Sweden is to delay the implementation of the controversial EU data retention directive for a year, risking a heavy fine of up to €68m, whereas Austria has decided to implement the directive after a European Court of Justice ruling in 2010.

The Swedish government this week decided to postpone the implementation of the law for at least a year, although 281 MPs out of 349 – just over 80 per cent – voted in favour of the directive. The Left Party and the Greens want to renegotiate the directive in the EU. The parties used a provision in the Swedish constitution where a sixth of the votes in Parliament can postpone a decision for at least a year.

Sweden is profoundly divided over the directive, which was adopted by the EU in November 2006 after long debates.

Data retention refers to the storage of traffic and location data resulting from electronic communications. Under the agreed draft, the data retained by ISPs and phone companies will be made available only to national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with national law. Records will be kept for up to two years. However, both the Swedish Green Party and the Left Party believe the directive restricts basic rights and freedoms.

By postponing the vote, Sweden is now risking a European court case and can be fined from as much as 150 million kronor (€17m) up to 500 to 600 million (€56m to €68m).

Most European countries have implemented the directive, with France going overboard by adding the requirement that ISPs store passwords and data for the verification or modification of passwords.

Germany already adopted the directive back in 2008. Police and other law enforcement agencies had the option to acquire data in the process of investigating serious crimes, until last year when a German constitutional court struck down the measures on the basis that they interfered disproportionately with fundamental rights.

Austria was in the same position as Sweden back in 2007. It also had major data protection and privacy concerns. The Austrian Chambers of Commerce and Labour both opposed data retention. In the summer of 2007, the famous Vienna Ringstraße – which circles the city centre of Vienna – was partially blocked for about an hour as a 150 strong demonstration organised by the Austrian Pirate Party walked along it to protest against the planned data retention legislation.

In 2009 the European Commission began proceedings against Austria for breaching EU law, and last year, the European Court of Justice ruled against it for failing to establish an independent data protection authority. Just three days ago, the Austrian government announced that it would swallow the directive at long last. The Austrian Internet Service Provider Association estimates the overall costs to the country of the data retention directive to be somewhere between €15m and €20m.

See the directive here (26-page/149KB PDF). ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/18 ... directive/

I'm not entirely sure any benefit will outweigh the cost to everyone, in any sense...

EU considers walking away from US data agreement

The EU has had a gutsful of the US refusing to honour a deal on bank data monitoring and is thinking of walking away from it.

The US-European data agreement SWIFT was supposed to provide everyone with transparency about bank transactions, but it has been completely one sided. While the US has been getting the data it wanted, EU officials have been unable to get data back.

It came to a head yesterday when one European parliamentarian's attempts to determine if US officials had accessed his personal account information failed.

The US has effectively shot itself in the foot over the deal. The European Parliament only approved the SWIFT agreement with the United States with much reluctance. It allows the transfer of data pertaining to European bank customers to US investigators. You would expect that the US would be jolly happy with the deal and try to make sure it worked.

However it seems US arrogance has created a scenario where the Europeans rat on their citizens while the US keeps secret about its own spying activies. It is remarkably similar to the extradition arrangements between the US and Blighty where Britain has to turn over its citizens to US kangaroo courts while US citizens can flee home and not face UK justice.

However provisions of those guidelines have been widely ignored and last week a report from the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) noted that the written requests received by Europol, the EU-wide law enforcement organisation, from the US were too vague to decide on their validity.

Despite all this the Europeans have shown willing and agreed to every request. This has meant that they have not had the oversight of the process that they would have liked.

However another clause meant that every EU citizen has the right to know if American authorities had access to personal banking data and if so, which authorities received that information.

But Alexander Alvaro, a member of European Parliament from Germany's Free Democrats, has been doing a test in an attempt to obtain the information entitled to him from German authorities.

However the German authorities have not yet been able to find out whether data has been accessed at all, because the US will not tell them.

This means that the rights of EU citizens on correction, deletion or blockage of the data are being violated and the SWIFT treaty is only being obeyed by the Europeans, who did not particularly want it in the first place.

http://www.techeye.net/eu-considers-wal ... -agreement

These are the people we're supposed to trust with enormous data banks?

Considers walking away?

Why doesn't the EU just grow a pair and walk away now. Ditto for the UK and that ridiculous extradition treaty.

What is it with us and one sided treaties?