After the terror attacks in London and Madrid, the EU rushed through new legislation on retaining telecommunications data to help track suspected terrorists' movements. But the Data Retention Directive continues to anger many lawmakers, who argue they have no proof the law is necessary.
The European Parliament has been heavily engaged in the formation of the EU's anti-terror laws and has persistently argued that many of the laws infringe fundamental rights and foster a surveillance society.
German, Austrian and Swedish MEPs appear to be aligning their views in favour of a shorter data retention period and more targeted searches.
Under current EU rules, countries can retain swathes of telecommunications data (email, mobile and fixed calls, Internet telephony, IP adresses) for a period of six months to two years to aid investigations. But MEPs want to whittle this down to three months as they embark on a review of the directive.
Infringing human rights?
Though the EU's commissioner for home affairs, Cecilia Malmström, has admitted that the directive needs to be reworked, including possible reductions in retention periods, she has also made clear her opposition to the three-month "quick freeze" method put forward by Germany and supported by many MEPs.
Germany, which is facing a fine from the European Commission after its constitutional court quashed the directive, has argued in favour of quick freeze since the directive was conceived in 2006. Austria and Sweden, which have not even adopted the directive yet, agree.
Constitutional courts in the Czech Republic and Romania also ruled that the directive infringed Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which safeguards privacy unless there is proof that interference is necessary for public safety, national security, the prevention of crimes, economic well-being and fundamental rights.
A German Green MEP, Jan Philipp Albrecht, claims the Commission has provided no grounds for the EU to give countries a time span of six months to two years to retain the data, as outlined by the Data Retention Directive.
The MEP says he has already been assured by criminal investigators that a three-month freeze of data is adequate time to extract enough information to convict a criminal.
Tackling crime
In a speech yesterday Malmström begged to differ. She argued that recent convictions of fraud, pedophilia rings and drug traffickers were ample proof that data retention was necessary.
But MEPs are adamant that shorter and more targeted retention periods are needed to reconcile privacy with crime prevention.
Austrian Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger also criticises an "imprecise definition of serious crimes" in the directive.
Swedish MEP Carl Schlyter agrees. In Sweden, the law is on hold after it was vetoed by a cross-parliamentary blocking minority which saw the extreme right, the Sweden Democrats, back the Greens, Miljöpartiet de Gröna, for the first time in the country's history.
Schlyter fears that like recent legislative battles on the collection of financial data, the Terror Finance Tracking Programme, the EU will surrender to US demands on retention periods.
The Data Retention Directive is currently in the throes of a review and the European Commission released a report yesterday showing vast inconsistencies between different member states and how they use the rules.
For example, there are glaring differences on which authority has the right to access the data.
In fourteen countries, national intelligence agencies or the military have the legal right to get the data. Six countries additionally extend access rights to customs and tax authorities.
Only eleven countries require authorisation from a judge before the data is delivered and one country, Ireland, only requires a request in writing.
