It's "1984" in Europe, What About Your Country?

An anonymous reader asks: "A few hours ago, the European parliament accepted a proposal '...on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services...'. Summarized: any data (internet connections, traffic, email, file sharing, SMS, phone calls) of 450 million people of Europe has to be collected by telcos, to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course. In Germany, over-the-sea reports are limited and usually do not include the latest developments in law and order, but since Slashdot has readers all over the world, I would like to ask: how is the status of YOUR country in terms of anti-terrorism-laws, observations and such? Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"

Do editors even read this site?

[NotQuiteReal]

I have nothing more to say at this time.

Fate of the British billion

[alienmole]

It's the other way around - the British billion used to be a million million, i.e. 1000 American billions. They officially changed it, though - see here [guardian.co.uk].

Want to live without a Nanny State?

[poofyhairguy82]

Its easy to live without a Nanny state. Just move to a semi-populated rural area where there is a lower crime rate with less prying police. The long arm of the law mostly gets you with its fingers (the members of law enforcement lower on the totem pole) so if you move to a place where its too many people to casually look but enough people where there is not a high crime rate then you can live free. Thats why so many drug dealers and makers in the U.S. live in rural or suburban areas- they can get away with more there.

Obscurity is the only true path to privacy.

Re:s/billion/million/

[NtroP]

I thought I heard somewhere that the British (and maybe other parts of Europe) say billion for 1,000,000, where we say million...

Can't remember where, and I can't, for the life of me, think what they'd call 1,000,000,000.

Well, there you have it...

Re:s/billion/million/

[NtroP]

Heh, replying to my self...

After a little research [mathforum.org] I realize I had it backwards:

The American system is:
10^06 = million
10^09 = billion
10^12 = trillion
...

The European system (formerly used in Britain, still used in Germany)
is:
10^06 = million
10^09 = thousand million
10^12 = billion
10^15 = thousand billion
10^18 = trillion
10^21 = thousand trillion
...

Huh, I learned something new today.

Clearly not the US

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives voted to renew 16 parts of the "USA Patriot Act" that were set to expire at year's end. These include National Security Letters (basically search warrants the FBI issues itself without judicial review) and the ability of the FBI to obtain your medical records and records of library activity. Hopefully, the Senate will remember why the Constitution was written in the first place. Heck, some of this probably contravenes the Magna Carta.

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[teromajusa]

True, they are not equivalent, but that does not mean privacy is not a right. In the US its considered covered under the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated More on this here [state.gov].

Here in Argentina there was a project like that

[grenthal]

Back in April a bill was passed that was supposed to crack on "express kidnappings" by making telcos hold more data on cellphone calls (often used in this kind of crime), but it was extended to internet traffic and suddenly ISPs would have to keep records of users email, sites visited, etc. for 10 years. When the news broke what the government wanted to do, the negative response was so big that the president vetoed the law and proposed a rewriting almost immediately. Barrapunto (Spanish Slashdot) story on the veto [barrapunto.com]

Not quite

[XanC]

3,976,372 square km / 450,000,000,000 = 8.836382222 x 10^-6 square km / person.

8.836382222 x 10^-6 square km = 8,836,382.22 square mm = 13,696.4198 square inches = 95.114 square feet.

Still not a lot of land, but more than 1/4 inch.

Clueless!

[Chuck Chunder]

Encryption will do fuck all in regards to this directive because encryption only acts on content. The data retention laws do not apply to content. They apply to who, where and when, not what:

1. data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication;
2. data necessary to trace and identify the destination of a communication;
3. data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication;
4. data necessary to identify the type of communication;
5. data necessary to identify the communication device or what purports to be the communication device;
6. data necessary to identify the location of mobile communication equipment.

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[Chuck Chunder]

(N)o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause(.)

Which isn't "absolute".

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[Zordak]

The Fourth Amendment has two very distinct clauses. The first bars "unreasonable" searches and seizures. There is a whole body of law that tells us what is "reasonable" in different circumstances, but it is well settled that there are many cases where it is reasonable to search without a warrant. The clause of the 4th you quoted simply says if you get a warrant, it must be supported by probable cause. The existence of this clause creates a strong judicial preference for warrants -- a judge will require a warrant if there was any practical way to get one under the circumstances. But there are many "reasonable" searches that require neither a warrant nor even probable cause.

Re:exposure

[Da Penguin]

No, I believe he is saying that despite the horrors of the holocaust, most of the German population was just like you and me.

Re:there are relationships though

[belmolis]

The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.

This is a false distinction. A Republic is a kind of democracy in that the power is ultimately in the hands of the people. What you mean is that the U.S. is not a direct democracy because the people who immediately wield power are elected representatives. Direct democracies are very rare and probably are only workable in small societies.

Re:Amen

[mi]

It's ironic that the people of the Russia now have more personal liberty than we do here in the USA

Russia -- where most press and all TV-stations are state-controlled.

Russia -- where courts are in the President's pocket.

Russia -- which uses air-bombers and heavy artillery against the very people, it claims are its citizens (although they disagree).

Russia -- where regional governors are appointed by the President.

Russia -- where the Communist Party is among the strongest.

