

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In a ruling cheered by privacy advocates, the European Union's highest court on Tuesday struck down an online data collection directive saying the law trampled on "the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data."
The decision by EU Court of Justice invalidates the controversial 2006 Data Retention Directive, which required telecommunications companies to keep EU citizens' data for between six months and two years "[b]ecause retention of data has proved to be such a necessary and effective investigative tool for law enforcement in several Member States, and in particular concerning serious matters such as organized crime and terrorism, it is necessary to ensure that retained data are made available to law enforcement authorities for a certain period."
In its decision, the Court states that "the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data," and that the fact that the surveilled user may not even be aware of the surveillance could give "the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance."
In addition, the bulk collection nature of the directive cannot assure that the surveillance "is actually limited to what is strictly necessary."
London-based group Privacy International said, "It is right and overdue that this terrible directive was struck down."
"What the Snowden revelations have showed us over the past year is that the international surveillance apparatus set up by intelligence agencies is in direct conflict with human rights," the group continued. "If the Data Retention Directive fails to meet the requirements of human rights law, then the mass surveillance programs operated by the US and UK governments must equally be in conflict with the right to privacy."
"What the Snowden revelations have showed us over the past year is that the international surveillance apparatus set up by intelligence agencies is in direct conflict with human rights."
--Privacy InternationalDigital rights group La Quadrature du Net also hailed the ruling, calling it an "important step towards regaining our fundamental right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data."
"This landmark decision is a victory for all defenders of privacy who have been fighting mandatory data retention across Europe since 2006 against the bulk retention of communications," stated Felix Treguer, co-founder of the Paris-based group.
"Following a year of intense debate on mass surveillance, the EU Court of Justice makes clear that laws adopted in the name of the war on terror have led to unacceptable violations of privacy. This ruling is an invitation for everyone to continue the fight against surveillance by all appropriate means, be they technical, political or legal. One legislative step at a time, our governments had drifted away from the rule of law and now is the time to remind them that fundamental rights are the cornerstones of our democracies and non-negotiable," Treguer added.
The challenge to the directive had been brought forth by Digital Rights Ireland, which welcomed the Court's decision.
La Quadrature explains that the ruling "extends to all European countries thus obliging some member states to reform their national legislation in order to ensure that it complies with today's ruling.
_________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a ruling cheered by privacy advocates, the European Union's highest court on Tuesday struck down an online data collection directive saying the law trampled on "the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data."
The decision by EU Court of Justice invalidates the controversial 2006 Data Retention Directive, which required telecommunications companies to keep EU citizens' data for between six months and two years "[b]ecause retention of data has proved to be such a necessary and effective investigative tool for law enforcement in several Member States, and in particular concerning serious matters such as organized crime and terrorism, it is necessary to ensure that retained data are made available to law enforcement authorities for a certain period."
In its decision, the Court states that "the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data," and that the fact that the surveilled user may not even be aware of the surveillance could give "the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance."
In addition, the bulk collection nature of the directive cannot assure that the surveillance "is actually limited to what is strictly necessary."
London-based group Privacy International said, "It is right and overdue that this terrible directive was struck down."
"What the Snowden revelations have showed us over the past year is that the international surveillance apparatus set up by intelligence agencies is in direct conflict with human rights," the group continued. "If the Data Retention Directive fails to meet the requirements of human rights law, then the mass surveillance programs operated by the US and UK governments must equally be in conflict with the right to privacy."
"What the Snowden revelations have showed us over the past year is that the international surveillance apparatus set up by intelligence agencies is in direct conflict with human rights."
--Privacy InternationalDigital rights group La Quadrature du Net also hailed the ruling, calling it an "important step towards regaining our fundamental right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data."
"This landmark decision is a victory for all defenders of privacy who have been fighting mandatory data retention across Europe since 2006 against the bulk retention of communications," stated Felix Treguer, co-founder of the Paris-based group.
"Following a year of intense debate on mass surveillance, the EU Court of Justice makes clear that laws adopted in the name of the war on terror have led to unacceptable violations of privacy. This ruling is an invitation for everyone to continue the fight against surveillance by all appropriate means, be they technical, political or legal. One legislative step at a time, our governments had drifted away from the rule of law and now is the time to remind them that fundamental rights are the cornerstones of our democracies and non-negotiable," Treguer added.
The challenge to the directive had been brought forth by Digital Rights Ireland, which welcomed the Court's decision.
La Quadrature explains that the ruling "extends to all European countries thus obliging some member states to reform their national legislation in order to ensure that it complies with today's ruling.
_________________
In a ruling cheered by privacy advocates, the European Union's highest court on Tuesday struck down an online data collection directive saying the law trampled on "the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data."
The decision by EU Court of Justice invalidates the controversial 2006 Data Retention Directive, which required telecommunications companies to keep EU citizens' data for between six months and two years "[b]ecause retention of data has proved to be such a necessary and effective investigative tool for law enforcement in several Member States, and in particular concerning serious matters such as organized crime and terrorism, it is necessary to ensure that retained data are made available to law enforcement authorities for a certain period."
In its decision, the Court states that "the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data," and that the fact that the surveilled user may not even be aware of the surveillance could give "the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance."
In addition, the bulk collection nature of the directive cannot assure that the surveillance "is actually limited to what is strictly necessary."
London-based group Privacy International said, "It is right and overdue that this terrible directive was struck down."
"What the Snowden revelations have showed us over the past year is that the international surveillance apparatus set up by intelligence agencies is in direct conflict with human rights," the group continued. "If the Data Retention Directive fails to meet the requirements of human rights law, then the mass surveillance programs operated by the US and UK governments must equally be in conflict with the right to privacy."
"What the Snowden revelations have showed us over the past year is that the international surveillance apparatus set up by intelligence agencies is in direct conflict with human rights."
--Privacy InternationalDigital rights group La Quadrature du Net also hailed the ruling, calling it an "important step towards regaining our fundamental right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data."
"This landmark decision is a victory for all defenders of privacy who have been fighting mandatory data retention across Europe since 2006 against the bulk retention of communications," stated Felix Treguer, co-founder of the Paris-based group.
"Following a year of intense debate on mass surveillance, the EU Court of Justice makes clear that laws adopted in the name of the war on terror have led to unacceptable violations of privacy. This ruling is an invitation for everyone to continue the fight against surveillance by all appropriate means, be they technical, political or legal. One legislative step at a time, our governments had drifted away from the rule of law and now is the time to remind them that fundamental rights are the cornerstones of our democracies and non-negotiable," Treguer added.
The challenge to the directive had been brought forth by Digital Rights Ireland, which welcomed the Court's decision.
La Quadrature explains that the ruling "extends to all European countries thus obliging some member states to reform their national legislation in order to ensure that it complies with today's ruling.
_________________