Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Communications The Courts Your Rights Online

German Data Retention Law Ruled Unconstitutional 129

Posted by Soulskill from the raise-a-stein dept.
mseeger writes "The German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled the country's current data retention law unconstitutional. All stored telephone and email communication data, previously kept for six months in case it was needed by law enforcement, now must be deleted as soon as possible. The court criticized the lack of data security and insufficient restrictions for access to the data. The president of the court said continuing to retain the data would 'cause a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation that can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one's basic rights in many areas.' While it doesn't disallow data retention in general, the imposed restriction demands a complete reworking of the law." An anonymous reader contributes the Court's press release and more information on the ruling, both in German.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Data Retention Law Ruled Unconstitutional More

German Data Retention Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:

  • Great Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wintercolby ( 1117427 ) <winter.colby@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:04AM (#31329204)
    Now only if the rest of The West would follow suit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ahaubold ( 1705608 )
      At least the new EU commisioner for justice Viviane Reding announced an enquiry of the EU Directive which was one of the main reasons for making that law in the first place.

    • Great news from our big neighbors.

      If only our mainstream media would pick it up, then someone would actually know about this.

    • See, the difference is that in Germany the people own their society and their politicians are accountable to the people. In North America, it is the opposite - the Corporate owns the politicians and the society, the people are just a mass of slaves.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by RichardJenkins ( 1362463 )

        Maybe a few years of a fascist government supporting global total war and orchestrated genocide would give the US people a renewed taste for personal liberties.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by anwaya ( 574190 )
          It's been tried: we got Glenn Beck and Rahm Emmanuel for our pains.

          • This guy really appears to be crazy. Mussolini had a newspaper. Glenn Beck has TV.

            I assume he is nothing but a person to astroturf a hate movement to avoid public riots, outcry and irrational actions against the bankers and economical leaders in the aftermath of severe economical turmoil, job loss and so forth. In 1929 it was the jews from next door which took the blame and we witnessed the sudden rise of the nazi movement to contain the communists. Beck explicitly appeals to anti-bank tin foils and turns t

      • Not really. For example, the Mövenpick corporation owns the Free Democratic Party. [earthtimes.org]

        • It's such a fine line between being *well intended* and *purportedly well intended*. The article is about how the system-in-place burned the politicians who where owned by the *Corporate*. Of course that this type of thing is going to happen everywhere and any time but the big question is does the *people/society* have the functional mechanism in place to defend its freedom? This article proves the Germans have it - and USA doesn't. " To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. " (Geor

          • "Burned" is not the right word for it.
            FDP was made fun of for about a month but not much else happened as a consequence.

            • On the political capital market in Germany - this is burning; it is hard to get it looking at it from inside of the US boundaries and social habits. Germans are socialist by nature - well, with a little bit of an extreme even today:-), they will let you down as politician is you show extreme preference for the money focus in your message vs the social focus message.

              • I am from Germany (not originally but for the last 16 years).

                • hihihi, me too ... but not for so much, just 8 :-); also, some more than 5 on US before Germi; I think I had a grasp of both of them quite deep :-)

              • But that is not socialism in most parts of the world. That is the unique American reality distortion together with paranoia towards socialism. So we made our negative experiences with socialism and know what we oppose. But American anti-socialism is mostly ideological without any experience.

                I mean, no one seriously opposes health care insurance. That is just a crazy mind reform in the States which makes the scum defend the economical interests of the upper percentile.

                • You are right; apologize for making the socialism sound like the klu-klux-klan scary crow - there is nothing wrong with it but in the head of the purportedly ultra-ego-centric-brain-washed-NA-bison voter. Mental sick people can't see how important is mental health for them :-)

                  • No one is ever totally wrong. That is the danger of it all.

                    I suppose there were good reasons to vote the Nazi party in 1932. When you read Lenin it also sounds very reasonable. Many Westerners admired the ambitions of Chairman Mao...

                    But regardless what you think of it, "socialism" is nothing but saying we take the social problems serious. In that sense each German party more or less serves you well.

                • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                  by OrwellianLurker ( 1739950 )

                  I mean, no one seriously opposes health care insurance. That is just a crazy mind reform in the States which makes the scum defend the economical interests of the upper percentile.

                  I oppose health care insurance being handled by the Fed. I have absolutely no problem with individual states having their own "public options" and such. Hell, if it worked well in one state I would want it in my state. Get it done right in one state, and it will spread like wildfire throughout the union.

      • Although I sympathize with your view on the role of corporations in politics. In this specific case it is all about independent and reasonable judges. Also something to cherish.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        the people are just a mass of slaves.

        Speak for yourself.

    • Re:Great Precedent (Score:4, Informative)

      by V for Vendetta ( 1204898 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @12:00PM (#31330710)

      To be honest, we weren't the first ones. The Constitutinal Courts of Romania and Bulgaria (not sure of the second country) already ruled the EU data retention law unconstitutional.

    • Maybe we could gain better traction when backing this success for personal liberties by talking also about how it makes us safer from organized crime, foreign governments, etc. Not only can law enforcement use this data, but if there are any holes in security of such systems, so can the (evil) hackers and those that wish a nation harm.

  • Pyrrhic victory? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:06AM (#31329220)

    Unfortunately, the explanations given by the Federal Constitutional Court can be read as an instruction manual on how to create a data retention law 2.0 that will pass the courts muster. Shouldn't take those politicians too long to come up with the new version. :/

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, but if you read the verdict as a set of requirements, you'd see the blueprint of a mission impossible.

      The same was true for "computer assisted voting".
      However, the requirements are so high, that they can't be fulfilled.

    • Re:Pyrrhic victory? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mindcontrolled ( 1388007 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:16AM (#31329352)
      Well, at least they demand some serious restrictions - asymmetric encryption with separately stored keys, no central storage of the data under direct government control, no access without a judge's order, no access without a well-founded and substantiated suspicion, access only for prosecution of serious crimes (exceptions for simple lookup of dynamic IPs), severe penalties for illegitime access. This is way better than what we had before.

      That aside, thank the FSM for our constitutional court. They basically struck down every security-theatre related law in the last couple of years. I am starting to think about a three-strikes law for politicians - vote for three unconstitutional laws and you are out. Loss of eligibility for any political office for 4 years at last. Ahh, well, a man can dream...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by am 2k ( 217885 )

        I am starting to think about a three-strikes law for politicians - vote for three unconstitutional laws and you are out. Loss of eligibility for any political office for 4 years at last.

        In light of the usual way this is implemented, your solution wouldn't be fair, though. It would be better to enact your proposed restrictions when a politician was accused of not handling in the voter's best interest by any citizen three times.

        • Re:Pyrrhic victory? (Score:4, Funny)

          by Aqualung812 ( 959532 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:54AM (#31329840)

          It would be better to enact your proposed restrictions when a politician was accused of not handling in the voter's best interest by any citizen three times.

          Sounds great! We'll need to ask all of the citizens if their interests have been taken care of well or not. Since what I consider taking care of me might be the opposite of what taken care of is for you, we'll need to go by majority. Also, since we can't spend the time and money to ask every day, how about ever 2-4 years we get together and vote on how well our politicians are doing? I wish there was a political system that did that!

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by am 2k ( 217885 )

            Your idea sounds nice in theory, but I've heard that it has been tried and didn't work out that well (as described in the article these postings are attached to for instance).

        • It would be better to enact your proposed restrictions when a politician was accused of not handling in the voter's best interest by any citizen three times.

          There's already a formal method in place for voters to make it clear that a politician is not handling their best interests appropriately. It's called "voting".

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        no central storage of the data under direct government control,

        But then they let the providers pay for the storage and we all know that this will lead to central storage, either through outsourcing or simply by pushing smaller companies out of the market.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by oreaq ( 817314 )
        Better yet: Introduce fines and prison sentences for violating the constitution and indict politicians that vote for laws that break the constitution. Wehrhafte Demokratie FTW!
        • Hehe, indeed. Been saying for a long time that the Verfassungsschutz should at least monitor certain politicians that keep proposing unconstitutional laws. And I am not talking about out fringe parties here...

