UK Politician Shrugs Off Data Retention Costs
from the define-expensive dept
Last month when the EU decided to move forward with data retention laws, despite the fact that they tend to make it more difficult to find the important stuff, many people noticed that the plans didn't address the issue of exactly how ISPs were going to pay for all of this -- and whether they could expect any help from the government that was suddenly forcing this massively expensive task on them. Today, Home Secretary Charles Clarke in the UK basically said that he recognizes it's expensive for ISPs, but too bad. He suggests that the government is willing to "work" with ISPs, but basically just says that data retention has to happen one way or the other, and the payment issue is a minor one. That's a pretty interesting statement, considering that the costs are likely to shrink competition (ISPs will go out of business or consolidate) while slowing innovation. All this to make important data harder to find? Sounds like a great proposal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
It's sad that it's now required in europe. This just makes the bigger, wealthier ISPs more powerful, so they can stamp on their customers even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
This line pisses me off more than anything.. They completely disregard the added complexity and cost required for ISPs to archive this data and now make this implication that the ISPs should also be throwing more resources into keeping accessible in the future.
The ISPs should just dump all relevant logs onto DVDs and throw them in a pile. Maybe to be generous they can scribble the date on each one. Let the feds sort it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it the ISP's job?
ISP's shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of an unfunded mandate, especially if there's no proof that it will make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it the ISP's job?
And what would be the situation of someone who used an EU ISP from anothe, non-EU country, which is quite probably possible, at least on dial up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Why two years? Why not five? Ten? Forever? Did some genius politico pull this out of their azz?
> ISP's concerns that their economic competitiveness would be affected by having to store data
Technically, not so much. If everyone is burdened with the same costs, it's a*2 = b*2 = c*2
> We combat this by collecting intelligence.
Anyone know how the US's National Security Agency (the famous NSA/No Such Agency) stores all their shizzle in Fort Meade, Maryland?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More...
>businesses that don't already retain data won't have to in the future
Would corporations that do serve up mail internally for their employees also need to store this data? How would the law apply if the company is based outside the UK, but the mail servers are physically in the UK? What if the servers are in the US, but the employees are in the UK? Sounds to me like this would make doing business in the United Kingdom (and the other countries that have this dumbass unfunded mandate in place) expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any Govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]