously approved in First reading)
(…) These measures [to restrict the scope of the directive] shall be entirely exceptional, based on a specific law which is comprehensible to the general public and be authorised by the judicial or other competent authorities on a case-by-case basis. Under the European Convention on Human Rights and pursuant to rulings issued by the European Court of Human Rights, any form of wide-scale general or exploratory electronic surveillance is prohibited.
EPP – PSE amendment 46
(…)
Member States may inter alia adopt legislative measures providing for the retention of data for a limited period justified on the grounds laid down in this paragraph. All the measures referred to in this paragraph shall be in accordance with the general principles of Community law including those referred to in Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
Introducing data retention (a tipically national or « Third Pillar » measure) in an internal market « First pillar » legislation, and deleting any references in the articles to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (leaving just a powerless citation in the recitals), the EPP-PES amendement would create a European legal basis for laws that impose on service providers mandatory data retention (i.e. requiring identification documents for the purchase of pre-paid phone cards).
Internet civil freedom movements (see attached document) and Telecom companies are against this proposal. Even as a tool to fight terrorism, case by case inquiries with human intelligence involvement are unanimously considered a more effective tool then general data retention. Notwithstanding alleged US pressure on the EU, the US themselves do not have such a law.
For this reasons, in order to guarantee the fundamental right to privacy I invite you to support the Civil Liberties amendement 20 and, in case of rejection, to vote against the second part of Amendment 46 (the split vote on the sentence "To this end Member States may inter alia adopt legislative measures providing for the retention of data for a limited period justified on the grounds laid down in this paragraph").
A (real) compromise with the Council could then be found in the Conciliation procedure.
Please, contact me for further information or about your decision. Sincerely,
Marco Cappato
OPEN LETTER OF INTERNATIONAL
CIVIL FREEDOMS ORGANISATIONS
16.206 citizens from 74 Countries have undersigned this letter [last update: 2002-05-28 12:00:05] – full list of signatories: http://www.stop1984.com/index2.php?text=letter.txt
Dear Mr. Cox:
We write to you and all the Members of the European Parliament on behalf of a wide range of civic organizations in the world concerning the upcoming vote on the proposed European Union Directive on the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector ("the proposed Directive") scheduled for 29 May. We urge you to vote against general and exploratory data retention of individuals' electronic communications by law enforcement authorities. We recommend that you vote in favour of the position on Article 15(1) of the European Parliament Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (the "LIBE Committee"). We strongly recommend that you do not vote for any amendment on Article 15 that would leave EU Member States governments free to decide on the fundamental issue of data retention. With this collective statement, we want to underline the critical importance that this vote will have for democratic societies.
We believe that data retention of communications by law enforcement authorities should only be employed in exceptional cases. It should be authorised only by the judicial or other competent authorities on a case-by-case basis. When permitted, data retention must be a necessary, appropriate, proportionate and temporary measure, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
We therefore strongly endorse the April 18, 2002 vote of the LIBE Committee on the Draft Recommendation for second reading ("the Committee's Draft Recommendation"). We particularly endorse language that promotes and preserves the most fundamental values democratic societies must defend: the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and presumption of innocence. We recommend opposing the language of the Council's common position of 28 January because it allows Member States to authorise general and exploratory electronic surveillance on a large scale. While the fight against terrorism is a legitimate purpose, we do not believe it can justify actions that undermine the most fundamental rights of democratic states.
Many European institutions involved in the legislative process share our position and have emphasized the importance of the decision before the European Parliament with respect to the protection of individuals' privacy.
The European data protection authorities have opposed efforts to create new data retention obligations. In a letter of 7 June 2001 to the President of the Council of the European Council, the Chairman of the Article 29 Working Group wrote that "systematic and preventive storage of EU citizens communications and related traffic data would undermine the fundamental rights to privacy, data protection, freedom of expression, liberty and presumption of innocence."
Similarly, members of the European Parliament Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs have stressed that Member States should not have a general right to request whatever traffic and location data they wish without stating a specific reason why such information is needed. They have noted the risk that law enforcement authorities might use such authority to conduct broad and arbitrary 'fishing expeditions'.
Further, European privacy commissioners have recognised that one of the best privacy safeguards is to minimize the collection of personal data where possible. They have consistently affirmed that confidentiality of communications is one of "the most important elements of the protection of the fundamental right to privacy and data protection as well as of secrecy of communications", and that "any exception to this right and obligation should be limited to what is strictly necessary in a democratic society and clearly defined by law." A blanket retention of all communications data for hypothetical and future criminal investigations would not respect these basic conditions.
Wide data retention powers for law enforcement authorities, especially if they were used on a routine basis and on a large part of the population, could have disastrous consequences for the most sensitive and confidential types of personal data. Vast databases now include personal data about medical conditions, racial or ethnic origins, religious or philosophical beliefs, political opinions, trade-union membership, and sexuality. New retention requirements as envisaged by the common position's broad language will create new risks to personal privacy, political freedom, freedom of speech, and public safety. Moreover, because of the cross-border nature of Internet communications, your decision could have repercussions that will reach far beyond the European Union.