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
            Been saying for a long time that the Verfassungsschutz should at least monitor certain politicians that keep proposing unconstitutional laws.

            They tried, but the wheelchair outran them.

          • Maybe we need a web site to record all unconstitutional laws and demand sanctions against the ministerial officials.

      • Then the buying of politicians would be supplanted by the buying of judges for the purpose of getting rid of both laws and people they don't like.

      • That aside, thank the FSM for our constitutional court.

        The Flying Spaghetti Monster -- is there anything that he cannot do?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by saibot834 ( 1061528 )

      One of the restrictions the Federal Constitutional Court has imposed is that such data may only be saved decentralized. Additionally they have to be stored securely and must only be used for very severe crimes. The court is very careful: Technical possibilities change very quickly and they want the verdict to be still useful in 10 or 20 years. That's why they avoid saying "such data cannot be stored securely, therefore data retention is for all times unconstitutional".

      In another verdict the court has ruled

      • On the other hand, there's an EU directive which demands that a data retention law gets passed.

        • The people who have challenged the german law are going after the EU directive next, as far as I know. Will be interesting to see what comes out of that. Apart from that, EU directives have to be implemented in national law, and that implementation has to work within the framework set down in the ruling at issue. The Constitutional Court has made it pretty clear that it has the last word in such matters, even if the EU is involved.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by yuhong ( 1378501 )

        However, it imposed rules that no e-voting system in the near future is able to fulfill: Every citizen must be able to verify the correctness of the vote without specific technical knowledge. Not even open source e-voting systems meet this requirement.

        And IMO I would not go that far, but...

    • But than again I can't remember the last time that the BVerG (Bundesverfassungsgericht = Federal Consitutional Court) ruled a law straight as "unconstitutional" and demanded all records to be removed immediately. Most of the time it grants a grace period in which the parlament needs to come up with a revised version of the law. This isn't the case this time. The law was basically ruled as "null and void/has never existed". So they can't just "adjust" the current law to meet the court's requirements. They ne

  • A great victory (Score:5, Informative)

    by saibot834 ( 1061528 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:06AM (#31329226)

    In my story submission [slashdot.org], I included a few more details. 35,000 citizens filed a class-action against this law and now after two years we finally see this law voided.

    The "Bundesverfassungsgericht [wikipedia.org]" has once again proven that is the most significant institution in Germany that protects citizens' constitutional rights - in this case the right of informational self-determination [wikipedia.org].

    • I do not have first hand experience of many other countries, but this is just a stepping stone for the government - it will not deter the government from continuing in the same direction. In the last decade or so, it has been my distinct impression that there has been rise of cases where the German government first pushes through some (partially harsh) legislation, only to have it challenged at the Bundesverfassungsgericht and just continuing on with however much the judges let them get away with.

      All this l

      • I think our legal system works pretty well, as demonstrated by this ruling. However, we have a problem with political culture. It is as you described. Our politicians seem more and more prone to implement draconic laws only to have them struck down by the court. It seems as if they either willfuly neglect to check for conformity with the constitution before implementing a law, simply don't care for it, or are too inept. I think we can rule out the last one, as the checks would be done by legal professionals

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
          I think we can rule out the last one, as the checks would be done by legal professionals in the ministries,

          Many of those politicians are legal professionals themselves. If they ever claim ineptitude in this matter, I want to see their degrees in Law revoked and their diplomas recycled into toilet paper.

  • Pandora's box is open (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Data retention without prior suspicion hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, so we've stepped onto the slippery slope and opened Pandora's box. From now on, we're only going to be haggling over how much data can be retained and what it can be used for. This is not a victory.

  • ACTA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:08AM (#31329246)
    I wonder if this could cause conflict with EU ACTA negotiations. I would expect data retention would be necessary for much of the copyright legislation (eg 3 strikes and similar)

    • I am not sure whether ACTA plays into this but a quick look at the court's press release indicates that they had to do quite a bit of work to prevent legal intimidation by the European Union:

      The regulations under scrutiny are to be understood as an implementation of the European Parliament's and Commission's directive 2006/24/EG about data retention from the year 2006.

