The introduction of The EU Data Retention Directive

 in Norwegian law - are you for or against?

The proposition to the Norwegian Parliament (Prop. 49)  is about implementation of The EU Data Retention Directive in Norwegian law. This has created heathen discussions recently. Political parties disagree and citizens are divided about the proposals legislation.

Lytt til

Les fonetisk

Data Retention Directive  - EU Directive 

To understand what Data Retention Directive is all about you should watch the movie about data storage directive here: 

The Directive was adopted by the EU in 2006 as a reaction to the terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London. The reasons that the directive demanded data storage is that stored information can be used as a tool for the judicial authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute serious crimes. The purpose of the Data Retention Directive is therefore to harmonize legislation on the storage of specific data, which has been created through the use of electronic communications. The Directive covers the storage of different types of information within the traffic data.


The directive requires that traffic data should be stored between six and 24 months. Parliament's proposal means that data should only be handed over to the courts in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal act that can lead to jail for 4 years or more. Read the newspaper VG article to see the list of how various categories of the telephony and internet traffic will be stored, if the prepossessions are executed. See the list here!

Large involvement - political parties

The proposal to implement the Data Retention Directive in Norwegian law has caused a major involvement in the Norwegian society across traditional political borders. Arbeiderpartiet is for the data storage directive, and Minister of Justice Knut Storberget and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has been arguing about the importance of the Data Retention Directive. Read more about there statement. Arbeiderpartiets page about the directive can be found here. Arbeiderpartiet is the only party that unconditionally has agreed to the proposal, and Høyre has been bout for and against it. You can read more about this here.

                                                                                                         Photo: Scanpix

Lytt til

Les fonetisk

Yesterday Høyre made an agreement with Arbeiderpartiet on the proposal to implement the Data Retention Directive in Norwegian law.  Before they went public with the statement they got Arbeiderpartiet to reduce the storage period down to six months. Read: Høyre and Arbeiderpartiet agree on Data Retention Directive. The other political parties are against the Data Retention Directive. To hear the parties arguments for and against Data Retention Directive. 

Watch the videos where the Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, Arbeiderpartiet and Venstre argument for and against the Directive:

                                                             Link to the movie

For and against - Data Retention Directive

These bodies entitled to comment the proposal, are FOR the implementation: Police Directorate, Criminal Police, Økokrim, National District Attorney office, the Public Prosecutor, Police Security Service et al. (see complete list on page 8 here)

Police have stated that the Data Retention Directive is necessary to combat serious crime. Justice authorities will possibly be able to use the information to detect, investigate and prosecute serious crimes, which are likely to be positive for the society. 

There are however many (of the bodies entitled to comment) witch have questioned whether the data storage is likely to help combating crime. Several bodies have pointed out that there are significant privacy challenges associated with storing large quantities of communications data for the entire population. These bodies, are arguing AGAINST the proposition: Inspectorate, Telenor, NetCom, Tele2, Altibox, BBC et al. (see complete list on page 8 here)

Several campaigns are working to prevent data storage, and one of them is Stop The Data Retention Directive. This is a bipartisan independent campaign organization that aims to spread information about the negative consequences for privacy in the data storage directive and to prevent that the directive is incorporated into Norwegian law. You can read more on Facebook and Aftenbladet.(The logo is made by: Svenn-Arne Dragly)

One of the main objections to the Data Retention Directive is that this is not in compliance  with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ECHR shall safeguard the rights and respect  for privacy and family life, and can be read here on page 14. Especially the risk that personal data could be obtained, is one of the arguments that have been frequently used by parties SV and SP, which has been against the Data Retention Directive. They believe that the directive is a significant violation of the individual citizen's privacy and that it will restrict the freedom of expression.

Integrity vs. Infringement. Crime fighting

Our communications, whether electronic or not, is often regarded as very private. Our communication tells a lot about our network and who we are as humans. Required storage of traffic data will by many be regarded as an integrity violation, because it goes directly into our private information. Who needs to know when I sent a message to my boyfriend, and where I was at the moment it was sent. On the other hand, I don’t think this information is something that is going to be used for anything, so why should it be stored?

Privacy is a fundamental value in a democratic society and must be regarded together with important constitutional values ​​such as due process and freedom of expression. This treatment of our communication, and the discomfort we may feel by knowing that someone is sitting with this information, is in itself an integrity violation. This is further enhanced by our fear that the information can be misused or going astray. The risk that private information can be leaked are reel, and if this information goes astray it can at worst be used against us. 

Read more about - Info can be obtained.

Photo: Unknown, from this page. 

If there is to be a storage of traffic data for electronic communication, I think there must be extremely well made rules that meets our needs for the protection of our integrity. I think the data storage may be a great help in combating crime in the sense that it will be easier to track criminals, but it should not be an unwelcome surveillance of our citizens. It's scary to think about how we can be monitored at all time. On the other hand, there may be a feeling of security, considering that the criminals hopefully will be taken. But will we get rid of crime if we save all our data? Can't the criminals find a detour to get away? The result of the data storage may therefore be that it is only us who do not commit criminal acts, that will be recorded.

Watch the YouTube video under and read others' blog posts about the Data Retention Directive  here.

I have now attempted to present both the pros and cons of the parliamentary proposal on the implementation of the EU's data storage directive in Norwegian law. The advantage of data storage is not easy to pinpoint, but the police will get a new tool to find clues in their work against crime. The downside includes considerable downgrading of our privacy and the citizens' private lives.

