|
Letter from International Privacy Groups
November 12, 2001
Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt
President, EU Council of Ministers
Rue de la Loi 16, 1000 BRUXELLES
Dear President Verhofstadt:
We write to you on behalf of a wide range of civic organizations in
the United States and Europe to express our concern regarding the
request of President Bush that the proposed EU directive on the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector
(COM(2000)385) be altered to allow for data retention regarding the
communications of Europeans and consequently of Americans. While we
support the President's efforts to take appropriate steps to reduce
the risk of terrorism and to work with government leaders to protect
public safety, we do not believe that this proposal is appropriate
or necessary.
First of all, under United States law there is no similar obligation
for data retention by telecommunications companies. US federal law
recognizes a need to preserve data once a particular investigation
is underway, but it does not create a general obligation for
communication carriers to retain records on customers that are no
longer required by the carriers. President Bush is asking European
governments to impose obligations on European companies that would
not be imposed on US companies.
Second, the European Privacy Commissioners and Members of the
European Parliament have opposed efforts to create new data
retention obligations. In the letter of 7 June 2001 to Mr. G�ran
Persson, President of the Council of the European Union, 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."
In a July 2001 report by the European Parliament Committee on
Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee
Members made clear that restrictions to safeguard public security
and conduct criminal investigations should be appropriate,
proportionate and limited in time and that general or exploratory
electronic surveillance on a large scale should not be allowed. The
Members also noted that Member States should not have a general
right to request whatever traffic and location data they wished
without the authorities stating a specific reason as to why such
information was needed, and that information should not be stored
longer than was necessary for the transmission of data and for
traffic management purposes.
Third, because communications data often moves between the United
States and Europe, European data retention requirements would
directly and adversely affect the privacy rights of Americans. There
is a significant risk, if this proposal goes forward, that US law
enforcement agencies will seek data held in Europe that it could not
obtain at home, either because it was not retained or because US law
would not permit law enforcement access.
Fourth, the retention of personal information that would otherwise
be destroyed upon the completion of its intended use creates new
privacy and security risks for citizens. Vast databases of personal
data now include sensitive medical information as well as data
revealing political opinions, religious and philophical beliefs.
These new retention requirements will create new risks to personal
privacy, political freedom, and public safety.
Further, the privacy commissioners have recognized 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 traffic data for
hypothetical criminal investigations and for a long period of time
would not respect these basic conditions.
We note also that governments on both sides of the Atlantic have
sought to make secret public information that would otherwise assist
the public in understanding the threats it now faces. We do not
believe it draws the proper balance in a democratic society for the
activities of government to be concealed from public scrutiny while
the private activities of citizens are made open to government.
Finally, we believe it is inconsistent with well established
international norms for communications privacy, such as Article 8 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for governments to compel the
retention of private information for surveillance purposes.
Confidentiality of communication is a central tenet of modern
democratic society. Proposals to reduce the privacy of citizens will
undermine the strength of the democratic state.
We have contacted President Bush regarding our concerns. We
respectfully urge you not to take any steps at this time that may
reduce the privacy of citizens.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union
New York, USA
The Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Romania - The Helsinki Committee
Bucharest, Romania
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Bits of Freedom
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Center for Democracy and Technology
Washington, USA
Center for National Security Studies
Washington, USA
Chaos Computer Club
Hamburg / Berlin, Germany
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Palo Alto, USA
Digital Rights
Copenhagen, Denmark
EKPIZO (Consumers Association The Quality of Life)
Athens, Greece
Electronic Frontier Finland
Finland
Electronic Frontier Foundation
San Francisco, USA
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Washington, USA
Essential Information
Washington, USA
Foundation for Information Policy Research
London, UK
Irish Council for Civil Liberties
Dublin, Ireland
The Multiracial Activist and Abolitionist Examiner
Alexandria, United States
National Consumers League
Washington, USA
NetAction
San Francisco, CA
Privacy International
London, UK
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
San Diego, USA
Privacy Times
Washington, USA
Privacy Ukraine
Kyiv, Ukraine
quintessenz.org
Vienna, Austria
Sighisoara Durabila
Sighisoara, Romania
Statewatch
London, UK
StrawberryNet Foundation
Bucharest, Romania
Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG)
Z�rich, Switzerland
VIBE!AT - Association for Internet Users
Austria
XS4ALL Internet
Amsterdam, Netherlands
ZAnet Internet Services
Witkoppen, South Africa
cc: President George W. Bush
REFERENCES
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive concerning
the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector (COM(2000) 385 - C5-0439/2000 -
2000/0189(COD))
http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=PV2&PRG=CALEND&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&FILE=010906
http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALEND&APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&FILE=010906
Letter from Article 29 Data Protection Working Party to Mr G�ran Persson,
Acting President of the Council of the European Union, June 7, 2001
EU Data Protection Working Party Article 29, Opinion 7/2000 on the
European Commission Proposal for a Dir. of the Eur. Parl. and of the
Council concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector of 12
July 2000 COM (2000) 385 (2 Nov. 2000), reprinted in M. Rotenberg,
The Privacy Law Sourcebook, United States Law, International Law,
and Recent Developments 437 (EPIC 2001)
Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs,
Report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council
Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, July
13, 2001.
EU Forum on CyberCrime, Discussion Paper for Expert's Meeting on
Retention of Traffic Data, November 6, 2001
EU Forum on CyberCrime, Plenary Session, November 27, 2001
|