Smile29, or the trick that went awry

In recent weeks, there has been a very active campaign to collect signatories for written declaration 29 of the current European Parliament. A campaign site with a pleading child is all that can be seen of this campaign on the internet, but various MEP’s have also received pamphlets, phone calls and other communications from campaign sources. There have been campaign posters posted all over the parliament building, and according to reports, there were even pamphlets awaiting the MEPs as they sat down to vote in Strasbourg.

The most glaring lack of available information is concerning the actual suggestions and effects of the declaration. Even in the declaration itself, previous documents are referred to in very vague fashion (”Directive 2006/24/EC” instead of “Data Retention Directive”). What the inclusion of search engines in the Data Retention Directive would mean is not explored in any of the source materials that any Agent of Telecomix has perused. Neither has the potential effect this would have on curbing child abuse and/or help in prosecution of child abusers been presented anywhere.

Why this is bad:

In short: The worst of the calls for action is the one calling for the inclusion of search engines in the Data Retention Directive. The willfull omission of what the numbered Directive is about, makes it probable that the authors were aware of the controversy surrounding the Directive, and as such, are committed to misleading their fellow MEPs. Even if the omission was an accident or at least, not meant to deceive, but only to clarify, it is known that at least some of the signing MEPs were not aware of exactly what Directive was indicated.

To call for an extension of the Data Retention Directive to also include search engines when the original Directive is under scrutiny for being contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights is also controversial. Further, it would legitimize the common and intrusive data mining being done by search engine companies. In addition the costs in privacy for normal citizens, as well as researchers, investigators et cetra is staggering. Are we to be prosecuted for what we are interested in? Are we to be constantly worrying about ‘is this a safe thing to search for?’ Should the police really be explicitly permitted to collect information about everyones interests and habits via search engines, in order to look for unwanted personality types?

This is also very likely a violation of human rights, specifically Article 10, the freedom to seek and impart information.

What is good?

It should be noted that the stated purpose of the Declaration is worthy of support. Sexual abuse of children is a problem, and greater effort should no doubt be taken in preventing it. The idea of an ‘early warning system’ is not necessarily bad, and it might be useful to bring awareness of missing children to a wider area. This idea may very well make it into another written declaration, perhaps a better formulated and specified one, and as such, get the support it may deserve.

What has already been done?

As of 2nd of June 2010, a few blog posts, mostly in Swedish, have been written. These led to an investigation by swedish-language EU observervation website europaportalen.se. During this investigation, the four swedish signatories were contacted for comments on Data Retention, among other things. As a result, MEP Cecilia Wikström (SE/ALDE) withdrew her signature from the declaration, and in addition sent an e-mail to her colleagues, explaining her motives, and calling upon others to do the same. The e-mail can be read at this blogpost

In the moment of writing this message, MEP Marit Paulsen has also withdrawn her signature. Apparently most MEPs are unaware what they have signed, so your intervention will make a difference.

What can you do?

Contact your MEPs and ask them if they have signed. Ask them if they are aware that the Data Retention Directive is involved, and the fact that the legality and feasability of the Data Retention Directive is currently heavily disputed. Make sure that you are nice and polite. In most cases, you will get a lot further that way.

We are currently in the process of compiling a list of signatories, so that your efforts can be more focused and effective. It is equally important to get current signatories to remove their signature as it is to prevent current non-signatories from signing, every effort is positive, and every voice heard is important.

Even more important than contacting MEPs, however, may be to alert the media. It has proven effective in Sweden as a means to get the message across to the four (currently two) Swedish signatories. If journalists start investigating who signed, and why, at least some MEPs are bound to realise that this is not a declaration they want to support.

With datalove,

/Werebuild and Telecomix internauts