Hmmm… not really missing the point regardless of wheter its legal, illegal, there is simply NO WAY to catch someone who circumvents the technology by not allowing their NAME to be associated with the DEVICE!… If I were planning a terrorist attack I certainly would not be likely to use my own mobile phone to plan it… Its like the ID cards…what sort of terrorist carries an ID card with them?

The only thing the authorities will have is a long list of legitimate phone calls from the average joe on the street. And a host of phone calls which look dodgy but there is no way to trace the caller, surfer, etc.

What possible good is that to anyone?? true my phone can be tracked to where i was at 4pm on 15th may 2005…but thats not much good if I were a criminal and tossed my pre paid phone into the liffey after a bank job now is it?

This stinks of the excuse that ’speed bumps’ everywhere will sort out joyriders… when in fact speed bumps are a magnet to those who don’t actually own the car they are driving.

Eqaully so watching everyone will only identify everyone identifyable… those who choose not to be identified will simply steal a phone, register using false ID, use once and throw away….whatever.. in the meantime the rest of us are being watched as if we are all criminals…the excuse ‘if your innocent you have nothing to worry about’ does not wash here… maybe we should get everyone in the country and tie their arms and feet together and throw them in dublin bay… if they sink they are innocent and we absolve them…if they float they are guilty and we burn them at the stake!

UK implements the Data Retention Directive
============================================================

The UK Home Office is presently implementing the Data Retention Directive
that will oblige telephony and internet service providers to keep data for
12 months. The decision was taken without any debate by simple “affirmative”
votes in the parliament and the Directive is to be implemented by 15
September 2007 for fixed and mobile telephones and 18 months later for
internet services (including VOIP telephony).

The Home Office intents to implement the Directive by a Regulation that will
replace the current “voluntary” Code and does not seem to have taken into
consideration any risk related to the privacy of personal data.

Moreover, the government says that the EC Directive covering serious crime
can be used for any crime and that there is no need for public or
parliamentary discussion on privacy, civil liberties or human rights issues
as these have already been discussed at the EU level.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:
“The collection and retention of everyone’s communications data is a
momentous decision, one that should not be slipped through parliament
without anyone noticing as the government plans to do.
The government’s proposal changes a voluntary agreement into a binding law,
on these grounds alone there should be primary legislation.
Moreover, the EC Directive limits the purpose for which data can be retained
to “serious crime” but the government intends to extend the scope to all
crime however minor.”

Having in view the character of the data retained, consumers and telecoms
companies need safeguards concerning the use of these data. Under the EC
Directive, all countries are required to adopt measures that ensure the data
can only be used by competent national authorities. Yet, UK’s draft
regulation and consultation process makes no reference on this. Also there
is nothing in the Regulation covering sanctions and remedies for
unauthorised use of the data as stipulated in the EC Directive.

Further more, the data can also be obtained in the absence of existing court
proceedings and can be available to anyone who can convince the Courts that
they have a right to access them.

Keeping personal data should help law enforcement authorities in their fight
against crime and for national security purposes. On the other hand, telecom
companies must protect their customers’ privacy and, according to the draft
regulations, they will not be able to protect these data by destroying it.

The only positive element for them is that, at least, the government
proposes to compensate them for compliance costs and litigants are obliged
to pay for disclosure of documents which they request from third parties.

Mandatory data retention in the UK – Statewatch analysis (05.2007)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/may/uk-data-ret.pdf

Data retention: a balancing act for telcos (10.05.2007)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1774049.ece

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.10/dataretentionde

Given this the ONLY people left are the innocent. For this reason it must be accepted that the new act is not used to find criminals but rather to spy on the rest of us.

Might I suggest that we have a national OVERLOAD day when we all phone a friend and begin talking about crimes we have NO INTENTION of becoming involved in (remeber to mention this in the call somewhere). That should screw them up nicely!

If a thousand concerned individuals made 20 calls on this day we would simply overload anyone listening in and give them many years of sifting heaps of junk.