Data retention - reasonable in substance, but the form is wrong!
The government has not taken into account several difficult, practical issues when it comes to implementing the Data Retention Directive. Above all, it is about how the storage should be done and the extra costs for this. Mikael von Otter writes this in SvD-debatt.
As a member of the EU, Sweden has undertaken to implement the EU Directive on traffic data retention in Swedish legislation. So there is no doubt that data must be stored by telecom operators. It is also understandable that the world we live in, with increasingly international and sophisticated crime, requires new ways to pursue criminal activities.
But there are at least three angles to the problem, which the government has quickly passed by.
1. privacy. This is not the only encroachment on privacy in the electronic world that the state has allowed itself. Let me mention the FRA Act, the Ipred Act, the Swedish Tax Agency's third-party audit, the police methods committee's planned proposals, etc. Each of these is certainly justified, but taken together, we suddenly find ourselves in a whole new world. The state has taken the right to know at least as much about me in the electronic world as I know myself. Where is the reflection, the analysis of the whole and its consequences?
2. costs and Sweden's competitiveness. The proposal means that the telecom operators themselves will pay for the introduction (but will be paid for each use). The Government Offices have themselves estimated the cost at SEK 200 million. IT&Telekomföretagen has conducted its own separate survey in which operators have given their estimates. This brings us up to a billion kronor. The Ministry of Justice knows this, but chooses to ignore the figure.
As a matter of principle, the question should be asked: should one party pay costs that benefit the whole of society, led by the state? It is also argued that the data is already there. Partly true, but only partly, and in a form that is not obviously designed for police use. Finally, the industry invests tens of billions annually. Taking a billion away reduces the scope for more business-driven investment.
3. the impact on competition. The systems to meet the requirements of the law cost money, and are reasonably independent of the size of each operator. This means that small operators are hit harder, contrary to the government's other priorities of improving competition and at least not discouraging small and medium-sized enterprises. There are several hundred operators in Sweden. Of these, perhaps a dozen are "large". The rest will have a major financial and practical problem complying with the law. Among other things, it states that the data must be "disclosed without delay and the information can be easily processed". What does this mean? Suddenly, some form of emergency response is required - this could be costly, especially for small operators.
In conclusion: we fully understand the need to empower police and prosecutors. We also understand that the option of not pretending about the EU directive is not possible. But we think that the Ministry of Justice, far too bureaucratically and without regard to other issues in society, has chosen to handle the whole thing in a way that may limit and hamper Sweden's global competitiveness.
Mikael von Otter
industrial policy expert
IT&Telecom companies within Almega