Data retention question
AO Forum Email
james2 at jfirth.net
Mon Jul 21 09:11:44 BST 2014
I don't know if anyone caught my blog on the subject but I noticed that DRIP
was notified to Europe last week under the Authorisation Directive, since it
constitutes a technical measure that will affect cross-border supply of
This is interesting because in practice the EC Trade and Industry body is
being asked to rubber-stamp legislation that replaces EU legislation that
the ECtHR has struck down.
The timetable will be interesting. Usually it's a 3-month notification
period to allow interested parties to comment (and other member states to
raise objections) but some discussion on Twitter indicated an "emergency"
timetable is allowed under Article 9 ss7 of the Authorisation Directive
It will be interesting to see if this leads to a stand-off with govt and UK
politicians claiming Europe is blocking emergency laws needed to tackle
In fact it will be interesting to see whether the UK government claims this
law is active or not once Royal Assent has been granted. Maybe the 3-month
notification window is why Government decided to rush it through before
Also I would be interested to know how much capability would be lost if DRIP
stalled. TSPs could lose some extraneous data but one assumes billing data
and many email logs etc would be retained.
And retained, "legitimately", under DPA, claiming necessary for e.g.
security (who accessed my account and when), spam filter tuning, billing
records, etc - plus all the location data Application Service Providers like
to keep to tune their targeted advertising profiles, etc.
But my suspicion is the vast bulk of data requested by police forces would
remain available. Who texted whom, etc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Mary Hawking
> Sent: 19 July 2014 8:30 PM
> To: 'UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group'
> Subject: RE: Data retention question
> Is that (conspiracy theory) the reason they were not given any opportunity
> for scrutiny?
> Mary Hawking
> Retired from NHS on 31.3.13 because of the Health and Social Care Act 2012
> "thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
> can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4
> blog http://maryhawking.wordpress.com/ And Fred!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Fairbrother [mailto:zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk]
> Sent: 18 July 2014 23:14
> To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: Data retention question
> On 18/07/14 17:18, Brian Morrison wrote:
> > This time 450+ MPs appear to have not noticed that the new legislation
> > makes the blanket data retention aspects even worse and hence the ECJ
> > objection to its predecessor is quite unchanged.
> I don't think that's the case - while it does nothing to make the
> blanket collection regime better, it doesn't seem to me to make it any
> What the MPs apparently did fail to notice was that the Bill was in two
> unrelated parts: though the first clue was in the name, the Data
> Retention and Investigatory Powers bill.
> The Data Retention bit, sections 1 and 2, while wrong-headed and the
> wrong way to do it, and not complying with the ECtJ decision, and mostly
> caused by their previous inaction, was in fact a real possible emergency.
> Paedophiles and terrorists will walk free if you vote this down - I
> can't say I can actually disagree with that.
> The Investigatory Powers part (sections 3-5), on the other hand, was no
> More important, and I don't care how much Teresa May doublespeaks
> otherwise, it also begins to implement the measures in the Comms bill
> which was rejected a couple years ago.
> They didn't see the latter, didn't care, or were complicit. But anyone
> who believed it had nothing to do with the comms bill got screwed.
> -- Peter Fairbrother
> > Or did the whips
> > blackmail them all by referring to their character notes?
More information about the ukcrypto