Data retention as a counter-terrorism instrument. The analysis in the context of civil rights protection

• Authors: Joanna Trela-Zielińska

Abstracts

EN

The article analyses the legitimacy of citizens telecommunications data retention usage in the fight against terrorism. Data retention, that is the preventive storage of information on the source, data, hour and duration of a connection, type of the connection, communication tool and location of a recipient, is a powerful source of knowledge about citizens and their use should be soundly justified. However, both the European Union and Polish practices show that behind this interference in privacy there is neither a guarantee that the data stored would be used exclusively to fight terrorism and severe crimes, nor a sufficient access control mechanism. The efficiency of data use in the fight against organized crimes, including terrorism, is also dubious. In her work the author analyses Polish studies concerning information disclosure issues, Internet publications of the European Union and American reports on retention programmes, as well as Polish and foreign positions of non-governmental organizations engaged in the civil rights protection in this respect.

Keywords

EN

telecommunications data retention; terrorism; civil rights; privacy

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Reality of Politics
• Year: 2017
• Issue: 8
• Pages: 141-153

Dates

published

2017

Contributors

author

Joanna Trela-Zielińska

• University of Szczecin

References

• Adamski, A. (2015). Jawność i jej ograniczenia. Przeciwdziałanie przestępczości. (vol. X.) Warszawa: C.H.Beck.
• Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego Stanów Zjednoczonych (2016). Your Data: If You Have Nothing to Hide, You Have Nothing to Fear. Downloaded from: https://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html#data.
• Aleksandrowicz, T. (2015). Terroryzm Międzynarodowy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
• Bergen, P., Sterman, D., Schneider, E., Cahall, B. (2016). Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?. Downloaded from: https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/4353-do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists-2/Bergen_NAF_NSA%20Surveillance_1_0_0.c7748e5bd84647fb8de43d3b664961e9.pdf.
• Boussios, E.G. (2016). Termination or Accountability? The Controversy over the United States’ Use of Cyberintelligence. The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2/2016. Downloaded from: https://www.pism.pl/publications/journals/The_Polish_Quarterly_of_International_Affais/2016/2.
• Departament Skarbu USA (2016). USA PATRIOT Act. Downloaded from: https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot.
• Flis, J., Jakubczak, R. (2006). Bezpieczeństwo narodowe Polski w XXI wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Bellona.
• Fundacja Panoptykon (2016). 100 pytań o inwigilację do polskich władz. Downloaded from: http://www.100pytan.org.pl/index.php.
• Fundacja Panoptykon (2016). Nadzór w telefonie. Downloaded from: https://panoptykon.org/nadzor-w-telefonie.
• Komisja Europejska (2011). Sprawozdanie z oceny dyrektywy w sprawie zatrzymywania danych (Dyrektywa 2006/24/WE). Downloaded from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0225_/com_com(2011)0225_pl.pdf.
• Obem, A., Szymielewicz, K. (2015). Dane telekomunikacyjne: Karuzela liczb trwa, a problem nadal tkwi w złym prawie. Downloaded from: https://panoptykon.org/wiadomosc/dane-telekomunikacyjne-karuzela-liczb-trwa-problem-nadal-tkwi-w-zlym-prawie.
• Obem, A., Szymielewicz, K. (2014). Snowden i Greenwald: Polskie władze współpracowały z NSA. Downloaded from: https://panoptykon.org/wiadomosc/snowden-i-greenwald-polskie-wladze-wspolpracowaly-z-nsa.
• Organizacja European Digital Rights (2011). Shadow evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC). Downloaded from: https://edri.org/files/shadow_drd_report_110417.pdf.
• Parlament Europejski, Komisja Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych (2014). Dokument roboczy Nr 1 w sprawie amerykańskich i unijnych programów nadzoru oraz ich wpływu na podstawowe prawa obywateli UE. Downloaded from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2014-0139+0+DOC+XML+V0//PL.
• Rada ds. Nadzoru nad Przestrzeganiem Prywatności i Praw Obywatelskich Stanów Zjednoczonych (2014). Report on the Surveillance Program Operated Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Downloaded from: https://www.pclob.gov/library/702-Report.pdf.
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection regulation).
• Siedlecka, E., Szymielewicz, K. (2015). Podsłuch rządzi strachem. Downloaded from: http://wyborcza.pl/magazyn/1,145245,17924695,Podsluch_rzadzi_strachem.html.
• Trybunał Konstytucyjny RP (2014). Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 30 lipca 2014 r. sygn. Akt K 23/11. Downloaded from: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20140001055.
• Świątkowska J. (2016). Poland, the Czech Republic and NATO in Fragile Security Contexts. Lublin: IESW Reports. Downloaded from: https://www.amo.cz/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Poland-the-Czech-Republic-and-NATO-in-Fragile-Security-Contexts.pdf.
• Wojciechowski, Ł. (2016). Information Security Policy as InfoSec instrument in the Polish local government system. Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe. Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe 2016, 14(2), pp. 75 – 94.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/rop201709

Biblioteka Nauki

2031478