I posted this on Viewropa, then figured my readership should also consider the issues.
Suw Charman argues, as I read it, that the very idea of telecoms traffic data capture is a bad thing.
The UK, France, Ireland and Sweden are trying to push a directive on data retention through into EU legislation which would force all member countries to compel all telecommunications and internet service providers to save information about the use of their services by us, the public (document 8958/2004). They say that this is for ‘the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism’, but whilst it would have far-reaching consequences, the benefits appear to be non-existent.
Is the capture of telecoms traffic data really so pernicious though? I often err on the side of privacy fanaticism, so its interesting to me that on this issue I am more sanguine.
Anyone that doubts mobile phone records aren’t helpful in tracking criminals down is ignoring some of the facts, afaics.
I am pretty sure Danielle Jones’ parents, for example, would argue that the benefits of call record tracking are are far from non-existent.
Police propaganda? Perhaps.
By the same token of course, those that argue such a telecoms capture regime as the solution to all the EU’s problems are smoking something – crackdown i think it is.
So we need to have a debate.
I for one am very skeptical about the whining from industry about cost. Storage is ludicrously cheap these days, and if you dont stick everything in an Oracle database there are approaches that makes sense from a cost perspective. In fact a relational database makes little sense here, this is a read only index kind of opportunity, the kind of thing CopperEye is working on (disclaimer: client alert, the firm has helped educate me on some of the technical issues). Many European telcos are already storing 18 months or so of this data. The big difference will be in sharing this information…
Also, its not as if telcos don’t already capture and store VAST amounts of “useless” data. I call it “information bulimia”, a disorder common amongst information intermediaries, characterized by episodic binge data collection followed by uncontrollable vomiting and purging, leading to information leakage and theft.”
The biggest issue as i see it is who has access to the information. I would say Interpol and that’s it, across borders, and local law enforcement within a country.
But where *do* we draw the line? what kinds of crime merit use of the system?
Anyway, read Suw’s article, do some more reading and thinking, make up your own mind, and decide whether you need to make your feelings known. there are mechanisms for doing so.
One interesting point of context – the US appears to be moving in the other direction at the moment, towards more security of email data anyway. This week the decision that wire-tapping email was acceptable because it is different from phone networks was rescinded.
How do I sum up?
I propose a deal with Charles Clarke, the UK home secretary.
I will support you in calling for 18 months’s worth of telco traffic records across Europe, in return for dropping our big brother national ID scheme. Sound reasonable?
Problem is, it seems like Charles knows the ID card won’t fix our problems, but Tony “Focus Group says Strong Leader good” Blair believes otherwise.
It seems to me that we need to work with Charles, to keep Tony’s loonier tendencies at bay.
Telecoms record capture is not a black and white issue. Did i just turn into an conservative apologist?
James Governor says:
August 17, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Virgin Mobile stores 2 years:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,581861,00.html
American wire-tapping policy change
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/12/wiretap_prosecution_revived/
Suw Charman says:
August 17, 2005 at 2:07 pm
I don’t believe that telecos should not retain any traffic data at all – clearly such data can be very useful in police investigations. However, extending the length of time that this data is kept to up to three years is excessive and opening up this data to such a wide variety of ‘competent’ bodies is alarming. The fact that Virgin retain data for two years already doesn’t excuse the government for trying to force everyone to retain their data for similar periods.
I haven’t yet seen any compelling arguments as to why the existing measures that are already in place are insufficient, or whether extending retention would in reality provide any significant benefits. From what I’ve read, the benefits of storing terabytes of data for years are pretty much non-existent, which is a slightly different statement to saying that the data itself has no use. If my post wasn’t clear on that, apologies – I’ll be clearer next time.
One thing I am in the process of researching is a comparison of how the system currently works, and how it would be changed by this new data retention directive. It’s an ongoing task, getting the whys and wherefores clear on this, so it’s good to see counter-discussions and alternative interpretations as it helps me hone my own thinking.
Jaime Cardoso says:
August 17, 2005 at 5:18 pm
The question of storing information for 1 year, 2 years or forever isn’t a question related with civil liberties and privacy. All the police forces in the world (that do investigation) have people that study what resources are needed for a sucessfull investigation. Did anyone bothered to ask them what do they think? You may have to reach an economic compromise but, at least you reach it based on knowing when the information expires all usefull purposes.
The question about civil rights is to know if the data should be kept at all. also, that answer depends on the country you live in. I believe that police forces like Scotland Yard, the Belgic police and the Swiss can have access to that information and still have respect for the people’s privacy. On the other hand, I hope that law never get’s aproved in Portugal or Italy.
On a side note, humm, this is a clear target for HSM solutions so, with my experience in a working ILM solution, I would like very much that law to go ahead (kidding, … partially) 🙂
Loic says:
August 18, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Hey James, sorry but my emails bounced back at [email protected] I got it wrong, pls email me the right one. Thanks.