UK Politician Shrugs Off Data Retention Costs

from the define-expensive dept

Last month when the EU decided to move forward with data retention laws, despite the fact that they tend to make it more difficult to find the important stuff, many people noticed that the plans didn’t address the issue of exactly how ISPs were going to pay for all of this — and whether they could expect any help from the government that was suddenly forcing this massively expensive task on them. Today, Home Secretary Charles Clarke in the UK basically said that he recognizes it’s expensive for ISPs, but too bad. He suggests that the government is willing to “work” with ISPs, but basically just says that data retention has to happen one way or the other, and the payment issue is a minor one. That’s a pretty interesting statement, considering that the costs are likely to shrink competition (ISPs will go out of business or consolidate) while slowing innovation. All this to make important data harder to find? Sounds like a great proposal.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK Politician Shrugs Off Data Retention Costs”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
john says:

Re: No Subject Given

I was there, another interesting (terrible) thing he said to Cisco’s government relations advisor was that when they start their new investment cycle into new product development, they ought to take into account the EU data retention directive and make their products function accordingly. Quite how he intends to relate that to globlal investment plans I’m not quite sure. He also refused to guarantee that the government wouldn’t go further in future demands of data retention policy.

Rikko says:

No Subject Given

“Our toughest problem is future-proofing, as there will be a massive change in technology. We request that all engage with us,” said Clarke.

This line pisses me off more than anything.. They completely disregard the added complexity and cost required for ISPs to archive this data and now make this implication that the ISPs should also be throwing more resources into keeping accessible in the future.

The ISPs should just dump all relevant logs onto DVDs and throw them in a pile. Maybe to be generous they can scribble the date on each one. Let the feds sort it out.

crystalattice (profile) says:

Why is it the ISP's job?

Why do the ISP’s have to retain the data? If the gvt. wants the data so bad, then make a law that the ISP’s have to provide copies of their data to the gvt. Then the gvt. can pay to store the data.

ISP’s shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of an unfunded mandate, especially if there’s no proof that it will make a difference.

Brewski says:

No Subject Given

> telecommunications companies and ISPs will have to save information about customers’ phone calls and electronic communications for up to two years

Why two years? Why not five? Ten? Forever? Did some genius politico pull this out of their azz?

> ISP’s concerns that their economic competitiveness would be affected by having to store data

Technically, not so much. If everyone is burdened with the same costs, it’s a*2 = b*2 = c*2

> We combat this by collecting intelligence.

Anyone know how the US’s National Security Agency (the famous NSA/No Such Agency) stores all their shizzle in Fort Meade, Maryland?

Brewski says:

Re: More...

Sorry, another thought popped into my head after I clicked “Submit”. (Only enough storage capacity in there for one idea at a time, I guess…)

>businesses that don’t already retain data won’t have to in the future

Would corporations that do serve up mail internally for their employees also need to store this data? How would the law apply if the company is based outside the UK, but the mail servers are physically in the UK? What if the servers are in the US, but the employees are in the UK? Sounds to me like this would make doing business in the United Kingdom (and the other countries that have this dumbass unfunded mandate in place) expensive.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...