EU-domstolen säger nej till datalagring

Idag har EU-domstolen presenterat ännu en dom som säger nej till urskiljningslös datalagring utan misstanke om brott.

Redan 2014 upphävde EU-domstolen EU:s datalagringsdirektiv – med hänvisning till att det strider mot de mänskliga rättigheterna och vad dessa har att säga om rätten till privatliv och privat korrespondens. 2016 kom ytterligare en dom med samma innebörd, efter att Storbritannien och Sverige inte rättat sig efter den tidigare domen.

Dagens dom i EU-domstolen riktar sig mot Frankrike, Belgien och Storbritannien – men får konsekvenser för alla medlemsstater som inte rättat sig efter tidigare domar och fortsatt din lagring av data om alla medborgares tele- och datakommunikationer. Till exempel Sverige.

EU-domstolen säger i korthet följande:

EU-lag står över nationell lag, även vad gäller datalagring.
Datalagring får bara förekomma om det finns en konkret misstanke om brott eller ett konkret hot mot nationell säkerhet.
Datalagring skall vara ett undantag, inte ett normaltillstånd.
Beslut om datalagring skall fattas av domstol eller motsvarande myndighet.
Svepande, urskiljningslös datalagring utan konkret misstanke om brott är inte tillåten.

Vad innebär detta?

Den svenska datalagringen i sin senaste utformning skulle med största säkerhet inte klara en prövning i EU-domstolen.
Detta gäller även andra medlemsstater som inte följer tidigare domar i ärendet.
Domen komplicerar saken för EU-kommissionär Ylva Johansson, som meddelat att EU-kommissionen planerar att lägga fram ett nytt datalagringsdirektiv.

Kommentarer:

EDRi:

“Today’s judgement is a massive blow to existing laws in France, UK and Belgium and to other current data retention practices by Member States”, said Diego Naranjo, Head of Policy at European Digital Rights (EDRi). “With this judgement, the CJEU essentially rules that, States can only engage in general and indiscriminate data retention when they face a “serious threat to national security” that is present or foreseeable, when subject to a court or administrative body review. The CJEU has put a stop to current illegal practices and disregards practices that are not under a national court’s scrutiny in the name of national security or in the fight against “terrorism””, he added.

Privacy International:

”Today’s judgment reinforces the rule of law in the EU. In these turbulent times, it serves as a reminder that no government should be above the law. Democratic societies must place limits and controls on the surveillance powers of our police and intelligence agencies.

While the Police and intelligence agencies play a very important role in keeping us safe, they must do so in line with certain safeguards to prevent abuses of their very considerable power. They should focus on providing us with effective, targeted surveillance systems that protect both our security and our fundamental rights.”

Datalagring fungerar inte

En rapport från Europaparlamentets utredningstjänst noterar följande:

• In Austria, as of 2015, there is no more blanket data retention law in effect. Since then, the crime clearance rate has massively increased (from 44% in 2015 to 52.5% in 2018), the number of reported crimes has decreased.
• In the Netherlands, there is no longer any indiscriminate data retention law in effect since 2016. Since then, the crime clearance rate has increased considerably (from 25.5% in 2016 to 28.5% in 2018).
• In Germany, the indiscriminate retention of communications data is no longer in force since 2011. Since then, the crime clearance rate has slightly increased (from 55% in 2011 to 58% in 2018), the number of of recorded crime has decreased (from 6 million in 2011 to 5.6 million in 2018).
• Italy has had blanket data retention in effect for years. The crime clearance rate has remained pretty much the same.
• In Spain, indiscriminate data storage is in effect. The the number of offences is roughly stable, the crime clearance rate has dropped considerably. Also, in the area of cybercrime, the supposed benefits which would be visible in the crime rate significantly increased, however, the clearance rate has declined substantially.
• In Sweden – the country of origin of the European Security Commissioner – indiscriminate data retention is practiced. The crime clearance rate has decreased (from 17% in 2009 to 14% in 2018).

A similar US data retention program has also been found to have produced new leads in only two cases.