Responding
to The Draft Communication’s Bill 6.8.2012.
This contribution is
forwarded by Mrs A P.
Address and phone number removed 18.4.2013.
I do not and never have, belonged to any Political Party or
Organisation.
General: 1)
Has the Home Office made it clear what it hopes to achieve through the draft
Bill? I understand that the Home Office has to
implement EU Legislation and that it has to monitor all its own British
Citizens and then to forward the information it has gathered, to the European
Union.
2) Has
the Government made a convincing case for the need for the new powers proposed
in the draft Bill? There is no way
any BRITISH Government can make a “Convincing Case” for the need of these EU
“NEW POWERS” for the proposed Draft Bill.
For the people that were not around in the last war, legislation such as
this was not even thought about. Letters were opened and certain words blocked
out-but that was in war time and many might have been killed by a
thoughtless remark in print. Although this legislation is being brought about
allegedly because of ‘Terrorism’ and ‘Terrorists’, and sadly, the USA and the
UK are well aware that thousands of people can be killed through such
despicable terrorists acts. But many
millions were killed in the last World War to prevent such as this kind of
legislation being thought of and brought about by foreigners. That war was
won to prevent this kind of legislation and to bring FREEDOM for ALL. There
will always be terrorism in this world of “today”, with or
without this legislation, yet if our Government allows this Bill to go through,
the terrorists will have won. Nothing will be gained by
this proposed Legislation except to alienate the people even further away from
this present Coalition Government as well as the European Union. Exactly WHO will be the next EU Leader and what will that leader require? I never would have thought the EU would have
brought this legislation out, and never the slightest thought that a British
Government would even think of passing it.
3) How do the proposals in the draft
Bill fit within the wider landscape on intrusion into individuals’ privacy? This Bill can never “fit in” and, with the
greatest respect to you all, I doubt any one of you will ever be forgiven for
the despicable intrusion into the people’s individual privacy. They will have no privacy if this Bill goes
through, and never will anyone that went through the last war. People and
friends were being bombed to bits, with houses gone and people cowering in Bomb
Shelters. Men folk were away at war giving their lives for your FREEDOM
today; between you, you are all letting this sacrifice slip and it appears all
you can do is obey the directives (orders) of foreigners, for that is what this
legislation is all about. Yet we vote and contribute to your pay for Governing
this Country according to its very long standing Common Law Constitution.
4)
What lessons can be learnt from the approach of other countries to the
collection of communications data? They may learn, all too late that this EU
Directive should have been torn up.
5).
Are there any alternative proposals with regard to the technique and cost of
obtaining communications data that the Government could consider? What
this piece of EU Legislation costs this Country if this is accepted will be
beyond price.
6).
The draft Bill sits alongside the Data Retention Regulations. How will these
two pieces of legislation interrelate? Would it be preferable to have one
overarching piece of legislation that governs the retention of communications
data? It is already just
one EU Directive, the intrusive Directive
2006/24/EC,
No
matter how this once sovereign National Government try’s to dress it up.
7).
If it is concluded that the provisions of the draft Bill are essential, are
there any other measures that could be scrapped as a quid pro quo to rebalance
civil liberties? Can you
really rebalance Civil Liberties? To
make them what they once used to be?
8).
Will the proposals in the draft Bill pose a risk that communications service
providers see the UK as a less attractive base? What might be the effect on
business? As most EU Countries the UK deals with
will have exactly the same legislation, they will be in exactly the same
position. On the other hand, if this
Country liberates itself from foreign rule, perhaps a great deal of business
will come our way. All will know we are
FREE for our people will throw off their sense of defeat and depression and
bells will ring out across the land. It
has happened before for it is the golden thread of British history.
