This law has emphasized that Internet providers retain users’ personal information such as incoming and outgoing phone numbers, IP addresses, geolocation, and other key telecom and Internet traffic data for six months to 2 years. Although, the people who are not accused or suspect of any crime are under the Data Retention law.

However, the communication details such as the duration of conversation and the fact that to whom the person is talking is also a Data Retention Directive to the ISPs supported by the authoritarian governments of the UK and US. Yet, the collected data could also be provided to law enforcement authorities.

Law Implementation to National legislation of Countries

Many countries such as Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Norway, and the United Kingdom have swapped the laws into national legislation. Also, some of the countries outside the European Union, such as Serbia and Iceland, have adopted the data retention Directives.

Whereas, such laws to violate human rights are opposed by constitutional courts of some countries. Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, and Romania are among the nations that are fighting against unfair Directives.

However, in some countries, the law was upheld after being imposed. Those include Romania, where the DRD was announced unconstitutional in 2009, Cyprus has also declared the data retention law unconstitutional in February 2011. The Bulgarian constitutional court had opposed the law, and in March 2010, Germany had also declared retention directives unconstitutional.

This law is facing opposition and resistance from many nations. In March 2011, the DRD was reversed from the Czech Republic constitutional court’s adopted. In Lithuania, the data retention law was declared unconstitutional even before its enforcement. Also, the constitutional court of Hungary is still examining whether to implement Data Retention directives or not. However, some European Union nations have also denied implementing the law.

With the German execution of delayed adoption of DRD directive, Sweden also shows the same behavior. Therefore, the European Commission has handed over the Sweden case to European Court for not implementing the EU data retention law. Also, an NGO, the European Information Society Institute, opposes the Slovakian action of implementing EU legislation.

Masses reaction for the Law

Although the Data Retention directives have been implemented as the national law, the dispute remains. The conflicting directives of DRD face extreme opposition and criticism from the masses. The lawmakers of the European parliament argue this law to be the one violating fundamental human rights and the way towards the creation of surveillance society. The matter of Irish opposition to the law has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), who will also review the legality of the DRD directive.

The European Commission announces influential judgment and probable revision of the DRD directive. However, some of the leaked documents affirm that the Commission has intentions to portray DRD directives as an essential need for the EU. Also, some unnamed parties are trying to expand the DRD uses to incorporate prosecution of copyright infringement.

The Commission published an evaluation report in April 2011, exposing the disparity among how the EU members implement the legislation and the data that authorities could access. Criticizing the report, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has said that the Commission has not demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of the EU Data Retention law. Yet, the legality of the directives would only be approved if they fulfill both the requirements.

The EDSP has argued that data retention could be implemented in a less privacy-intrusive way, but the Commission does not determine that. According to EDSP, the Data Retention Directive gives an ample opportunity to the nations to decide data usage, conditions, and who can access the data.

However, the commission is compelled by the opponent to provide the evidence to demonstrate the fact that if mandatory data retention law is unavailable, the essential traffic data for the investigation of the severe crime wouldn’t be available to law enforcement. They are also demanding the commission to allow citizens to monitor the impacts of DRD directives on their privacy.

Whereas, to stop targeted traffic data collection by DRD, European Digital Rights (EDRI), a Brussels-based NGO with organizations like EFF and AK Vorrat, are fighting against it.

But, these directives are still implemented, and it is not confirmed what changes these oppositions could compel you to incorporate into them to protect your privacy. So, you should be vigilant about securing your privacy and be aware of the Measures To Protect Yourself From Mandatory Data Retention.

The post Metadata Retention Law in European Union appeared first on BeEncrypted.

Violating fundamental human rights, these laws are usually formulated on the basis that allows investigators to receive these records. However, such data retention laws give extended surveillance opportunities to governments.

The data retention laws implemented in countries with strict online privacy rules have overruled the essential requirements for securing personal information. Laws that compel individuals’ privacy usually order organizations not to retain the user’s specific data, such as billing information, for an extended period and should delete the data after a particular time.

What is Mandatory Data Retention

Internet providers give their users a specific I.P. address through which they identify a user. After a particular time, an ISP changes the I.P. of the user. But with the data retention law, an ISP is compelled to retain the information regarding the user’s online activity to a specific time by tracking that I.P. address.

Through this, law enforcement agencies can access an individual by asking ISP about the I.P. address allocated to that user.

For what you should care about

The Data Retention Laws are implemented not based on criminal activity or illegitimate deeds but for all citizens and users. Therefore, it is more annoying and concerning for those with sensitive and highly private data, such as whistle-blowers, investigators, journalists, and those engaging in political speech.

“Journalists often have the information they have to keep secret to protect the personal safety of sources. Lawyers have privileged conversations with their clients every day, and those need to stay confidential for fairness reasons.” Said the EFF Media Relations Director and Digital Rights Analyst, Rebecca Jeschke.

