

Czech Constitutional Court cancels storage of data on all e-mails, calls, etc... - warp
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czech-const-court-cancels-storage-of-data-on-all-e-mails-calls/617125

======
zcid
It's always good to see news like this when you first wake up. Not my country,
but just knowing that some courts in the world can rule intelligently on these
issues gives me hope.

~~~
jdp23
Yeah really!

The German Constitutional Court had already rejected the law. But the battle
goes on in many other countries ...

~~~
hucker
It is indeed inspiring to see other countries behave intelligently on this
matter. Here in Norway the struggle is still going, I was out in the streets
demonstrating yesterday. I really hope our politicians are beginning to fathom
what is at stake here and veto the law. It doesn't look very good right now
though, especially considering that the largest and second largest parties
(Labour Party and the conservative party) are both in favor. The fact that
Norway has yet to veto a single law pushed on us from the EFTA doesn't help
either.

------
mohsen
Does anyone know of a site that lists all countries who have either rejected
or canceled this law?

~~~
warp
The wikipedia article on this directive [1] links to [2], which seems to give
a fair amount of details on how exactly the directive is being implemented in
each country.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC>

[2] <http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Transposition>

~~~
mohsen
Thank you

------
jakubmal
I do not fully agree, my neighbour was hit in a car accident. The driver was
some young idiot, driving at 90kmph (56 mph) on red on zebra crossing. Later
he said that the car had been stolen. The only proof that led to conviction
was data gathered from BTSes and data about 2 calls he made (times, location).

But for the Data Retention Directive, this reckless, young man would have been
found innocent. Now imagine the same thing happening to someone who is
important to you. What would you say?

~~~
alexqgb
Asking people how they would legislate while in the grip of rare but extreme
emotional distress tends to produce the kinds of law that grievously
undermines the sorts of open democracies that are - generally speaking - far
safer, healthier, and more peaceful than those in which this kind of
manipulative fear-mongering drives policy making.

[Exhibit A] The Patriot Act. [Exhibit B] "Freedom Pats" by the TSA. [Exhibit
C] Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit D] Retroactive Immunity for Warrantless
Wiretapping. [Exhibit E] Suspension of habeas corpus.

Do you really need me to go on?

And about your neighbor: you say the "only proof" was provided by telcom
records. But does that mean this was the only evidence available? Or was this
the only evidence the police actually gathered? Specifically, how do you KNOW
that, in the absence of this resource, the police would not - and could not -
have realized that the story about the stolen car was a lie?

~~~
jakubmal
Specifically, because they get rid of the car very quickly and it was never
found.

But I want to ask you about something. And please don't downvote me.

I believe that 6 months of keeping data about calls/ips/others is reasonable
approach. If you're not commiting any crimes, only situation when it might be
harmful is some kind of political situation. But then, I'm sure you can
provide other means of communication. So what is this actually about?

Listen guys, I just want to know, so no flames, no downvoting please.

~~~
alexqgb
If that's what you believe, fine.

The sketchy thing is supporting your (presumably well-considered) position
with manipulative appeals to un-reason. The "how would YOU feel if [insert
random horror here] happened to you or your loved ones?" tactic is one of the
worst examples going. Using it is a good reason for downvoting.

The whole point of policy making is to get beyond the (obviously) tortured
perspective of a few unfortunates, and ask if the kind of strong emotional
reaction these stories provoke will actually lead to sensible policy.

The less likely the actual horror is, the more likely the answer is 'No.' It's
just as likely that those closest to the horror will reject this sober and
well-considered response, and start spreading hysteria and fear instead, while
totally ignoring any negative side-effects that get included in the more
rational assessments they're trying to undermine.

By the way, being "close to the horror" doesn't necessarily mean being a
victim. It can also mean being in a position to profit from hysterical over-
reactions. When this starts to happen, you really start to see the Shirkey
Principle in action. Namely, "every institution will seek to preserve the
problem for which it is the solution."

------
ordinary
"The law inadequately infringes on people´s privacy"

I found this typo/mistranslation mildly amusing.

