McDowell and data retention... should we worry?

[barrym]

Apropos of himself and the leak to the Indo, etc., I wonder where we are with this item which is in this weeks Silicon Republic -

"In 2003, Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell TD sparked a row with ISPs, telcos and civil liberties groups when it became known that he was proposing a Telecommunications Retention of Data Traffic Bill, otherwise known as the “Big Brother Bill” calling for the long-term logging and monitoring of phone calls, text messaging, faxes, emails and internet usage over a four-year period"

The European Parliament is about to vote on a Directive which would criminalise breaches of certain preventive techniques employed in IT. McD has expanded this and many other related matters in the Bill.

Given his view that what he did/does with any information he has should we worry that he will have access to all phone conversations, emails, etc., etc. ?

For those on here who think his attack on Connelly is justified, can you imagine what he might do with all this stuff??

Bye, Barry

[Libero]

For those on here who think his attack on Connelly is justified, can you imagine what he might do with all this stuff??

First off, I don't think there is anyone, with the possible exception of idiots like true04, who has definitively stated that McDowell is justified. Myself, I've pointed out that I have no problem with his general attitude of playing hardball and await more info to see if he has broken the law.

If that position is too subtle for most readers, that's too bad.

Also, the Minister won't have access to phone conversations, just records of when and to whom calls were made. Attempts to intercept phone conversations will continue to be dealt with under existing legislation, which is pretty much the most restrictive in the world.

And the retention of these records can have an important legitimate use, as was made clear by recent prosecutions of those involved in the Omagh bombing, amongst other serious criminal prosecutions.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I must admit I do not really know the exact details but I understand we already passed a data-retention law in 2005 as part of an anti-terrorist act. I also understand that McDowell's problems with the EU Directive on its passage was that at first it would actuallt have required us to keep data for shorter (2 years) than at present (3 years? - not sure). I understand we got some kind of derogation from that aspect of it.

McDowell is planning though to take the EU to court over this as it was voted through under the ambit of Internal Market rather than Justice, meaning QMV was used instead of unanimity. He apparently fears a precedent being set.

Personally I do not want a police-state. However, as I am uncertain of exactly what existing law entails, I don't know whether McDowell has brought us closer to one or not. Can someone explain exactly what the system we have now is?

[barrym]

Personally I do not want a police-state. However, as I am uncertain of exactly what existing law entails, I don't know whether McDowell has brought us closer to one or not. Can someone explain exactly what the system we have now is?

Glad to hear that! (police state)

I made a mistake in saying 'conversations' in the original message but I wouldn't be too sure... Nothing would surprise me.

I just feel that he will attempt to gag anything he doesn't like, in the name of 'anti-terrorism' 'state secrets' or whatever. Either way a law that allows a type like McD unfettered access to private data without some sort of check or balance is to be worried about.

I hear he is to make a statement in the Dail later, I suppose he'll use the opportunity to further get at various people he doesn't like.

Bye, Barry

[martin TYRONE]

yes we should be a bit worried.

[barrym]

yes we should be a bit worried.

In today's IT Karen Lillington has a good piece on the new Directive, [which was passed just before the holidays when the European Parliament was in holiday mode] pointing out the risks, and mentioning McD's effort to sue the EC...

She makes a lot of mention of the 'unfettered' aspect - and the fact that 'criminal matters' has not been defined, the costs associated with retaining the data (which users will have to pay for) and that the original idea of the Directive was to harmonise the situation in the Member States but that the final version allows everybody to implement as they see fit....

This latter will presumably allow McD to say that the amendment he slipped into the terrorist offences bill allowing for three years retention of records can be the Irish implementation of the Directive.

Worrying?? I'd say so. It is easy to say if you haven't done anything you've nothing to worry about but if you have the like of McD in Justice then you don't have to have done anything for him to pick on you... for political reasons.

Bye, Barry

[Dee Four]

Anyone who wishes to subvert the state should be worried. Those engaging in criminality should be worried.

[stringjack]

Anyone who wishes to subvert the state should be worried. Those engaging in criminality should be worried.

[JCSkinner]

Those who provoke a Minister's ire should be worried. Those engaged in political activity rejected by the ruling parties should be worried. Democrats should be worried. Those who believe in civil liberties or the concept of personal provacy should be worried. Those who support freedom of expression should be worried.
We should all be worried.

[Dubliner]

Anyone who wishes to subvert the state should be worried. Those engaging in criminality should be worried.

That depends on which private sector consultants gets the job of managing and securing the data.

If criminals gain access to data about you, be worried.