You complain about random searches in NYC subways? In Russia you are obligated to carry identification with you at all times and present it to any law enforcer upon request.

Unhappy about racial profiling here? If you are dark-skinned (thus looking like a Chechen), you will be harassed and periodically searched on the streets in Russia. And not in some red-neck backwater, but in the shiny newly-rich capital of Moscow.

If you are non-white looking -- don't go to St. Petersburgh (Russia's other capital -- the "sophisticated" one). Russian skin-heads have been attacking non-whites (Asian students primarily) there recently, with police looking the other way.

... from what I've read.

Stop reading "Pravda".

Re:PRIVACY == FREEDOM

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What would be an example of an idea that perpetuated itself into law as the result of it's proponents remaining anonymous?

The constitution. Google on the federalist papaers.

The federalists were wrong

[caitsith01]

Unfortunately, the federalists were wrong.

Here in Australia our constitution was based on the very principle you refer to and includes no individual rights other than freedom of religion and the right to a trial in relation to certain types of offence. To this day a bill of rights is opposed, mainly be conservative politicians, because "we couldn't list all of our freedoms" and "it would be unneccessary" and so on.

Sadly, we have recently seen wave after wave of terrible, terrible legislation encroaching on the lives and freedoms of ordinary, innocent people. Refugees are treated like criminals rather than people who are likely to be seeking shelter and are detained in appalling conditions in the desert or on remote islands, potentially indefinitely [abc.net.au]. The original inhabitants of this country are marginalised and ignored [abc.net.au]. More fundamentally, every Australian is now subject to arbitrary and relatively unchecked laws relating to 'terrorism' which allow for extended periods of detention without trial and without a warrant. These laws are enthusiastically promoted by the police [abc.net.au] and security agencies. Australia has one of the highest rates of phone-tapping in the world, and also retains ridiculous sedition laws [news.com.au] essentially making it illegal to criticise the government too strongly.

We have it worse than the US - at least you have SOME protected rights. We have none, and in times like these that means we are gradually losing them all. A bill of rights is essential in protecting basic freedoms [newmatilda.com], which are not inherent characteristics but human constructions and therefore must be protected by humans.

Re:s/billion/million/

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Here in Denmark (and the other scandinavian countries) it's this way around:

10^06 = million
10^09 = milliard
10^12 = billion
10^15 = billiard
10^18 = trillion
10^21 = trilliard

and so on...

Re:there are relationships though

[tob]

Republic (res publica) and democracy (demos kratos) just mean the same thing. The one coming from latin, the other from ancient greek.

The inferred difference as if republic means a representative system and democracy a direct system is not something I ever heard before.

In ancient greece they did have direct democracies in some states for some time. At other times they had elected officials and still called it a democracy.

In Europe the difference between a republic and a not-republic is whether you have a president or a monarch. In .nl (as in many european countries) we have a monarch (queen) and republicans are those who'd rather have her and her family retire to somewhere else.

These monarchies are still governed by democratically elected officials, and we still call them democracies, as we do republics like france and germany.

Regards,
Tob

Re:The term "chilling effect" mean anything?

[scbomber]

It's pretty obvious what "chilling effect" means. A "chilling effect" is a change in behavior on the part of a group because of a new perception of potential consequences of behavior, regardless of whether or not there actually ARE new consequences, or the perception is accurate.

I'm not sure why you think the term is so vague. Possibly you have never experienced one. Think of what happens when someone gets in trouble for doing something many people have done, eg, mp3-sharing at work. Lots of people will change their behavior even if the person who was caught was being scrutinized for some very specific other reason, because they would assume a policy of general scrutiny was in place.

Re:s/billion/million/

[KiloByte]

Same in Poland, and in a majority of non-English-speaking countries, from what I heard.

Re:there are relationships though

[SillyNickName4me]

Republic and Democracy are strikingly similar, not opposites.

They not strikingly similar, but you are right that they are not eachothers opposites.

They were eachothers opposites one day in the far past, when Athens was fighting Sparta.

The Roman republic already 'married' the 2 and ended up with something that is a republic in the sense of having an 'appointed' leadership, but it also had a form of representive democracy through the senate.

Ever since, a republic is a form of state, and primarily an alternative for a monarchy. Democracy is not a form of state and it can exist in both republic and monarchy (and other alternative forms of state), and a few countries even managed the combination of monarchy and forms of direct democracy (tho that usually doesn't work well, see Italy untill Mussolini came to power)

In short, originally both were a form of state, but for the last 2000+ years, a republic has been a form of state while democracy has been a process that can be used to decide on specific things. Obviously those 2 are not mutually exclusive, and actually make a good combination. To say they are very similar is however not true.

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[SillyNickName4me]

If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.

You are absolutely right there.

With regards to this new EU rule, the slashdot blurb of course doesn't mention this, but what they are going to store is the fact that you chatted to your friend between this and this time, but not the content of this conversation. While this is bad and stupid, it is not by far as bad as the blurb is trying to make it look.

Supposedly this is usefull to get an insight into the conenctions between individuals who might be involved in terrorist or criminal activities.