      Die angegriffenen Vorschriften verstehen sich als Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2006/24/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Vorratsdatenspeicherung aus dem Jahre 2006. (The regulations under scrutiny are to be understood as an implementation of the European Parliament's and Commission's directive 2006/24/EG about data retention from the year 2006.)

      Furthermore they state that the German data retention act goes way beyond what would have been required by the European Commission and that t

    • Re:ACTA (Score:5, Informative)

      by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:58AM (#31329872)
      Well the German law was already an implementation of a EU directive. However while the constitutional court has rejected the implementation, it did not declare the EU directive illegal. So it's still possible (actually mandatory under EU law) to implement a revised data storage law.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by kylant ( 527449 )
        The German constitutional court is in no position to declare an EU directive illegal or even unconstitutional as, in general, EU law is stronger than national constitutional law. (Actually there are very special circumstances, under which something like that could happen (a simple violation of the German constitution won't do) but that is rather theoretical construct and nobody feels like trying whether this holds up).

        The next step would be to challenge the EU directive itself, but that is a lot more diff

        • As I see it, the German constitutional court (BVerfG - we love our abbreviations in the legal business) still reserves the right to rule on the applicability of EU law in cases where no equivalent legal protection is provided by EU institutions (BVerfG, "Solange II" i.V.m BVerfG "Lissabon"). As you said, though, it remains to be seen whether this holds up.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by kylant ( 527449 )
            In most European countries constitutional courts argue, that there is a "core" to the respective constitution that is not and cannot be overruled by European legislation but only by plebiscite. I am not aware of any European level ruling or contract that would support this position, though. Constitutional courts appear not to be too keen on actually using this approach, probably because if it fails they are not the top dogs anymore. (I really try hard to keep the legalese out of slashdot comments)

            • I really try hard to keep the legalese out of slashdot comments

              Come on, we can talk about the "Kompetenzkompetenz" of derivative subjects of international law here... ;)
              Anyway, the idea of a constitutional core seems pretty strong in Germany, given that the constitution itself defines such an irrevocable core. I think we will see clarification on that issue in the next decade or so, at least if the European integration continues,

        • German is a sovereign nation. It can do what ever the hell it likes to EU directives rules. Its not like any country follows all of them. And some (Italy/Greece) seem to follow none. Also being one of the bigger money contributers to the EU they have some serious leverage.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by kylant ( 527449 )
            Please check your facts, there is not one correct statement in your post

            German is a sovereign nation. It can do what ever the hell it likes to EU directives rules.

            The general principle is that EC law is superior to national laws. For directives, the EU members can decide for themselves how they are going to implement them but usually there is a timeframe set and if they do not implement them in time there are consequences. Under specific circumstances directives can even be enforced directly if a member state fails to implement them in time.

            Its not like any country follows all of them.

            While not all members have implemented all directives (y

      • Yes, but there are infringement proceedings against some member states because they don't apply the directive, there are other constitutional courts which rejected it, so a simple recast of the directive is required by the Commission anyway because the directive is wrecked [europa.eu].

        ACTA certainly deserves more attention but there are other FTA with such provisions as well.

  • SETI (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
    Hey, maybe SETI can use this to finally find those little green men they're after. "We made a guge breakthrough today when we partially reconstructed a piece of alien porn from some noise near Centauri!"

    • oops (Score:3, Funny)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      Posted this in the wrong place. But, yeah, good for you Germany!

      • Well, the aliens will come and sue SETI for data retention and analysis without a court order. :-)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
          Well, the aliens will come and sue SETI for data retention and analysis without a court order. :-)

          They'd get counter-sued by the MPAA and James Cameron for stealing his ideas. Better stay at least a light year from Earth.

