Plan to retain all EU search data is unlawful and absurd

04/06/2010

Privacy International is deeply concerned about Written Declaration 29, which positions the setting up of a European Early Warning Service for paedophiles and sex offenders by requiring retention and analysis of web searches throughout the EU. While we support initiatives that are carefully and sensitively designed on the basis of a lawful and rational foundation, this proposal appears to us to be both illegal and counterproductive.

This proposal raises a number of troubling issues. First, extending data retention to searches would violate EU data retention regulations which make it very clear that only traffic data and timestamps - as opposed to content of communications - should be retained. The reason for this safeguard was to protect the privacy of communications - a fundamental right afforded to all EU citizens under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any proposal to retain data on the content of the communications with search engines dangerously extends existing regulations to the point where they would contravene law.

Once authorities are able to store and analyse the search records of all EU citizens, a window into the souls and minds of millions of people will have been opened. And on the basis of recent history it would be reasonable to assume that exploitation of this rich reserve of personal information would eventually extend well beyond its original purpose.

We find it difficult to comprehend the foundations of the argument for this initiative. The idea that monitoring the search queries of all EU citizens on the Internet will somehow yield extensive data for the enforcement of child protection laws is contentious and sweeping, yet the sponsors have failed entirely to present the relevant research which led to this proposal. Whereas it is conceivable that there may be a marginal increase in useful intelligence related to child sex offenders, we feel we should point out that even if this does happen, the consequences will far outweigh the gains.

For example, the proposal is far more likely to yield an exponential rise in false positives, where search terms subjected to a lexical/semantic analysis are flagged out of context due to researchers, academics and even law enforcement using terms which can be misinterpreted. The vast number of false positives will create an overwhelming burdon on law enforcement.

Furthermore, the proposal appears to be based on the premise that paedophiles regularly use public search engines such as Google to search for indecent pictures of children. However some research indicates that the majority of paedophiles are careful about where they seek information on how to obtain such material. The trafficking of indecent pictures of children often takes place as an "underground" activity on Darknets (private networks which exist outside of the traditional Internet, which are encrypted) and private chatrooms.

It is not acceptable or appropriate to dissolve the fundamental right to privacy on the basis of an utterly incoherent argument that it will protect our children - when clearly it will ultimately fail to meet such a mandate. Our representatives should focus on solutions that are credible and viable rather than supporting ideas that we might have expected from North Korea.