However, the national data retention laws are damaging individual freedom and online privacy and being intrusive and costly. These laws force Internet providers to collect users’ communication data, such as the duration of a conversation and with whom the conversation is being made. For this purpose, your I.P. address must be tracked for every online activity.

Therefore, your data is prone to be leaked or could be stolen once it is in the record. The internet provider is liable to adjust the expense of retaining and collecting the data bypassing this cost to the customers. But, on your own, you should take some security Measures To Protect Yourself From Mandatory Data Retention.

Data Retention Law; Current Status In Different Countries       

How to Protect Yourself from Mandatory Data Retention

Mandatory Data Retention is an issue surfacing all around the world. Most nations observe laws that include Data retention orders for the citizens in one or another. So, if you are concerned about your privacy, follow our guide, ‘How to Protect Yourself From Metadata Retention.’

The post Mandatory data Retention Around The World appeared first on BeEncrypted.

Think about stored confidential data as silos of information and what power it might give you when you have complete control over it. Hackers worldwide are always in search of such a gold mine of stored data either to gain personal benefits or cause harm to their agenda.

Since you have control over your devices, you can always minimize or protect your information by following a few security measures listed in our How to Protect from Metadata Retention guide.

Gain Knowledge of Metadata Retention in Your Country

Like common laws in your country, you should also know the regulations that affect your digital privacy and communication. Keep checking our Metadata Retention list of countries to get updated knowledge on the matter. You can access the website of the governmental institution responsible in your country or consult a lawyer to acquire vast knowledge.

Get a VPN Subscription

Since our lives are so integrated with the online Internet, we cannot consider a life without it. We generate more information online than we can imagine, and for every query we search for, our Internet service provider can tap into it anytime. Metadata Retention laws bind all communication providers to store such information to allow government authorities access in their investigation. Although they require probable cause and a search warrant from the judiciary, every government silently follows the practice of surveillance to avoid such requirements anyway.

To prevent ISPs from tapping into your information, you should opt for a VPN subscription to encrypt your Internet data packets and make them inaccessible even to your Internet service provider. Another function of a VPN is that it cloaks your IP address with its server IP, protecting your identity over the web and preventing IP tracking carried out by numerous websites, including social media networks.

But why does VPN matter? Mainly because VPN encryption renders Metadata Retention useless as eavesdroppers do not store any of your data.

Some of the VPN providers trusted by people online are ExpressVPN, NordVPN, and PureVPN because:

1. They follow a strict NO LOG policy and are not bound to follow metadata retention as they are based outside such jurisdiction.
2. They encrypt your Internet data with 256-bit AES encryption and OpenVPN security protocol.
3. They maintain Net Neutrality by unblocking websites and redirecting traffic through servers spread around the world.
4. Protect your online identity by changing your IP address.
5. Have exclusive features such as Split Tunnel (PureVPN), TOR-over-VPN (NordVPN), and Core VPN service (ExpressVPN).

Moreover, try to avoid free VPN providers as they exchange your information with third party advertisers to earn their revenue.

If Not VPN Gets to Tor

Suppose you are unwilling to entrust your information to a paid VPN service provider. In that case, you can move to a more secure volunteer-based TOR network that works through a Tor browser similar to other browsers in functionality. Once you connect to a Tor network, your web browsing traffic passes through different exit gateways or nodes, making it harder for your Internet service provider or any other eavesdropper to track and access your data.

However, your encrypted Internet data is only limited to the browser level with the Tor browser. The rest of your Internet data is still unencrypted by other system applications requiring Internet connectivity; thus, some data remains stored for Metadata Retention. Additionally, most of the time, the Tor network gets slow as your web browsing data passes through different nodes.

If you want TOR network protection but are unwilling to use the TOR browser, you can use NordVPN, which provides TOR functionality over its TOR-over-VPN servers.

Protect Mobile Calls and SMS

Tapping on your mobile calls and SMS is an old practice of government surveillance. You must have heard an adage of ‘Big Brother Is Watching’ is true when there are intelligence agencies like the NSA and GCHQ. When it comes to Metadata Retention, blame is not limited to the agencies because some of the mobile carriers are not sincere. Unfortunately, you cannot protect your mobile calls and SMS, but you can circumvent such a situation by moving your communication to end-to-end encryption.

Many secure messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, Wickr Me, and Telegram provide the functionality of end-to-end encrypted calls and messages for free. Since none of your communication is being stored, therefore Metadata Retention becomes useless here.