Some of you may consider that the Council's position is not binding on EU Member States and that it should be up to the Member States' Parliaments to decide, in their own national laws, whether data retention has or not to be allowed. However, a still unofficial Framework Decision, secretly drafted by some EU Member States, would compel all the States to introduce a law providing for the retention of telecommunications traffic data. This development clearly shows the Council and EU governments' total disregard for the European Parliament's opinion. That is why we now encourage you to decide whether the crucial issue of data retention should be a matter exclusively left in the hands of EU governments and the Council, out of reach of EU citizens' representatives.
We therefore respectfully urge you to vote for the LIBE Committee's position on Article 15(1), and not concede any compromise language. Whether the European Parliament will permit generalized surveillance of EU citizens has become a crucial issue for the future of democratic states. It is now up to you to safeguard fundamental freedoms.
Sincerely,
Marc Rotenberg (rotenberg@epic.org)
Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org)
Andreas Stern (astern@action.at)
a.c.t.i.o.n – kooperative kulturelle Vernetzung (http://www.action.at)
Barry Steinhardt (BSteinhardt@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org)
Association "Souriez vous êtes filmés" (http://svef.free.fr)
(sourieznews@ml.free.fr)
Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette@apc.org)
Association For Progressive Communications (APC) (http://www.apc.org)
Maurice Wessling (maurice@bof.nl)
Bits of Freedom (http://www.bof.nl)
Milena Georgieva (milena@bluelink.net)
BlueLink Information Network (http://www.bluelink.net)
Bugbrother (Bigband@bugbrother.com)
(http://www.bugbrother.com)
James X. Dempsey (jdempsey@cdt.org)
Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org)
Andy Mueller-Maguhn (andy@ccc.de)
Chaos Computer Club e.V. (http://www.ccc.de/)
Sean O Siochru (sean@nexus.ie)
Community Media Network (http://www.cmn.ie)
Robert Guerra (rguerra@privaterra.org)
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (http://www.cpsr.org)
Yaman Akdeniz (lawya@cyber-rights.org)
Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (http://www.cyber-rights.org)
Thomas Mayer (thomas@dergrossebruder.net)
Der Große Bruder (http://www.dergrossebruder.net)
Thilo Weichert (weichert@datenschutzzentrum.de)
Deutsche Vereinigung für Datenschutz (http://www.aktiv.org/DVD)
Per Helge Sørensen (phs@digitalrights.dk)
Digital Rights (http://www.digitalrights.dk)
Ville Oksanen (hallitus@effi.org)
Electronic Frontier Finland ry (www.effi.org)
Shari Steele (ssteele@eff.org)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org)
Caspar Bowden (cb@fipr.org)
Foundation for Information Policy Research (http://www.fipr.org)
Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org)
Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org/)
Karen Banks (karenb@gn.apc.org)
GreenNet (UK Member of Association for Progressive Communications)
Markus Beckedahl (m.beckedahl@gmx.de)
Grüne Jugend Deutschland
Chris Evans (campaign@netfreedom.org)
Internet Freedom (http://www.netfreedom.org)
Anne Deschuyteneer (info@isoc-ecc.org)
Internet Society European Co-ordination Council (http:/www.isoc-ecc.org)
Meryem Marzouki (Meryem.Marzouki@iris.sgdg.org)
IRIS – Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire (http://www.iris.sgdg.org)
John Wadham (JohnW@liberty-human-rights.org.uk)
LIBERTY (http://liberty-human-rights.org.uk)
James Landrith (jlandrith@hotmail.com)
The Multiracial Activist (http://www.multiracial.com)
Alberto Escudero-Pascual (aep@nodo50.org, ayuda@nodo50.org)
Nodo50, Altavoz por la Libertad de Expresión y Comunicación (http://www.nodo50.org, http://losvigilantes.nodo50.org)
Will Doherty (info@onlinepolicy.org)
Online Policy Group (http://www.onlinepolicy.org)
Simon Davies (davies@privacy.org)
Privacy International (http://www.privacyinternationak.org)
Andriy Pazyuk (privacy@ukrnet.net)
Privacy Ukraine (http://www.ukrnet.com)
Dr. Roland Alton-Scheidl (ras@pvl.at)
Public Voice Lab (http://www.pvl.at)
Erich Moechel (me@quintessenz.at)
quintessenz (http://www.quintessenz.at)
Jean-Pierre Masse (samizdat@samizdat.net)
Samizdat (http://www.samizdat.net)
Tony Bunyan (office@statewatch.org)
Statewatch (http://www.statewatch.org)
Tini Jodda (twister@stop1984.com)
stop1984 (http://www.stop1984.com)
Felix Rauch (info@siug.ch)
Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG) (http://www.siug.ch/)
Mihaly Bako (misi@sbnet.ro)
StrawberryNet Foundation (http://www.sbnet.ro)
Albert Koellner (albert.koellner@vibe.at)
VIBE!AT – Austrian Association for Internet Users (http://www.vibe.at)
Sjoera Nas (woordvoering@xs4all.nl)
XS4ALL Internet BV (http://www.xs4all.nl)