Of course, about all investigations resulting from attacks in the last half decade point at a lack of cooperation and not of information (usually the information was actually there), but who cares.

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[LordLucless]

The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.

See, judging from what I've heard of their material, what they're wanting is pretty much what most slashdotters seem to be wanting - the US government to get it's nose out of their business. What they want is the US to stop interfering in middle-eastern politics, and letting them get back to killing/getting killed by the Israelis. I'm the first to condemn terrorist methodology, but really, let's not get into demonizing our opponents. It's stupid, irrational, deceitful, and it clouds the real issues.

(Note to any outraged future posters: I am not endorsing terrorism, I am simply asking we look at their motivations analytically rather than emotionally)

Re:there are relationships though

[Wieland]

I live in The Netherlands, which has an electoral system considered "extremely proportional" by most political scientists. A political party that gets a share as small as about 0.7% of the votes has a fair chance of getting one of the 150 seats in the Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber, the Dutch equivalent of the House of Commons). When it took it's current form, this system was best suited for a country as deeply divided (culturally, religiously and politically) as The Netherlands, with a protestant North and a catholic South, a rapidly growing labour movement, many small business owners and an important liberal minority.

The upside is that the parliament's composition mirrors actual voter preferences quite closely, so all political and religious minorites can be represented in parliament and have their say in national politics. In addition, political parties are extremely unlikely to reach a majority on their own, so they're always forced to form a coalition government - thus assuring that the government is backed by a fairly large proportion of the Dutch voters. OTOH, in countries that have majority systems, governing parties may sometimes have the support of only a very small minority of the electorate.

The downside to the Dutch system is that we have a fairly large number (currently eleven) of parties in parliament, including the far left, the far right, orthodox Christians, ecologists, populists and plain idiots. They all have their say, and their support may from time to time be indispensable, which doesn't always add to clarity and political decisiveness. Also, being forced to form coalition governments, the main parties tend to iron out their differences and resemble each other more and more, which may obviously impair political debate and take away real choice from the voters. As a result, some highly controversial issues are virtually impossible to decide upon (such as the abolishment of the "hypotheekrenteaftrek", the tax deductibility of mortgage interests, is one example. It's been on the political agenda for over twenty years, but no solution is even close).

The merits of majority systems versus proportional representation are a different debate though. Even though I personally prefer PR to any majority system, I'd still consider the UK to be a democratic country. After all, although you may not like the design (or the outcome) of the electoral system, the UK does have free and fair elections, free press, free speech, a democratically controlled government, an independent judiciary, etc.

Re:How is this possible?

[vidarh]

The representatives of the European parliament are elected directly, but the European parliament can't make law (though it has to vote on laws proposed, and can block/slow the process down or change the proposals, subject to a lot of hassle, which is how the software patents directive got killed off last time).

The commission (the executive branch of the EU government) which is generally the organ proposing laws is appointed by the heads of state of the member states of the EU - one appointee each, but must be approved by parliament (if parliament refuses approval, the heads of state will generally have to propose replacements, which has happened a few times - I don't know what would happen in the case of a stand off between the two).

The council of ministers consists of the ministers of the member states, and generally sits in groups of their respective areas (like when the agriculture ministers were used to try to push the patent directive through the council)

The council generally has the most power in terms of making law. The commission second, as they prepare the initial proposal. The parliament is a weak third.

The reason for that is that the council represents the governments of the member states, that still formally are sovereign nations. The council acts with the authority of those governments.

Thus the position of the parliament is comparable to the position of Congress in the US under the Articles of Confederation (note to those not familiar with US history: this has nothing to do with the Confederacy of the southern states around the civil war), before the constitution was enacted and the US became a federal republic. You also have the same pressures towards creating a more cohesive central government with actual power to enforce decisions as what lead to the US constitution.

(Of course it's highly contentious amongst people in the EU whether the EU should become a state or not - considering the ridiculous over-engineering of the proposed constitution i think we can be very happy it's moving slowly)

Re:Oh ... Europe ... Europe ... Europe ...

[skrolle2]

Slight nitpick: The Nazi government killed about 12 million people in the concentration camps. 6 million jews, and 6 million others; communists, homosexuals, deserters, criminals, and other "enemies of the state".

you have miss another reason: to fight piracy

[Marcuzio]

as you can see here [dataretent...lution.com] infringment of intellectual propriety is one of "crimes" that they want to fight

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[Phrack]

ok, from the telephony standpoint, those records are already collected. It's called a Call Detail Record, it notes things you'd expect like origination number, termination number, billing number, dialed digits plus things you might not such as interconnect call time, switching addresses, etc. It gets used for diagnostic information, billing, system monitoring (as in, how well phones are being switched, failure rates, etc).

In the US, that information can also be requested for police use, but requires a subpoena.

Retention of the records varies by state. IIRC, Florida has the longer of the retention laws, at around 5 years.

Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac

[sirket]

There is always a plethora of pedantic jackasses on Slashdot. First off- try quoting everything I said and not what you want to cherry pick.

What I said was: "If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."

Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Letter to William Duane, 1803.

How can one work to keep the government in check, or overthrow it if necessary if the government can keep complete track of a persons communications?