  • All hail the Chaos Computer Club (Score:5, Informative)

    by Denial93 ( 773403 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:11AM (#31329284)
    Although this ruling is what us IT guys would expect from any reasonable court, the fact of the matter is that judges know shit. The Chaos Computer Club [www.ccc.de] worked their asses off providing expertise to the court, while also mobilizing the German IT scene and putting out pressure on opposing (governmental) parties. This is their success and I salute them. Guess I should get around to finally apply for membership myself...

    • Re:All hail the Chaos Computer Club (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mindcontrolled ( 1388007 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:19AM (#31329396)
      The court is not supposed to know shit. The judges are supposed to listen to experts and form their opinion based upon that - and from reading the decision, I would say they indeed did. Everything working as intended. That aside, all hail the CCC!

      • So the real problem is: Who is deciding who is an expert and who not?

        I mean just think of the case of the media industry.
        Freakin’ hard to be a judge, if you ask me.

        Is there some mechanism to choose experts?
        The only one I know is the trust mechanism. Which has a whole area of criminal science dedicated to it, called “social engineering”, and more holes than the Internet Explorer.
        So what else?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
          So the real problem is: Who is deciding who is an expert and who not?

          Just recursify the problem: Ask an expert.

        • You certainly got a point there, and I don't think there is the one, perfect method to choosing experts - That's why you don't listen to just one of them, but rather to a couple, so you get a view of differing opinions in the field. Or both sides bring in "their" experts - which of course will be pre-selected to emphasize on the position of each side. I guess there is no way to absolutely rule out bias in the information presented to the judges, but in practise, the system mostly works. As you said, freakin

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by TiloB ( 783192 )

        The court is not supposed to know shit

        I think you are arguing from the perspective of Common law which does not apply in Germany. Here, judges and courts in general have much more freedom in discovering the truth during trials, they may ask questions, they may ask for more information. And we are happy they do so.

        • Actually no, I might have been unclear. What I was trying to say is that you do not expect the judges to be expert on the subject-matter at hand, you expect them rather to gather the necessary information during trial. I was not aiming at rules of discovery there. I am definitely not coming from a common law perspective - I am German myself and work in the field of patent law (where you actually can expect the judges to be experts, at least the technical judges at the patent court. But that is just a weirdn

    • Re:All hail the Chaos Computer Club (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saibot834 ( 1061528 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:27AM (#31329476)

      Don't say they know shit. They knew enough to know that their expertise didn't suffice and that's why they invited specialists (including the CCC which of course loved to help). They've carefully heard this case for two years and now they've come to an excellent decision.
      The Federal Constitutional Court did exactly the right thing, that's what is important. It's not their job to know everything about computers and technical measures of data retention. Remember the /. story of a judge who didn't know what the Internet was and had it explained to him before he judged? You don't have to know everything, you just have to know when you should educate yourself.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by chrismeidinger ( 1469419 )
      You don't have to apply for membership in CCC. Just join.
      If you come to the Congress - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress [wikipedia.org] - you can join right at the door, and get your ticket discounted immediately.

  • Domestic spying unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:18AM (#31329374)

    There can be only logical solution: Change the constitution.

    Anyone taking bets that this will be the solution rather than to throw the unconstitutional domestic spying out the door?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      IMHO it would be difficult, since the ruling is based on the concept of "informational self-determination", which the constitutional court established based on specially protected fundamental rights in the German constitution. Plus, it is quite unlikely that they would find the necessary support for a change of the constitution in the parliament. Several parties are against the law (at least in current form), including the Liberal party (FDP) which is the junior partner in the coalition government right now

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cpghost ( 719344 )
        All you say is true, and I don't see a change of constitution happening anytime soon in the current political microclimate. However, Germany also has the reputation for constantly eroding their own Grundgesetz over the decades. I wouldn't hold my breath that they won't amend one of their articles with a classic: "Das Nähere regelt ein Bundesgesetz" as with so many other fundamental rights being restricted per lower-order laws or even administrative decrees. Oh, btw, what about "Eine Zensur findet nicht

      • IMHO it would be difficult, since the ruling is based on the concept of "informational self-determination", which the constitutional court established based on specially protected fundamental rights in the German constitution.

