Hey, fun galore in the European Parliament yesterday as that previously reported Data Retention Directive was passed, albeit not as conclusively as some had expected (387 votes in favour and 204 against). This Directive began life as one of those anti-terrorism measures - forcing ISPs and mobile companies to store exchanges between their customers and, when necessary, to share that data with any European authority investigating suspected terror groups. However, the legislation has grown in remit somewhat, not least because of the lobbying of the major content owners, meaning authorities investigating suspected online copyright violation might also get access to all this data the tel co companies are being forced to gather.
Needless to say, the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry welcomed the fact that the European Parliament had passed the new directive in its wider form. The trade body's Regional Director Frances Moore told reporters: "The recording industry has a legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property and in the ability of law enforcement agencies to make use of data to pursue online copyright infringements. The proposal on data retention risked hampering our internet piracy activities in the Member States, so we were obliged to intervene in the debate. Our concerns have been allayed by today's vote in the European Parliament."
But debate on this one may not be closed. Ireland, one of three countries who opposed the new legislation, are now saying that the European Parliament doesn't have the power to pass such a wide reaching directive into law. Rather these proposals should have been brought into law via the so called 'third pillar' system, which would have required the approval of every member state, rather than a parliamentary majority. Approval which, of course, would not have been forthcoming, from Ireland at least. The Irish are considering taking the matter to the European Courts Of Justice.
And then there is that issue we mentioned here just yesterday. There are those that argue the new Directive actually violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that data should not be retained for "more than necessary". Some say the European Court of Human Rights should be consulted, but that may prove a complicated process, because the European Union itself isn't a signatory of the Convention, meaning an individual of one of the EU's member states will have to pursue the matter once they have introduced it into their own legal system. If the EU's courts were to back the Directive, but the Human Rights courts rule it is in violation of the convention, then an interesting issue will be raised - which court's decision should prevail. I say interesting, possibly more interesting to constitutional lawyers that music journalists, but given how popular the CMU Daily is among the European legal profession, we'll keep our eyes on this one as it develops.