[iwar] [fc:Group.warns.of.massive.EU.surveillance]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-08-20 07:28:23


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5221-1029853628-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16808 invoked by uid 510); 20 Aug 2002 14:25:32 -0000
Received: from n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.75) by all.net with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 14:25:32 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5221-1029853628-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Aug 2002 14:27:09 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 20 Aug 2002 14:27:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 84844 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2002 14:27:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2002 14:27:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 14:27:07 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7KESNY24789 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:28:23 -0700
Message-Id: <200208201428.g7KESNY24789@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Group.warns.of.massive.EU.surveillance]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 

Group warns of massive EU surveillance

By Graeme Wearden
Special to CNET News.com
August 20, 2002, 5:34 AM PT

Privacy advocates claim that the European Union plans to make sweeping
changes to laws that govern communications-related data retention and
privacy, requiring the long-term storage of such information and making it
available to governments.

Statewatch, a U.K.-based Internet organization that monitors threats to
civil liberties within Europe, said Monday that European governments are
planning to force all of the continent's telephone carriers, mobile network
operators and Internet service providers to store details of their
customers' Web use, e-mails and phone calls for up to two years.

This data would be made available to governments and law enforcement
agencies.

The European Parliament is currently debating changes to the 1997 EU
Directive on privacy in telecommunications, which governs existing laws on
communications data retention. This directive states that traffic data can
only be retained for billing purposes and must then be deleted.

European governments were expected to agree to changes to the 1997 directive
that would allow individual countries to bring in laws forcing
communications companies to retain data.

Statewatch, though, said it has seen a copy of a binding "framework
decision" that is currently being worked on by some EU governments. The
framework decision, which could be voted into law next month, would force
all governments to pass laws that would compel communications companies to
retain all traffic data for 12 months to 24 months.

As previously reported, it has been rumoured for some time that EU
governments were secretly working on such changes.

"EU governments claimed that changes to the 1997 EC Directive on privacy in
telecommunications to allow for data retention and access by the law
enforcement agencies would not be binding on member states--each national
parliament would have to decide. Now we know that all along they were
intending to make it binding, compulsory across Europe," Tony Bunyan, editor
of Statewatch, said in a statement.

Bunyan added that the draft framework decision would sweep away the basic
rights of data protection, scrutiny by supervisory bodies and judicial
review.

The framework decision may include the provision that the police would need
to obtain a judicial order before gaining access to traffic data, but
Statewatch warns that such conditions have been sidestepped before.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT