Firstly you have to look at how much the Beeb time isn’t given to something that should be front page news – in bold red!
But we have to look closer still – not to the fact that the story is reduced just to the technology page, although correct – it is incorrect because of the ramifications of both reporting and legislation, that isn’t UK legislation.
A couple of quotes:
ISPs and telecoms firms have resisted the proposals while some countries in the EU are contesting the directive.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said it was a “crazy directive” with potentially dangerous repercussions for citizens.
All ISPs in the European Union will have to store the records for a year. An EU directive which requires telecoms firms to hold on to telephone records for 12 months is already in force.
The data stored does not include the content of e-mails or a recording of a net phone call, but is used to determine connections between individuals.
Now that would seem that safeguards are put in place that you just can’t see what a person is writing to another – just that a connection has been made. Now, also, take into account that this is an EU directive – so it is only applicable to all EU nations. What if that call or mail goes outside the EU?
More importantly – what if they came from without the EU?
The EU passed it by “saying it was a commercial matter and not a police matter”, he explained.
“Because of that they got it through on a simple vote, rather than needing unanimity, which is required for policing matters,” he said.
So – this directive is NOT for policing matters such as terrorism? Then why this from from the home office?
The UK Home Office, responsible for matters of policing and national security, said the measure had “effective safeguards” in place.
“Hopefully, we can see some sort of challenge to this directive,” said Mr Killock.
That challenge is there – staring someone right in the face – if I saw that then millions of others who are far more qualified than I, did too.
“The problem is that this regime allows not just police to access this information but hundreds of other public bodies.”
In a statement, the Home Office said it was implementing the directive because it was the government’s priority to “protect public safety and national security”.
It added: “Communications data is the where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations and prevention of terrorist attacks, as well as contributing to public safety more generally.
“Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.
Firstly – we see from that, that this is, again, a policing matter – and it also means that this directive is not being used for what is was stipulated as being under EU Law.
So, in conclusion – if this directive is used in any policing action then the technicality of can be used to say that the warrent that is issued was done so under false pretences.
This directive was about commercial matters, has national security and policing been reduced to a commercial matter? If so, the UK is nothing more than a commercial lobby which is not representative of the UK population.