Costs: 9) Is the estimated cost of £1.8bn over 10
years realistic? That £1.8bn is nothing compared to the loss of freedom the
people will feel if this legislation goes ahead. All through a British Government wanting to
snoop and snitch on a once FREE people
and then sending the information gathered to strangers on the Continent. A people that fought and yes many gave their
lives so that there would always be a freely elected British Government in that
wonderful House of Commons that would always be guided by its own long standing
Common Law Constitution. Yet in a note
to Germany re this Data Retention, which had taken a critical stance against
this Bill and wanted an “opt out” from it, was told in writing, “In this
context, it must be recalled that Union Law prevails over national law, including
national constitutional law”. Yet I remember
one Prime Minister of GREAT BRITAIN stating quite clearly “There is no question
of eroding any national sovereignty” in
joining the European Community. Yet we have permanent laws on treason
protecting our Constitution, so how can that statement be right? How can EU Law
over-ride our “National Constitution” that has lasted hundreds of years and has
been saved by fighting and winning two World Wars? It is undoubtedly high time for this Country to remove
itself from the federalist European Union with haste. There has been a growing stench of betrayal in the air
for a long while now and people know it.
10). The Home Office suggests the
benefits that could be delivered by the enactment of the draft Bill could
be worth between £5-£6bn. Is this figure realistic? Benefits? Absolute nonsense.
Scope: 11. Are
the definitions of communications data and communications service provider
appropriate? Do they sensibly define the scope of the powers in the draft Bill?
This Bill should be scrapped and deep down, I believe with all my heart, you
all know it too.
12.
Which public authorities should be able to access communications data under the
draft Bill? Should it be possible for the Secretary of State to vary this list
by Order? No one
should. This is one piece of EU
legislation that should be consigned to the bin-permanently.
13.
How robust are the plans to place requirements on communications service
providers based overseas? How realistic is it that overseas providers could be
pursued for breach of duty? I
hope there are no such plans. Is the latter worth trying?
14.
Use of Communications Data: 14. Are the
circumstances under which communications data can be accessed appropriate and
proportional? What kind of crimes should communications data be used to detect?
(a) There are no circumstances at all. (b) If this EU Directive is put into action,
which countries will not access any or all communications in the UK?
15.
Is the proposed 12-month period for the retention of data too long or too
short? The whole EU
Proposals for this legislation should be scrapped. I would like to believe that
most of those that have been freely elected, know that too.
Safeguards: 16.
(a) Applications for accessing communications data will be subject to a series
of safeguards including approval by a designated senior officer within the
public authority making the request. a) No one can guarantee any
kind of “safeguard” when any information gathered is to go to the European
Union. The information will also be
shared with the USA. (b) How should "designated senior officer" be
defined? (b) There will be no need of such an ‘Officer’ if commonsense
reigns. (c) Is this system satisfactory? (c) Obviously the answer
is “NO”. (d) Are there concerns about compliance with Article 8 ECHR?
(d) 1. “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence”. (d) 2.
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise
of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or
the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others”. You
can remake the law to fit part two but it will not and never be a democratic
society again. The last war was fought
for FREEDOM and it is that you will all lose forever. Even now you are obeying
foreign laws rather than looking to your own Common law Constitution and all
that my generation fought and gave their lives for.
17.
Would a warrant system be more appropriate? If you favour a warrant system
should this apply to all public authorities including law enforcement agencies?
Should a warrant be necessary in all circumstances? And what would the resource
implications be? In view of my previous answers, there is no need for an
answer to this.
18.
Is the role of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the
Information Commissioner sensible? This
EU Proposal should be rejected.
Parliamentary
Oversight:
19. Are the arrangements for parliamentary oversight of the
powers within the draft Bill satisfactory? The Draft Bill should be rejected.
Enforcement: 20. Are the penalties
appropriate for those communications service providers who fail to comply with
the requirements of the draft Bill? If the Government decides to implement this
Bill, it will be the greatest mistake any British Government has made thus
far. It should be remembered that the
people contribute to what this Government does. Why should they contribute to any EU Fine when all the people can
do is obey their own Common law Constitution for they had no hand in allowing
foreigners to make the laws even their own Governments have to obey.
21. Are the penalties appropriate for
those public authorities that inappropriately request access to communications
data? Should failure to adhere to the Code of Practice which is provided for in
the draft Bill amount to an offence? Answer as at 20.
