Re: Data retention question

In article <20140725204831.5984402.49254.495-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, 
[email protected] writes
>
'if only it was that simple'
>No, it's not - it should start with a suspicion of criminal activity 
>and go from there. Not start with a presumption.  

Is the Inland Revenue presuming you are a tax dodger when they ask you 
to keep paperwork for seven years? Shouldn't they just ask people they 
have suspicion about.

Much of the data retention stuff originates in long standing consumer 
protection law that regards it as appropriate for telcos to keep billing 
records (in case of disputes) for three billing periods, at a time when 
a lot of billing was quarterly.

The lack of per-transaction billing for a lot of Internet activity does 
rather break that analogy though. But then there's investigations into 
'abuse' to take into account.

I often find that people who have had something bad happen to them are 
less tolerant of the excuse that "there's nothing we can do, because as 
far as we are concerned it never happened".

R.

>  Original Message  
>From: Roland Perry
>Sent: Friday, 25 July 2014 20:44
>To: [email protected]
>Reply To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
>Subject: Re: Data retention question
>
>In article <20140725191541.5984402.41509.491-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
>[email protected] writes
>>If the data retention is about terrorists or paedophiles,
>
>They are by no means the only serious criminal activities.
>
>>then why not just have targeted logging of the parts of the Internet
>>that relate to those activities and those who visit them? 
>
>If only it was that simple.
>-- 

>Roland Perry
>
>

-- 
Roland Perry