"The Court considered that such [an indiscriminate data] retention did not remain within the bounds of what was necessary in a democratic society. Consequently, the retention of, access to and processing of the data in the
context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had breached his #privacy rights."
The Danish government is expanding its "targeted" #dataretention scheme [1]. Currently, it covers 67% of the population (based on residence in the targeted geographical areas). With the new additional targeting criteria, the coverage will be 74% of the population (according to this answer to a parliamentary question https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/almdel/reu/spm/590/svar/2022917/2825586/index.htm).
#EU#France#HADOPI#Copyright#Filesharing#Privacy#DataProtection#DataRetention: "This post will argue that the HADOPI system is contrary to the Court’s extensive data retention case law on two counts. First, the HADOPI system operates by relying on automated access to traffic data, which under the Court’s current case law (discussed further below) can only be retained for the purpose of combatting serious crime. Even the AG agrees that copyright infringements clearly cannot be classified as a serious crime (para. 38 of the Opinion). Secondly, the massive access to this traffic data takes place without prior authorisation from a national court or an independent administrative authority.
In his two Opinions, AG Szpunar presents a very different analysis of the case. He concludes that the HADOPI is compatible with EU law. In doing so, he proposes a revision – in his words, a “development” (para. 30 of the second Opinion) – of the Court’s case law on data retention in the online sphere, which will have wide-ranging consequences for the privacy and data protection of everyone using the internet."
🇬🇧 I received fully ■■■■■■ redacted participant lists of the EU’s #GoingDark anti-encryption group that is also forging plans for resurrecting #DataRetention.