Technical:
22. Does the
technology exist to enable communications service providers to capture
communications data reliably, store it safely and separate it from
communications content? None
of the Communications are meant to be ‘stored safely’, they are meant to be
shared with others that this Government cannot possibly ‘vouch’ for. The
EU and the USA and possible others.
23.
How safely can communications data be stored? As above, they cannot. How can e-mails
captured not be read? It was in fact
Edward Heath who made it very clear that in joining the then EEC, that “there
would be no loss of essential Sovereignty” and people voted to remain
in the EEC in 1975 because they believed what he said. He lied and admitted
that lie on Television. Admission of that lie did not put the matter
right. The people have never been asked
since that date whether they want to remain in the EU, yet this Government is
asking the people now (that know about this (EU) legislation), if we should
allow this Draft Communication’s Bill, known by such as myself as, “The
Snoopers Bill” if they want to be spied on for the rest of their lives,
which is exactly what this Bill will allow. The vast majority of people’s
freedoms and privacy will be gone forever including your own.
24.
Are the proposals for the filtering arrangements clear, appropriate and
technically feasible?
No. A wise Government would reject this EU Directive.
25.
How easy will it be for individuals or organisations to circumvent the measures
in the draft Bill? It
may not come to this at this time, because people in other countries-(namely
Germany) are aware of this proposal- do not like it either, but, as we have
found out to our cost before, what the EU decides it wants, it will have, one
way or another. It really is time to put this Country out of its reach.
26.
Are there concerns about the consequences of decryption? I doubt anyone could prevent Governments
from tracking e-mails – but there are ways of course where nothing is kept on
or in the Computer. The Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution protects some people under criminal investigation from having to reveal
passwords provided access to the encrypted content of storage devices. Perhaps we should have some
kind of that protection here.
Further to the attachment 26.6.2012.
Regarding.
The Draft Communications Bill. Cm 3859 June 2012.
As this legislation affects everyone here in the United Kingdom, this is an “Open Letter”.
I find it very difficult to believe or understand that any freely elected Member of the British Parliament and/or Members of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain would ever entertain the idea of the kind of Surveillance that is suggested, to cover the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as proposed in the above Bill.
I come from an era that went through a full-scale war for FREEDOM to govern this Country itself. No one minded letters opened etc in those days, certain words might have been blacked out or paragraphs cut out, and we were glad such security was activated-for we were at war. BUT WE ARE NOT AT WAR NOW ARE WE? Red skies over Manchester that could be seen for miles around Mrs May, at what should have been the darkest of evenings in Manchester, December 22nd and 23rd 1940. A time when landmines, high-explosive bombs and incendiaries rained death and devastation on Manchester, Salford and Stretford. Hundreds of people died and many were injured during those two-nights of intense bombing. By Christmas Eve, 31 acres of buildings within a mile of Albert Square, lay in ruins. And NOW, the EU comes up with THIS!
The people in those days did not go through that war, the hardship, the terrible loss of loved one serving in the forces and the loss of those at home too, just to become victims, to be watched and listened to by foreigners in whatever they do or watched where ever they go. We went through that WAR for “freedom” as those that went through the first terrible World War for exactly the same reason. For freedom for our own Countrymen and women to govern this Country according to its long Standing Common Law Constitution. A constitution that has been envied throughout this World, and copied by some, but ignored by those in Parliament ‘today’.
Had we not have gone to war THEN, many of you might not have been born for Hitler would have ruled this Nation, and who knows when another “Hitler” might be leader and we, because of Treaties ratified could not change that leader? What then?
Terrorists can and do kill many innocent people, as both the United Kingdom and the USA know from bitter experience through terrible fanatical terrorists deeds. This legislation without doubt, and no matter what precautions are put in place, will NOT prevent terrorists from attacking again, for this is the world we live in ‘today’.
