<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16640" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Yesterday the Dutch law
implementing the data retention directive was discussed in the Dutch parliament
("Tweede Kamer" = "lowerhouse").</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Government proposed 24
months, left wing opposition proposes six months (= minimum), government
coalition parties are divided: Christian Democrats 24, socialists 6, Christian
Union 12. Last mentioned party is small, but its support for either 6 or 24
could be decisive. Its spokesman was unwilling to decide yesterday "if and
when".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Despite excellent
contributions from several parliament members, the government believes "more is
better". The Max Planck Istitute study was cited saying that a longer data
retention period would have been useful only in 0,01% of cases, but the Minister
(a former law professor, christian democrat) said that quantity is not the only
decisive factor: if one single high-profile case could be solved by a longer
retention period, that would count as well. (As an example, the disappearance of
Natalee Holoway on Aruba was mentioned, a case that made headlines in the
(Dutch) newspapers).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>As you know, the Irish have
submitted a case to the ECJ because they believe the Data Retention Directive
has no proper ground in the EU treaties but the Dutch
minister(/professor) said that this is irrelevant for NL, at least it is
not a reason to delay the implementation (which is overdue anyway). Asked what
if the Directive is implemented in Dutch law, and subsequently declared invalid
by the ECJ, he said "that could theoretically happen to any
Directive".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>It struck me that various
member states have chosen various periods (as allowed by the directive, from
6-24 months) and also have different compensation schemes. In NL, the upfront
investment is to the provider, while they get paid per request from the
police, This would be a disadvantage for smaller providers, that perhaps
never get a request from the police, while the larger providers could even
make a profit from such requests. Anyway, the typical purpose of Directives to
create a level playing field on the "common market" is not met here, on the
contrary. Incidentally, allegedly the marginal cost of retaining the
data 6 months more would be only 10%.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>The minister said that the
relevant data is collected anyway for billing purposes - its only retained
longer. I believe this is not true. Yes, I pay per telephone call, but I
pay a flat rate for ADSL Internet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>The parliament noted that major communication facilities such
as Hotmail, Gmail and Skype are not covered by the data retention
obligation. Left wing parties argued that the Directive therefore is
useless anyway, as criminals would switch to those services, and only stupid
criminals would be caught by "data retention". Right wing and christian
democrats asked the minister to consider future steps to include such services
also in "data retention" (which imho is unrealistic as it requires the US
to cooperate).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>The vote will be later, but
before 22/5, because then the law proposal is sumitted to the Eerste Kamer, the
Dutch "upper house". One of its members is renowned former information law
professor Franken, christian democrat, who is very critical on the
directive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Background: some years ago,
a majority in the parliament asked the (previous) minister of Justice (Donner)
<U>not</U> to agree with the Directive Proposal in the European Council, but he
chose to ignore the will of the parliament.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Unfortunately, no one on
the parliament yesterday said that (perhaps?) the only purpose Directive is to
help record companies to fight MP3 file sharers. Data retention would only
be used to fight "severe crime", but at the same time IPRED2 makes sure that
copyright infringement is designated as "severe
crime". </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Groeten, Grüße, Regards,
Cordialement, Hälsningar, Ciao, Saygilar, Üdvözlettel, Pozdrowienia, Kumusta,
Adios, Oan't sjen, Ave, Doei, Yassou, Yoroshiku<BR>>>> REINIER B.
BAKELS PhD<BR>private: Johan Willem Frisostraat 149, 2713 CC Zoetermeer, The
Netherlands telephone: +31 79 316 3126, GSM ("Handy") +31 6 4988 6490, fax
+31 79 316 7221</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>