What do YOU think about the directive? 

Intellectual property – photographic rights

The scientific, literary and artistic works that are created in Norway is protected according to the copyright act, which is a law to protect intellectual achievements.  An intellectual achievements is a product of independent creative effort. Such a product could be a creative photo that reflects independent work. This makes the photo an intellectual achievement. The creator of an intellectual achievement has copyright to the work, and the copyright is universal. The copyright act secures the creator exclusive rights to the work, and it is the creator of the work that is the author. There may be one or more authors of the same work. The copyright secures profit to the author for the effort.

Copyright

To state who is the author of a work, the copyright symbol ©, name and year may be printed on the product. The copyright symbol for  a work is described in the Universal Copyright Convention, and the convention gives protection for photographic, artistic and literary works. This convention is not very specific on the protection. As a result of an increasing approval of the Berne Convention lately, Norway together with most other countries has approved this convention. The Berne Convention emphasizes that it is not necessary for a photo to have the © symbol to be protected. The Berne Convention also has a Principe of national treatment, so that other country of the union provides the same protection for foreign citizens. Norway may, as a result of this, have secured a minimum of protection for the authors, through this convention.

Photographic pictures and works

The copyright act distinguishes between photographic pictures and photographic works. Photographic works have what is called ”verkshøyde”. This means that the photo must be characterized by the photographs individual creative effort. The photo must have a certain ”artistic value”. It is not enough to have made a technical perfect or beautiful picture.

”The certain aspects of a photo that reflects an individual creative effort makes the photo a photographic work, and therefore an intellectual achievement. In other words: it is how the motive is reproduced that is important. [...] What is reproduced, the motive, is not protected; the protection is for the reproduction of the motive, the result.» (Eirik Holmøyvik - Verkshøgdevurderinga for fotografi. S. 96, translated from Norwegian).

                    Photo: lanuiop                          Some rights reserved

«This is a photo that we surely can classify as a photographic work. The photo is manipulated (here is the original) and the author has done what must be defined as a creative effort» (Digitalfoto.hib.no translated from Norwegian)

Photographic pictures are protected by the copyright act §43a even if they don't have a status as a photographic work.  These photographic pictures are protected for a shorter period than the photographic works. Photographic pictures are protected during the lifetime of the photographer and 15 years after the year of death, but yet always 50 years from the year the picture was taken, while photographic works are protected 70 years after the death of the author. A photo may not be published or copied without the consent of the photographer or the one that the photographer has transferred his/hers economic rights to. Normally this is done for payment, so that it can be published. 

In addition to the economic rights the photographer has for the photo, the photographer also has moral rights. That is the right of attribution and the right of integrity that means that it is not allowed to publish photos in a way that is offensive to the photographer. The photographer has exclusive rights for distributing  and  presentation of the pictures for the public. On a web page with several nature pictures from the same author, Frode Holthe, one of my own photos have been published. Text under the photo refers to me with full name. My moral rights has been safeguarded, and in this occasion I was asked for permission for publishing and to be named under the picture. 

                                                         "Tomma fra ferga

                                             Fotograf Ida Linett Olsen 2006".

If pictures are to be published for example on the internet, the photographer must agree before the publishing. Simultaneously it is important that, if the photo contains persons, they also must agree to the publishing. This agreement has not always been complied, and several photos have been published for the public, without the consent of both the photographer and the persons pictured. It is therefore clear that if a person in a photo has disagreed, the publishing of a photo is illegal. This is determined by unstatutory rules for protection in the copyright act § 45c. This states that it is the person pictured that has the rights for further use of the photo. On the other hand there are several exceptions that makes agreement from persons in photos unnecessary. This may be crowds of people, torchlight processions, events of public interest or if the picture is used as in the copyright act § 23 third part or § 27 second part.

Publishing of own photos

There are many laws and rules that must be considered concerning photographic pictures and photographic works. As a photographer one has to take care of the copyright for the photo, but one must also consider the persons pictured and their agreement, before publishing. When publishing own pictures the main rule is that pictures of objects and landscapes are free to publish, while when publishing persons has to be considered carefully. Copyright for photographic pictures and works can be achieved in various ways, and if there are photos that one would like to share with others, but with restrictions, a closer look at this film about copyright from flickr.com should be interesting.  

At flickr.com you can publish photos and at the same time get a license that lets you determine how the photos may be used by others and what sort of copyright you want. Others may copy, distribute and use the photos in various ways. For example one license gives the photographer credit by making the user state the photographer as the author. Read more about the different licenses here. 

My photos - Some Rights Reserved

                                        Photo: Ida Linett            Some Rights Reserved

This photo has the license  Attribution Creative Commons. This means that others may alter and create what they want on the photo, as long as they states that it is me that has made the original. This license is chosen because it is a photo that I have altered myself, and it may be a  base for others to create various aesthetic expressions. 

                                              Photo: Ida Linett       Some Rights Reserved   

                               

This is a photo that I have chosen to publish with the license  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons at flickr.com. I have chosen this license because it is a personal photo of my little sister that I don't want others to alter. I have received agreement from our mother to publish the photo. I allow others to download the photo, share it with others as long as I get credits. Others are not allowed to alter the photo or use it in commercials for example.

Task 2 - ITL 103

1) To develop reflection around Information Privacy, Data Retention and Intellectual Property in the world of social media/ web 2.0

2) To continue developing experience in using blog for the purpose of professional communication. Professional communication is understood here as communication around information related to the content of the module ITL 103