The numbers killed in terrorist attacks, tragic and terrible as they are, come no where near all those that gave their lives either fighting or innocent people killed in the bombing of the United Kingdom in that war- all for our freedom we have today. The terrorist WINS if you allow this legislation go through. This legislation removes all the “RIGHTS” of innocent people. Rights, that other innocent people have fought and given their lives for. We, the people of this Country, surely cannot allow any of them to have died in vain. It is a time to shake ourselves free from the European Union. The EU is all about control, and control of every aspect of our lives and forever if they are given the chance. How much better to work with others but never to be governed by them.
How did we get to this stage though? Firstly, we noted Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Next we note DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications, etc) and then to the intrusive Directive 2006/24/EC, (I quote, “a regulation replacing Directive 95/46/EC”) which most of this article below this letter is about.
However that then leads to COM/2012/09 where the EU as a whole is to take over in place of NATIONAL protections of their citizen’s privacy, under “COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Safeguarding Privacy in a Connected World A European Data Protection Framework for the 21st Century”.
We find that our own Government can be FINED heavily if they do not apply this legislation. Would our own Politicians that the people contribute to their pay and have freely elected, REALLY choose to have this surveillance put upon their own people, rather than pay a fine? Already it has been written in Newspapers that Britain has more CCTV cameras than any country in the World. Will the day ever come that CCTV cameras are installed in private homes? Why not indeed! I read that it will cost FROM about 2 £billion to apply this proposed Bill so why not just refuse this Bill completely and pay the fine rather than put this upon your own kin-folk?
Yet how or why can a Sovereign British Government allow a foreign organisation dictate to what is supposed to be a freely elected Government by the people in this once Sovereign Country-a Country THAT SO MANY CIVILIANS AND FORCES GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR IN TWO WORLD WARS? Was it all for this full scale snooping into private innocent people’s lives every day, every Year and for this information to go to foreigners on the Continent? WHY? It does not make any sense at all. That all the people in the United Kingdom must suffer surveillance on emails, phone calls or what ever, under commands from the European Union? What is the point in paying our taxes, or electing any British MP’s or filling both Houses of Parliament if none can actually Govern this Country according to its long standing Common Law Constitution? The people are being bled dry so that their Government can pay £billions to the EU in Contributions.
Others fought for the very freedom nearly all of you in that House of Commons are choosing to throw away “today”, and as I am sure you are also aware that this surveillance would be forever-permanently-or until there is another and perhaps final way, of course, preferable,one which is to withdraw from the European Union altogether. Are any of you prepared to fight to stop this legislation? To fight for this Country's freedom once more and for the people of this Country to only elect and pay a British Government that can actually govern this Country? We, the people certainly cannot under our own Constitution, contribute in any way, even financially, to foreigners to make laws that even our own Government has to obey. Two laws on Treason remain to prevent such, not to mention, yet always to remember, that our faithful and true solemn Oaths of Allegiance are to the British Crown, praise be, and not any allegiance directly to any Member of any Government, British or otherwise, no matter what kind of Treaties are ratified without our permission. Violation of that Oath is indeed the greatest betrayal of all.
I pray the day will come once again when we can look up to and respect a British Government and be governed by our own British Common Law Constitution. Had it not been for one magnificent British Prime Minister that led us through that last World War, many of you in that magnificent building may not have been born “today”. I hope I live long enough to see it back once more in “safe hands”. Yet I grieve, for all I see at present, are those that believe the words of fickle foreigners.
It is with the greatest respect to you as holder of this once proud nation and as Home Secretary of it, I enclose a few of my notes regarding certain comments on a few Cases to the European Court of Human Rights on this very matter of Surveillance of a whole once free Nation State.
Yours faithfully,
A P.....JP retired.
To the Home Secretary, the Right Honourable, Mrs May re The Draft Communications Bill. Cm 3859 June 2012.
In March 2006 the European Parliament and Council adopted the EU Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC)1 which provided for a mandatory framework for the retention of certain communications data. This was transposed into UK law in two stages. The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/2199) implemented the Directive in respect of mobile and fixed line telephony. The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations
2009 (S.I. 2009/859), which revoked and replaced the 2007 Regulations, implemented the Directive with respect to the retention of communications data relating to Internet access, Internet telephony and Internet e-mail as well as mobile and fixed line telephony.
FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF THE BILL
151. The programme to ensure the availability of communications data by
Telecommunications operators and for the obtaining of such data by law enforcement agencies and relevant public authorities, enabled by Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, is estimated to lead to an increase in public expenditure of up to £1.8 billion over 10 years from 2011/12.Benefits from this investment are estimated to be £5 – 6.2 billion over the same period. (How do they make that out? Can we really afford this? Are yes, we reduce our forces, their equipment, and most of all the ships and Aircraft Carriers so much needed as an Island Nation.)
I note that, The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) The main article, Article 8 – privacy of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his homeand his correspondence” subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. This may be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises positive obligations: whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced father to his child).
9. Communications data is information about a communication; it can include the details of the time, duration, originator and recipient of a communication; but not the content of the communication itself. Communications data is used by the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies during investigations regarding national security, organized, serious and volume crime. It enables investigators to identify members of a criminal network, place them in specific locations at given times and in certain cases to understand the criminality in which they are engaged. Communications data can be vital in a wide range of threat to life investigations, including the investigation of missing persons. Communications data can be used as evidence in court.
Page 96 Proposed UK Draft Bill, RE Malone Case mentioned page 96 Title “Generally”. Article 8 paragraph (1).The case of Malone v UK(1984) 7 EHRR 14 (paragraphs 83 to 88) 8. It is well established that mail, telephone and email communications are covered by the notion of private life and correspondence in Article 8(1). The case of Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14 (paragraphs 83 to 88) provides some limited guidance on the application of Article 8 to State activities concerning communications data:
“…. a meter check printer registers information that a supplier of a telephone service may in principle legitimately obtain, notably in order to ensure that the subscriber is correctly charged or to investigate complaints or possible abuses of the service. By its very nature, metering is therefore to be distinguished from interception of
communications, which is undesirable and illegitimate in a democratic society unless justified. The Court does not accept, however, that the use of data obtained from metering, whatever the circumstances and purposes, cannot give rise to an issue under Article 8. The records of metering contain information, in particular the numbers dialed, which is an integral element in the communications made by telephone. Consequently, release of that information to the police without the consent of the subscriber also amounts, in the opinion of the Court, to an interference with a right guaranteed by Article 8.”
9. The primary function of Article 8 is to impose negative obligations on States: States cannot interfere with Article 8(1) rights save where such interferences can be justified under Article 8(2). There can be no violation of this negative obligation by the actions of private persons. The negative obligation does not therefore need to be considered unless the person whose actions are being considered is a public authority within the meaning of section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”).
10. However, Article 8 may also impose certain positive obligations on States to adopt measures designed to secure respect for private life even as between private persons. It follows that there may be a breach of such positive obligations if the State requires private persons to interfere excessively with the privacy of others, or in the absence of adequate safeguards.
At point 21 The interferences with these rights will also be proportionate for the reasons set out below, including the extensive range of safeguards and
restrictions against abuse:
The European Court of Human Rights has accepted that States should be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in this area (seeWeber and Saravia v. Germany (2008) 46 EHRR SE5, at paragraph 106), and it is clear from Malone that the Court considers the acquisition of communications data to be a less serious infringement of privacy rights than the interception of Communications
(ii) It is essential that the UK is able to obtain communications data in the interests of national security and the prevention and detection of crime; WHY? To send to complete foreigners in the European Union?
(iii) The reduction in the availability of communications data will have extremely serious consequences for the UK. The provisions in the Bill are an essential component of the long-term strategy necessary to mitigate the reduction in capabilities caused by the decline in the availability of communications data, and to ensure that public authorities continue to have sufficient access to communications data to perform their duties and to support intelligence agency and law enforcement activities.
Here below is part of the Judgment in the Malone Case, and there is no point in having a Court on Human Rights if the Judges do not uphold them at all times.
