back to article Dutch telcos build data bonfire after judge nixes retention law

A ruling from the District Court of The Hague means that Dutch telecoms companies are no longer obliged to retain internet and phone traffic data for law-enforcement purposes. A coalition of plaintiffs including the Dutch Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Dutch Association of Journalists, civil rights organisation …

  1. Vimes

    So the minister responsible for bringing forward legislation to do with serious crime is himself possibly guilty of a serious crime?

    1. H in The Hague Silver badge

      Minister probably not guilte of a crime

      "So the minister responsible for bringing forward legislation to do with serious crime is himself possibly guilty of a serious crime?'

      Not sure about the details, but I think that in 2000 Opstelten was a public prosecutor and had seized funds from an alleged drugs dealer. Under the legislation at the time they couldn't prove that the money was profit from illegal activities hence they had to return most of it. In more recent discussions about this case Opstelten claimed that he remembered the amount as being less than a million and that the ministry's records didn't go back that long so it couldn't be checked. A few days ago they managed to restore some records which indicated that the amount was much higher. Or something like that.

      1. Grikath

        Re: Minister probably not guilte of a crime

        almost right.. The deal was done by Opstelten's Secretary, Teeven, then "attorney-general". Who suddenly couldn't remember the details of the deal, and led his minister by the nose, making him state some rather awkward things. Which proved to be untrue when some digging *did* turn up the right numbers about the deal.

        Opstelten, being "responsible" as minister, had to resign when that little doozy come to light. After which Teeven huffed and puffed and went into Solidarity Mode. and resigned as well. Full well knowing that had he stayed on, there'd have been an Enquiry where he'd been roasted, given that there's more of those (rather unpopular) Deals on his resume.

        So we lost a Fossil and a Rat. no-one is crying particularly hard over here.

  2. Dan 55 Silver badge
    WTF?

    This was the directive that was pushed during the UK's 2005 presidency. The UK's response last year after the ECJ ruling was DRIP which instead of telling companies to stop logging it made them log more. I'm finding it hard to reconcile the two different interpretations.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      The UK's new law will remain in force until is legally challenged, though the challenge might need to go all the way to the ECJ given the Supreme Court's current supine position.

      In the meantime nation states, the Commission and the European Parliament are currently haggling over a new directive to replace the now disgraced one from 2005 and which will work with the proposed new data protection directive. The nation states are still demanding blanket data retention even though they have now admitted that this does not help prevent crime. Because the 2005 directive is no longer effective, pressure is on nation states to come up with something to stop more of their precious haystacks being blown away by further legal challenges.

  3. Ole Juul

    Judicial oversight as a security measure

    A new retention law, . . . aims to provide safeguards by introducing judicial oversight of access to the data.

    So, people won't be allowed to hack into databases any more? That will work really well. No?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Guise, why do you need all this stuff anyway?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Off course...

    The NSA will still keep a copy...

  6. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    It's in the wording dude?

    " no longer obliged to retain internet and phone traffic data for law-enforcement purposes"

    Well so long as it is for some other purpose it is alright then?

  7. hj

    It's heart warmingly

    to see that no telco or large ISP had joined the coalition of plaintiffs.... (BIT only does B-to-B).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022