        If it's one of fundamental human rights, then AFAIR it's in the section of the Basic Law that is immutable and cannot be amended in any way?

  • Unenviable comparison (Score:5, Interesting)

    by trurl7 ( 663880 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:18AM (#31329376)

    It's dangerous to praise a decision with political ramifications - something good can be twisted into something bad on the next iteration. Still and all, the language is encouraging, and poses the rhetorical question:

    "How messed up is the US when we have to take cues on privacy laws from, of all people, the Germans?"

    As another poster pointed out about informational self-determination, the Germans are discussing the implications of privacy. US courts are still diddling over whether privacy expectation is even "constitutional".

    • Re:Unenviable comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rbarreira ( 836272 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:32AM (#31329552) Homepage

      > of all people, the Germans

      What do you mean? Germany is one of the best countries in terms of privacy protection.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Asic Eng ( 193332 )
      US courts have to base their decisions on the US constitution, having different laws the German courts their decisions must necessarily be different. While the German constitution has weaknesses which the US' doesn't have, the reverse is also true.

      • Re:Unenviable comparison (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ffflala ( 793437 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @03:09PM (#31333642)

        Two important differences come into play here. First, where the rights overlap (such as freedom of expression) the German Basic Law (constitution) affirmatively establishes rights. The US Constitution only restricts the government from passing laws to abridge constitutional rights.

        Second, the German Basic Law is founded on a concept entirely absent from the US Constitution: the right to dignity. It's the first article in the German constitution, and has been described by the German Constitutional Court as the right from which all other constitutional rights emanate.

        Article 1 [Human Dignity]
        (1) Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority. (2) The German People therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every human community, of peace, and of justice in the world. (3) The following basic rights are binding on legislature, executive, and judiciary as directly valid law.

    • Re:Unenviable comparison (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hasai ( 131313 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:52AM (#31329814)

      "How messed up is the US when we have to take cues on privacy laws from, of all people, the Germans?"

      Actually, the Germans, "of all people," have the advantage of knowing precisely just how bad things can get.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 32771 ( 906153 )

        I just thought about this "advantage" some short while ago and came to the conclusion that if you need a totalitarian regime to let you come to senses, you may get another one as soon as society has forgotten how that felt like.

        We (the Germans) frequently talk about never forgetting the third reich, but that alone is already worrisome. We almost implicitly admit that we have no better idea than to not forget (I like to exaggerate). It would be a good idea if it worked, but for instance that latest financial

    • "How messed up is the US when we have to take cues on privacy laws from, of all people, the Germans?"

      Yeah, because we are exactly like our great-grandparents.
      And we did not completely flip to the other side of left extremism and shame for our nation in general, or started to care more about privacy.

      </sarcasm> (or is that cynism?)

  • That's a terrific quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:25AM (#31329444) Journal

    "...a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation... can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one's basic rights in many areas."

    ^^ This.

    Someone gets it.

  • Bonus!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arthurpaliden ( 939626 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @10:27AM (#31329480)
    Soon all social networking networks will be based in Germany providing new jobs and revenue.

  • Lame. (Score:1, Informative)

    by DarthVain ( 724186 )

    All this means is that the standard for corporations and government are even farther apart.

    Sure it protects personal privacy, but this protects corporations from lawsuits, and their bottom line even more.

    I was having a conversation with a consultant on Risk/Threat assessment of an IMS project we are working on. The difference in retention is amazing. Because I work in government, we are expected to keep stuff around for YEARS, usually 5 to 7 locally, and then maybe decades in an archive. This is for transpa

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by yuhong ( 1378501 )
      Not that I ever believed maximizing shareholder value was ever a good idea, and trying to minimize legal liablity (or CYA) in order to maximize shareholder value is of course an even worse idea, but that is another topic altogether.
  • While I would have preferred them to find long data retention unconstitutional in general, I can live with that. I'm opening a bottle of champagne.
    And a really huge thanks to Prof. Papier, the Chief Justice, who will retire soon. Thank you, man. That guy has been one of the few people in our republic who constantly held up civil liberties.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close