Evil tongues speak of “Groundhog Day” storage. Meaning data retention (VDS). No sooner has an alternative such as “Quick Freeze” been agreed upon than the next demand for VDS comes along. Legal certainty is important for the economy, complain associations. Unfortunately, this is still not in sight. We provide an overview.
Quick-freeze process is coming (maybe)
“The regulations on data retention without cause in Germany are contrary to European law. We will now introduce the possibility of an event-related security order for traffic data (‘quick freeze procedure’),” said the Federal Ministry of Justice.
In contrast to data storage in advance, the idea behind Quick-Freeze is that investigative authorities can have relevant telecommunications data (“traffic data” such as IP addresses or telephone numbers) frozen immediately by the providers if there is suspicion of a serious crime (such as abuse, manslaughter or murder). The associated data may then no longer be deleted for the time being and any new data must also be backed up. This variant is not without reason, but there is a specific reason. This decision is also a cause for joy for data protection advocates, who have been calling for this for a long time.
An eternal story (possibly) comes to an end
The discussion on data retention versus quick freeze now fills not only file folders. But also bookshelves, such as an overview on the topic by the German Bundestag The tenor of data protection officers and often also of the courts is always the same: the comprehensive, indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of Syria Phone Number List all participants and registered users in relation to all electronic means of communication is not compatible with the requirements of Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to the data protection perspective. Such rules would be contrary to the fundamental rights to respect for private life and communications, to protection of personal data and to freedom of expression and information.
How long data protection officers have been explaining this is shown by press releases that are almost 14 years old and have not really lost their relevance, such as this example from 2010shows. Courts such as the ECJ (European Court of Justice) have not only repeatedly rejected data retention without cause and related laws. But there are also clear guidelines and criteriawhen and which telecommunications data could be stored. If these criteria are not implemented. The next law will be declared invalid. As the past has shown. Now this development could slowly but surely come to an end. But will it?
New attempt for minimum storage from Hesse
The Prime Minister of Hesse, Boris Rhein, and the Minister of Justice of Hesse, Christian Heinz, have now approved the Federal Council initiative of the Hessian Ministry of Justice to store IP addressesBoth made it clear that the “Quick Freeze” procedure recently adopted by the Federal Government is far from sufficient for the prosecution of serious crimes.
Prime Minister Boris Rhein said: “
When it comes to crimes committ on the Internet. The IP address is regularly the most effective, fastest and often the only approach to investigation. There is a lot at stake: it is about protecting cell phone number listing children on the Internet. Without the IP address data storage we intend to use. Prosecution of child pornography in particular. But also hate speech, is very often impossible. It cannot be the case that child molesters cannot be identifi because digital traces are not store or share with the security authorities. The thought of how many perpetrators we cannot catch because we are not allow to store IP addresses is unbearable for me. Data protection must not be a way of protecting perpetrators.”
Justice Minister Christian Heinz add: “
The storage of IP address data is not only particularly Bulk Database important for the effective prosecution of serious crimes and in particular the fight against the sexual abuse of children and child pornography, but is absolutely essential. We agree: all options must be exhaust to protect children from terrible crimes and to arrest the perpetrators. To do this, however, we must also give investigators the tools they need for effective prosecution.”