Press release issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human RightsJUDGMENT IN THE MALONE CASE
On 2 August 1984 at Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in the Malone case, which concerns the laws and practices in England and Wales allowing interception of communications and “metering" of telephones by or on behalf of the police.The Court unanimously held that there had been violation of Mr. James Malone's right to respect for his private life and his correspondence, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights1. The Court further considered, by sixteen votes to two, that it was unnecessary in the circumstances to examine Mr. Malone's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy before a national authority). I have read of course the whole transcript of the case and not just what is written here.
http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1984/10.html, The above paragraph from here The whole case accessible also from here http://sixthformlaw.info/06_misc/cases/malone_v_uk.htm
The above case also refers to another case (Klass v Germany) along the same lines which again comes to the same conclusion. Quote. “The Malone judgment complementing as it does the Klass judgment, in that it arrives at a conclusion of violation by finding unsatisfactory a system that is laid down neither by statute nor by any statutory equivalent in Anglo-Saxon law, takes its place in that continuing line of decisions through which the Court acts as guardian of the Convention”.
Klass v. Germany, Klass and others v Federal Republic of Germany, European Court of Human Rights (Series A, NO 28) (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214, 6 September 1978
FACTS: Legislation in Germany permitted the State authorities to open and inspect mail and listen to telephone conversations in order to protect against, inter alia, 'imminent dangers' threatening the 'free democratic constitutional order' and 'the existence or the security' of the State. Certain 'factual indications' had to be present before such surveillance could be undertaken, which required the approval of the supreme Land authority or a designated federal minister, on the application of the head of one of four security agencies. The measures lapsed after three months, but could be renewed. The subject of the surveillance had to be notified after termination if it could be done without jeopardizing the purpose of the surveillance, and a statutory commission supervised this aspect of the system. The surveillance itself was supervised by an official qualified for judicial office. The Minister had to make regular reports on the law's use to an all-party parliamentary committee; and the statutory commission normally had to approve surveillance desired by the Minister.
At point 21 (ii) It is essential that the UK is able to obtain communications data in
the interests of national security and the prevention and detection of crime; End of Quotes. But this isn’t just about NATIONALSECURITY is it, because all this information is not just going to remain with National Governments at all, because all this information is required by the European Union, the private information re telephone calls, e-mails etc are to be forwarded to and for the European Union, under EU Directive 2006/24/EC. This is not just about one or two people’s Telephone calls, or e-mails etc, or even letters, noted who to or from. It is about the Surveillance of a whole NATION. A Nation whose people fought and died for ALL OUR FREEDOM which between you all, in that once greatly envied Houses of Parliament are paying dearly in more ways than one, to give away-forever.Read in full also the proposals in EU Document COM/2012/09 the security of our Country to the EU.
Germany's highest court has ruled that spying on personal computers violates privacy, but governments across Europe are under pressure to allegedly help their security services fight terrorism and organised crime. Sadly, as we know from bitter experience, as does America, terrorists do kill many innocent people but all the surveillance in the World will not prevent that from happening again and again.
All those innocent people that died in the UK in the last World War for our FREEDOM must not allow the Governments of the UK or more importantly, those in the European Union that put forward this most intrusive legislation of all thus far, (Directive 2006/24/EC)to destroy the freedom to govern ourselves that those many hundreds and thousands of people that died fighting, or died through the bombing or never survived the Concentration Camps of the last war, to have died in vain. They sacrificed their lives for our freedom we are supposed to have, “today”, that through accepting and incorporating such as this legislation we are, as a nation, going to lose it forever. If WE do not fight for our freedom “today”, they will have given their lives for nothing and they will have died in vain. Anne Palmer.
21st June 2012 Joint Statement on the negotiation of a EU-U.S. Data Privacy and Protection agreement by European Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/474&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU-U.S. Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial meeting: 20-21 June in Copenhagen http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/459&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr
Who else is this data going to be shared with? EU-US joint commitments on privacy and protection of personal data 28 March, 2012 http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.6/eu-us-privacy-commitments
EU-US PNR Agreement: A bad day for civil liberties in Europe 28 March, 2012
EU-U.S. joint statement on data protection by European Commission Vice-President Viviane Brussels, 19 March 2012 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/192
EU Document COM/2012/09
Draft Communication’s Bill
The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009
Posts