Protect Your Email Communication

Since Metadata Retention includes the summary of your email communication, e.g., sender and recipient email addresses and timestamps, therefore, protecting it should be your utmost priority. If you are flexible, you should move to end-to-end encrypted emails services like Tutanota or Protonmail. Other services like Outlook and Gmail do not provide such encryption out of the box; therefore, you can use third-party extensions like Mailvelope that encrypts your emails with OpenPGP encryption.

Use HTTPs Everywhere

One great thing about Google is that it tells you which website is secure and which is not. HTTPs ensure that data exchange while browsing a website is encrypted. Many websites still use unencrypted HTTP or provide limited support for encryption over HTTPs which make it harder to use.

For example, the website defaults to unencrypted HTTP or redirects its encrypted HTTPs pages to unencrypted ones. The HTTPs Everywhere extension – by EFF & Tor Project itself – fixes these problems by rewriting these requests to HTTPs. However, all the communication before successful HTTPs encrypted communication is monitored by your ISPs with timestamps under metadata retention requirements. So it is necessary to use a VPN along with the HTTPs Everywhere extension.

Prevent Social Media Tracking

Social media profiles tell more about us than ourselves; it is like the silo of information ideal for mandatory Data Retention practice. It can show our psychological behavior, what we are doing, likes and dislikes, shopping patterns, etc. Such information is valuable not only for marketing analytics purposes but also for keeping tabs on people’s activities. Social media websites such as Facebook, Google Plus, and Twitter track you via scripts that you can block using extensions like Privacy Badger or Disconnect that send ‘Do Not Track requests to the websites to prevent social tracking.

Conclusion

Although only a few countries follow mandatory data retention regimes after the extremely invasive Investigatory Powers Act in the UK and Congress’s vote to allow ISPs to sell, metadata has left a precedent for other countries to follow. Where digital privacy is facing threats by such metadata retention laws, the idea of encrypting everything is gaining strong roots online. To protect your digital privacy, you must follow the security measures described above to mitigate the risks of exposing your sensitive information online.

The post How to Protect From MetaData Retention? Qucik and Easy Tips appeared first on BeEncrypted.

Metadata is like a digital footprint of who you called, where you are from, and for how long you call that person, etc. Where messages are retained in full, and the data would be retained that would be available for government officials with a warrant.

Metadata Retention in Germany: Timeline

In 2010, Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled the old 2006 EU’s Data Retention Directive (DRD) and Germany’s Implementation Act (which enacted DRD as national law) as invalid on the grounds of fundamental rights violation.

In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that the data retention of web users “without any distinction, restriction or exception” was indeed against fundamental human rights.

In April 2015, German Justice Minister Heiko Mass drafted a new proposal for a data retention law to assist national security and address the issues in the data retention policy. After all, FCC never ruled data retention as unconstitutional rather;, the Data Implementation Act did not comply with the rights of secrecy of communication and informational self-determination.

The amendments in the new proposal included how long data would be stored, excluding e-mail traffic, and access to such data would require a judicial order. SMS content, timestamp of webpage access, and IP address would be stored for ten weeks, and the phone calls would be stored for four weeks.

In June 2015, the political party SPD (Social Democrats) approved the proposal and the legislation and moved it forward for the parliament discussion.

In October 2015, The Bundestag (lower house) passed the bill with a majority of 404 votes in favor of the data retention law.

In between 2015 and January 2016, The Bundesrat (upper house) passed the bill and moved it forward for the consideration of the President to sign or send it in Germany’s constitutional court for review to check compliance with the fundamental law of Germany.

German Metadata Retention: Opposition

Civil liberties organizations have opposed this similar law arguing that it will undermine people’s privacy and instill a false sense of security. Here’s a closer look at the opposition from the groups:

• Free Democratic Party (FDP) could legally challenge the data retention law before constitutional court judges. They argue that the data retention law would not protect the privacy of citizens with professional secrets, which is a guarantee under EU law.
• European single market regulations might get exploited because of data retention law, as it might provide Germany an unfair advantage over other countries if it forces organizations to use German servers for easy access.
• What will happen if a ‘digital footprint’ raises suspicion is unclear. Would the data be used for digital surveillance or phone wire warrant issue?

How to Protect From German Metadata Retention

You can encrypt your metadata by following security measures to prevent ISPs and Telecommunication providers from tapping on your sensitive information. You can follow our guide on How To Prevent Metadata Retention.

The post Metadata Retention Law in Germany appeared first on BeEncrypted.

The SCA law supports Mandatory Data Retention by directing internet providers to retain a user’s data for about 180 days if the government asks to do so.

The type of internet service a company provides to its customers, the kind of data, the retained communication information, and the time duration for which the data has been kept are the variables that determine the possibility of gaining data access by government officials from internet providers.

