More about the data retention proposal in Sweden

Oscar Schwartz in his blog on my earlier post about it.

The problem is of course not only who is retaining data or what is to be retained, but also who can change any of these parameters in the future.

As the definition of these terms is exactly what say whether the legislation in practice have too much impact on privacy or not compared to the help it gives to law enforcement agencies, it is very importan the terms are not changed in an ad-hoc way. For example just by the Swedish Government. These parameters in reality are defined by the Swedish Government, and not by the Parliament. This is something you can see Hans-Olof Lindblom explain in the report itself. Something Per Furberg say he is behind in the report, and something I said in my blog entry.

But, I did not point it out specifically, and I should have. Thanks Oscar!

Maybe it would have been easier to point out what is good in the report?

• That who is responsible to retain data is not a separate definition, but uses the definition in the electronic communications directive
• That what is to be retained for for example telephony is independent on whether it is fixed-, mobile- or IP telephony.

Note that the directive on European level ask for different things depending on what kind of telephony it is.