Feeds

Justice minister tries to further delay snoop silo laws in Germany

Opposes Coalition's position on EU data retention directive - report

High performance access to file storage

Germany might further delay its implementation of the Data Retention Directive despite facing potential financial penalties of more than €300,000 for each day it fails to transpose it into national law, according to media reports.

The Cabinet plans to revisit the topic at a 22 January meeting in an attempt to avoid fines, and is in agreement about its implementation, but German justice minister Heiko Mass (interview in German) has said that he wants to wait for the CJEU to rule in the case before deciding what action to take.

According to a report by the EU Observer, the judgment of the CJEU is expected within the next few months.

The country previously implemented the 2006 Directive, but a court in the country ruled in 2010 that it was incompatible with fundamental German laws. That action prompted the European Commission to initiate legal action against Germany over its failure to put in place alternative new national legislation to implement the EU laws.

The Commission referred Germany to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in May 2012 and has asked the Court to impose a fine of €315,036.54 for each day Germany fails to implement the Directive.

Under the Directive telecoms and other electronic communications firms are required to retain identifying details of phone calls and emails, such as the traffic and location, to help the police detect and investigate serious crimes. The details exclude the content of those communications.

The Directive was established in 2006 to make it a requirement for telecoms and other electronic communications companies to retain the personal data for a period determined by national governments of between six months and two years. The Commission decided to regulate following terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.

However, a challenge against the legitimacy of the Directive has been separately brought before the CJEU by digital rights campaigners in Ireland. They claim that the Directive is incompatible with fundamental EU rights.

In December a legal adviser to the CJEU offered his non-binding opinion on the case. Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón recommended that the CJEU rule that the Directive be deemed to be incompatible with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. Cruz Villalón said that there are insufficient safeguards written into the Directive to ensure privacy rights are respected.

He said that it is possible, under the framework, "to create a both faithful and exhaustive map of a large portion of a person’s conduct strictly forming part of his private life, or even a complete and accurate picture of his private identity" and that therefore there is a risk that data collected could be used for "unlawful purposes which are potentially detrimental to privacy or, more broadly, fraudulent or even malicious".

The Advocate General said that the Directive should have set out controls around the access to data and how that data is used and further found that an upper limit of two years on the length of time telecoms and other electronic communications companies could be obliged to retain data under the framework was not proportionate. The maximum time that member states should be allowed to force telecoms and other electronic communications companies to hold onto data collected should be less than one year, he advised.

Cruz Villalón said that the aims of the Directive were "perfectly legitimate", according to the CJEU's statement, and said that the laws, although invalid, should stand until replacement provisions are adopted.

Copyright © 2013, Out-Law.com

Out-Law.com is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders
Veep testifies for Samsung during Apple patent trial
One year on: diplomatic fail as Chinese APT gangs get back to work
Mandiant says past 12 months shows Beijing won't call off its hackers
Big Content goes after Kim Dotcom
Six studios sling sueballs at dead download destination
Alphadex fires back at British Gas with overcharging allegation
Brit colo outfit says it paid for 347KVA, has been charged for 1940KVA
Jack the RIPA: Blighty cops ignore law, retain innocents' comms data
Prime minister: Nothing to see here, go about your business
Singapore decides 'three strikes' laws are too intrusive
When even a prurient island nation thinks an idea is dodgy it has problems
Banks slap Olympus with £160 MEEELLION lawsuit
Scandal hit camera maker just can't shake off its past
France bans managers from contacting workers outside business hours
«Email? Mais non ... il est plus tard que six heures du soir!»
Reprieve for Weev: Court disowns AT&T hacker's conviction
Appeals court strikes down landmark sentence
US taxman blows Win XP deadline, must now spend millions on custom support
Gov't IT likened to 'a Model T with a lot of things on top of it'
prev story

Whitepapers

Mainstay ROI - Does application security pay?
In this whitepaper learn how you and your enterprise might benefit from better software security.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
3 Big data security analytics techniques
Applying these Big Data security analytics techniques can help you make your business safer by detecting attacks early, before significant damage is done.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Mobile application security study
Download this report to see the alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, as well as the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.