B2fxxx

      Tuesday, June 07, 2011

 

The EU Data Protection Supervisor, Peter Hustinix, has issued a strongly worded opinion saying the data retention directive is incompatible with the EU's privacy protections; and that the directive has failed to meet its primary objective of harmonising the laws of member states on data retention.

"VI. Conclusion

83. The EDPS is pleased that, although not strictly required by Article 14 of the Data
Retention Directive, the Commission also took into account in the Evaluation report
the implications of the Directive for fundamental rights. 

84. The Evaluation report shows that the Directive has failed to meet its main purpose, namely to harmonise national legislation concerning data retention. Such a lack of harmonisation is detrimental to all parties involved: citizens, business operators as well as law enforcement authorities.

85. On the basis of the Evaluation report it may be concluded that the Data Retention Directive does not meet the requirements set out by the rights to privacy and data protection, for the following reasons:

- the necessity of data retention as provided for in the Data Retention Directive has not been sufficiently demonstrated; - data retention could have been regulated in a less privacy-intrusive way; - the Data Retention Directive lacks foreseeability.

86. The EDPS calls upon the Commission to consider seriously all options in the impact assessment including the possibility of repealing the Directive, either per se or combined with a proposal for an alternative, more targeted EU measure.

87. A future Data Retention Directive could be considered only if there were agreement on the need for EU rules from the perspective of the internal market and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and if, during the impact assessment, the necessity of data retention, supported and regulated by the EU, could be sufficiently demonstrated, which includes a careful consideration of alternative measures. Such an instrument should fulfil the following basic requirements:

- It should be comprehensive and genuinely harmonise rules on the obligation to retain data, as well as on the access and further use of the data by competent authorities. - It should be exhaustive, which means that it has a clear and precise purpose and the legal loophole which exists with Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive is closed. - It should be proportionate and not go beyond what is necessary."

 Just to be clear - 

1. the need for data retention has not been justified
2. data retention is incompatible with data protection and privacy regulations
3. the effects of data protection are unpredictable
4. the directive has failed in its aim to harmonise the laws of member states on data retention
5. the EU should abolish the data retention directive
6. having abolished it, if the EU are to consider data retention directive version 2.0 they'd better produce strong evidence in advance that it is necessary, proportionate and very clearly and narrowly focussed

That's a pretty succinct and damning assessment.

Ray 1:20 PM [ Permalink ] 0 comments [ Links to this post ] Make a New Post

 

I've received an acknowledgement from the BBC of my freedom of information request on the HD DRM issue.

FOI Enquiries
British Broadcasting Corporation

7 June 2011

Dear Ray

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, about communications with OFCOM relating to the
consultation on content management on the HD Freeview platform which was
received on 6th June 2011. We shall deal with your request as promptly
as possible and, at the latest, within 20 working days. If you have any
queries about your request please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20110637.

Kind regards

BBC Information Policy and Compliance 

BBC Freedom of Information
Room 2252, White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS, UK

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]
Tel:             020 8008 2883      
Fax: 020 8008 2398

show quoted sections

Link to this

Ray 10:46 AM [ Permalink ] 0 comments [ Links to this post ] Make a New Post

      Monday, June 06, 2011

 

Before launching an appeal with the Information Commissioner about Ofcom's refusal to disclose the key arguments of UK broadcasters on the HD DRM consultation, I've decided to send both Ofcom and the BBC a couple of further freedom of information requests. I include copies of both requests below.

BBC stance on Freeview HD DRM

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

I would like to make a freedom of information request for full and
complete copies of all the BBC communications with Ofcom relating
to the Ofcom consultation 'Content management on the HD Freeview
platform' (Start date: 22 January 2010, End date: 02 April 2010).

In particular could you send me:

(a) A full copy, including the redacted sections noted on page 1
and 7, of the 'BBC response to Ofcom consultation of 22 January
2010'
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...

(b) A copy of the BBC submission to Ofcom of 8 December 2009 on
this same matter

Yours faithfully,

Ray Corrigan

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_stance_on_freeview_hd_drm#outgoing-131921 

Ofcom u-turn on BBC DRM

Dear Office of Communications,

I would like to make a freedom of information request for full and
complete copies of the documents:

(a) recording and explaining the reasons behind Ofcom's decision in
2009 to abandon its long standing opposition to the idea of the BBC
adding digital rights management technology to its high-definition
broadcasts and

(b) outlining the decision making process leading to the Ofcom
public consultation 'Content management on the HD Freeview
platform' (Start date: 22 January 2010, End
date: 02 April 2010).

Yours faithfully,

Ray Corrigan

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ofcom_u_turn_on_bbc_drm#outgoing-131926

Ray 5:58 PM [ Permalink ] 0 comments [ Links to this post ] Make a New Post