SCA also says that the providers could reveal the data to the government at a time of necessity, i.e., if a crisis occurs and a delay in data revelation can cause danger to the life of a pern. However, a court order is required for the forced access to communication d ta. Yet, an administrative writ is necessary for the compelled access to the data such as user/subscriber name, address, telephone number, and phone calls and communications records, which the Court does not issue.

Ordering all Internet Providers to retain records of their users for at least two years, two bills were passed in 2009 by Congress to assist the police in investigating. But none of those bills could become an aw. Therefore, the oppositions and arguments continue from some legislators and law enforcement officials. However, mandatory data retention is still applicable for internet crimes, including online child pornography, which is essential to investigate.

A hearing under the supervision of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in January 2011 discussed the issue of whether Congress should have proposed legislation allowing ISPs to store users’ data. However, in May 2011, the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011” (H.R. 1981) was presented in the House of parliament, which requires the storage of such data.

H.R. 1981 law was implemented on the pretend grounds to stop child pornography. Through this, the ISPs were compelled to spy and retain all the citizens’ data, including the innocent ones, so that it could be used by law enforcement at a particular time.

ISPs are also ordered by H.R. 1981 law to keep ‘a temporary assigned network address to identify a user. Therefore, it refers to the IP addresses and the mobile phone internet services of the subscribers. Yet, this could also include mobile phone identifications such as mobile numbers and three mobile phone identifiers: IMEI, IMSI, TMSI, and others. Mobile phone companies use these IDs to identify a particular handset and its customer.

US states that could face extreme consequences of mandatory Data Retention are also unsafe from it. Also, the Hawaiian lawmakers held a hearing regarding the directives of state bill HB2288. It compels internet provider organizations in Hawaii to store anonymous user data for two years, including the user’s IP address and browsing history record; that data would include the user’s IP address, domain name, or hostname. Yet, ISPs are required to surveil a user’s activity on every website and should keep that record with the link to that particular user’s IP address.

However, including the US, many other nations pass laws supporting Mandatory Data Retention. To avoid such problems and make your data secure from prying eyes, you could follow our guide, ‘How To Protect Yourself From Metadata Retention‘.

The post Mandatory Data Retention In United States appeared first on BeEncrypted.

“The CRA does practice risk-based compliance, so for taxpayers identified as high risk, any relevant, publicly available information relating to the specific risk-based factors for the taxpayer may be consulted as part of our fact-gathering processes,” said spokesperson David Walters.

However, compared to the powers given by Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 (also known as Bill-C51) to the government institutions, the CRA proceedings seem tame.

BILL-C51 given authority to CSIS and Police

 The prime minister gave police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) the following powers in the rule, Stephen Harper, who passed an act with this regard.

• Empowers CSIS to detain a suspect without any charge or warrant, for up to seven days.
• Anything that seems suspicious and linked to terrorism could be interrogated.
• They could easily put an individual to a no-fly list if they suspect him to be in an act that would threaten transportation security or travel by air for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism.
• Communication metadata such as phone numbers, email addresses, subscriber details, etc should be retained for 6 months and shared with 17 federal institutions.
• People seeming to promote material such as terrorism through channels like blog, article, news report or any other form of literature, could be sentenced to jail.
• Authority of “Ordering removal of terrorist propaganda” from the internet.
• Sounding extremist, the account of twitter and such social websites could be obstructed.
• Examination nad infiltration of groups considered to be high risk working on specific interests such as environmentalists, First Nations rights advocates, pipeline protesters,

The critic view on BILL-C51

After the bill disclosure, it met with a huge trove of criticism from the citizens and personalities linked with other professions such as legal scholars, business leaders, and even four former Prime Ministers, which was unsurprising. The common reservation raised by almost all the critics was the damage subjecting towards human rights in Canada.

Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has fiercely criticized the impact these measures would have on Canadians saying, the new powers of 17 federal agencies to exchange personal and confidential information in the name of the war on terror are “excessive” and could affect ordinary Canadians.

Michael Geist has described the Bill as a “punch in the gut” for privacy and civil liberties.

However, the bill repeatedly characterizes the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) as an inspecting committee for CSIS, but the SIRC itself negates the view. SIRC has stated it had been intentionally designed to be a restricted, after-the-fact “review” body rather than a powerful “oversight” committee that could assess intelligence operations, and genuinely no efficient oversight exists.

Does new government makes a difference

The new liberal government vows to eliminate some controversial matters, acquainting parliamentary surveillance of intelligence agencies, but these steps are not witnessed yet. However, recently the two largest police forces from Quebec were reported to monitor the phones of many local reporters, forcing prime minister Justin Trudeau to insist on the importance of the independent press in a democratic state.

While using techniques like VPN (Virtual Private Network) could be efficacious for liberal government to balance national security and citizen rights.

The post Surveillance practices in Canada, Facing Criticism appeared first on BeEncrypted.