By J. DeVoy
Today, Germany’s highest court overturned a law mandating the retention of data from e-mails and phone calls, finding it a “grave intrusion” on personal liberties. This is an interesting demarcation of what is considered private information in that nation, as its courts previously held that individuals’ IP addresses are not personal information and can be stored without consequence.
From the article:
The law had ordered that all data — except content — from phone calls and e-mail exchanges be retained for six months for possible use by criminal authorities, who could probe who contacted whom, from where and for how long.
“The disputed instructions neither provided a sufficient level of data security, nor sufficiently limited the possible uses of the data,” the court said, adding that “such retention represents an especially grave intrusion.”
The court said because citizens did not notice the data was being retained it caused “a vague and threatening sense of being watched.”
There second paragraph’s buried lede is that this policy could pass muster if it offered greater data security and a narrower range of the data’s potential uses. In reality, the court could set those standards so high that they could never be met. But, it seems the court isn’t permanently closing the door on such regulations.
Changes ordered by the court included granting access to the data only by court order and only in the event of “concrete and imminent danger.” The court further insisted the information be stored in the private sector so it was not concentrated in one spot.
Sounds reasonable. Generally, parties need a warrant or subpoena to access IP, e-mail and phone records in the U.S. as well. The standard isn’t as high as “concrete and imminent danger,” but this isn’t a perfect comparison, either. As for storing the data in the private sector, this seems like more of Germany’s epic free market trolling that began with electing Angela Merkel.
And, of course, there’s a historical angle:
Germans, in particular, are sensitive to privacy issues, based on their experiences under the Nazis as well as the former East Germany’s Communist dictatorships, where information on individuals was collected and abused by the state.
Whatever the reason, it’s good to see Germany stand up to the E.U. When the union’s currency collapse comes to pass and its open-borders immigration policies prove to be unsustainable (however warm and fuzzy they make people feel), Germany will be one of the few nations left standing.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Germany’s highest court Tuesday overturned laws that allowed anti-terror authorities to retain data on telephone calls and e-mails, stating it was an intrusion of Citizens’ personal privacy.
Where Did U.S. Government Put Your NSA-Wiretapped Phone, Fax and Private Email Communications? Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by U.S. Government to prosecute Citizens and e.g., foreign businesses doing business in America. It appears NSA can share its electronic-domestic-spying with countless U.S. police agencies; including government contracted companies and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate criminal and civil prosecutions that may include forfeiture of Americans’ property—-to keep part of the assets. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s “wiretapped” hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is required only to show “A preponderance of Evidence” to civilly forfeit assets. Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. President Obama’s recently signed Executive Order EO 12425 that will allow INTERPOL to act within the United States without being subject to 4th Amendment laws against illegal Search and Seizure. U.S. Police may circumvent Fourth Amendment protections by bringing INTERPOL into a criminal or civil investigation to spy, make arrests and to forfeit assets from persons in the U.S. that may be shared with U.S. police.