UK Tells ISPs They Must Retain Data... Except If It Costs Money

from the mixed-messages dept

Tue, Oct 14th 2008 9:21pm — Mike Masnick

For years, Europe has been trying to push data retention rules, that require ISPs to hang onto data much longer than it's needed for any business purpose. Such data retention has plenty of problems, from the likelihood of abuse to the chance of inadvertent disclosure to the simple fact that sifting through more data often makes it more difficult to find the data you actually need. However, the biggest problem is the cost involved with data retention. It's rather costly to retain all that data for many ISPs, and for years ISPs (especially smaller ones) fought to make sure that any data retention laws also included provisions that would make the government pay for retaining the data. While some politicians in the UK have tried to shrug off the cost issue as not a big deal, it looks like it may leave a loophole that makes data retention in the UK basically meaningless.

The Register is reporting on a meeting the UK government held with various ISPs that left many of the ISPs baffled. Basically, they were told that they needed to start retaining data to stay in compliance with the law, but that since the UK government couldn't pay for it, many of the ISPs could get away without actually retaining the data. In other words, it sounded as if they said that, yes, you need to retain the data, but since we don't want to pay for it, maybe you shouldn't actually retain the data (wink, wink, nod, nod). So they end up giving lip service to the public about telling ISPs to retain data, but then since they won't fund it, it won't actually happen.

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

Filed Under: data retention, isps, money, uk

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jake, 14 Oct 2008 @ 11:09pm

A better metaphor for the tone of politics in this country since about 1979 is hard to imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2008 @ 11:11pm

im just wondering how many ppl it took to come up with this plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liquid, 15 Oct 2008 @ 4:35am

Another retarded Government Moment! ! !
Got to love the loopholes that governments put in place to get them selves out of doing something. Especially in this case Britsh Gov. "You (ISP's) now have to retain all data for your network past 7 years, BUT if it costs you money to do so then you don't have to"... This sees real inteligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:23am
  
  Re: Another retarded Government Moment! ! !
  "You (ISP's) now have to retain all data for your network past 7 years, BUT if it costs you money to do so then you don't have to"
  
  I think it's more a case of "...BUT if it costs US money to do so..."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 15 Oct 2008 @ 5:11am

Good, I don't think ISPs need to keep data for government purposes anyway. It is not the job of the business world to act as police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoeppner, 15 Oct 2008 @ 5:18am

what'cha mean they're already starting to retain it so they can sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 6:31am

Wasn't these one of those governments that were angry about Google retaining data on people because of privacy issues? Is it because a filthy fat American company was retaining the data and not a jam and scone eating cultured man retaining the data? I just don't understand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RabC, 15 Oct 2008 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  It IS because its a filthy freedom-fry eating Co rather than a Chip-eating co-operative of ethical and green members. Its also that when something happens they can turn round to the public and say "well, we told them to keep the data!". No blame on them. And its DA-TAH retention, not dayta retention, you unspeakable wretch..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ppitstop, 15 Oct 2008 @ 6:39am

It makes you want to cry or scream
I know I do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Lithgow, 15 Oct 2008 @ 6:41am

Control
This current administration just wants to control everything whilst paying for and taking responsibility for absolutely nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:24am
  
  Re: Control
  Er... Isn't that pretty much the definition of "Politics"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen, 15 Oct 2008 @ 9:02am

one word
ENCRYPTION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph Young, 16 Oct 2008 @ 9:39am

The Communications Data Bill and the Interception Modernisation Programme
This makes perfect sense in the broader context. Directive 2006/24/EC, the data retention directive, is a result of proposals the UK government put forward to the European Union. The idea was to incorporate the resulting directive into wider-ranging UK legislation and then blame the whole lot on the nasty Europeans. Unfortunately, the timing did not go to plan. The Communications Data Bill is late and the resultant act will not be on the statue book before the deadline for implementing the data retention directive. To meet that deadline, the Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2008 will be a near verbatim transcription of Directive 2006/24/EC into UK law. Associated with the Communications Data Bill we have the Interception Modernisation Programme. This is fast being decoupled from the bill to prevent it being scrutinised by parliament.

Firstly, the government have a voluntary agreement with UK ISPs. Some information the ISPs already collect, such as web browsing, is not required by the data retention directive, although information is not usually retained for the minimum six months set by the directive. So, pressurising the ISPs at this stage would gain little and risk their goodwill.

Secondly, at some point in the future, the government will be expecting ISPs to put systems into their networks to meet the requirements of the Communications Data Bill and the Interception Modernisation Programme. A system that can centrally log the existence of every communication any person within the UK makes is far beyond what is required for the data retention directive. Any money spent on meeting that directive will almost certainly be completely wasted. Attempting to capture all web browsing, all email including private messaging on web fora, all instant messaging, all on-line gaming including private servers, all the various protocols for transmitting voice and video, in fact any way two people can communicate over the Internet will require the most sophisticated deep packet inspection of every packet originating or terminating within the UK. Then, when the communication of specific people has been identified, the system will hoover up all future content of those communications. Not only is this far beyond the data retention directive, I believe that it is far beyond what even a country like China could or would even want to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]