Internet Users Communication to Be Followed by EU
Details of user e-mails, website visits and net phone calls will be stored by Internet service providers (ISPs) starting Monday under an EU directive.
All ISPs in the EU will have to store the records for a year, the BBC reported. An EU directive which requires telecoms firms to hold on to telephone records for twelve months is already in force. The data stored does not include the content of e-mails and websites, nor a recording of a net phone call, but is used to determine connections between individuals.
Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant only.
"That is a crazy directive with potentially dangerous repercussions for citizens... The EU passed it by saying it was a commercial matter and not a police matter... Because of that they got it through on a simple vote, rather than needing unanimity, which is required for policing matters... Hopefully, we can see some sort of challenge to this directive", Executive Director of the Open Rights Group, Jim Killock, said.
The plans were drawn up in the wake of the London bombings in 2005. ISPs and telecoms firms have resisted the proposals while some countries in the EU are contesting the directive.
Governments across the EU have now started to implement the directive into their own national legislation. Sweden has decided to ignore the directive completely while there is a challenge going through the German courts at present.
- » Bulgaria has One of the Strongest Employment Growth Rates in the EU for the Quarter
- » Bulgaria is Among the EU Countries with the Highest Number of Old Aircraft
- » Kristalina Georgieva: I Expect Bulgaria to Enter the Eurozone Waiting Room Next Year
- » Bulgarian PM: EU integration of the Western Balkans Would be Among the Priorities of the Bulgarian Presidency of the EU
- » Maria Gabriel: An Expert Group at European Level will Make a Common Definition of the Issue of False News
- » Minister Pavlova: Bulgaria is Completely Ready for its EU Presidency
So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue; it's just a generally known fact. It doesn't take a ruling from the Supreme Court to define something. The most probable reason the people you questioned "went silent" is because they couldn't figure out what you were driving at or why, so they just gave up.
Hey you,SUPERLAWYER,MR.Bill W.,
CITE PLEASE A DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT of USA,according to which
A COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT WITHOUT WEAPONS ON BOARD
constitutes a WEAPON or ARM in the meaning of the Criminal Law of USA.
IF COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES ,which DESIGNATION is to fly passengers from Point
A to Point B,are concidered weapons, causing serious
BODILY INJURY OR ENDANGER A LIFE,then all Airlines ought to disolve their
Since COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES are concidered WEAPONS ,NOBODY will be willing
to board them!
The delict of INJURY does NOT require ANY WEAPON,Mr.Bill SUPERLAWYER!
INJURY is any wrong or damage,done to another,either in his
person,property,rights or reputation.
THEREFORE TRYING TO INSTRUMENTALIZE A "FROSEN SAUSAGE" AND MAKE IT
A WEAPON,in order to brake my teeths,IS RATHER OBSOLETE.
Normally you're pretty sharp on legal things, but ANYTHING used to inflict injury upon someone else may be called a weapon. When an aircraft is used as a flying bomb, that's certainly a weapon. If someone beat you to death with a frozen sausage, that, too, would be a weapon.
They(the STAATSICHERHEIT...BND and other Intelligence organs) have been doing this for years.
NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN!
Last year I posted on www.military.com my opinion about Chapter 54 NATO
Charter and explained,
that this Article(В§В§В§) requires an ARMED ATTACK in order for the USA to force it's
Allies into WARS.
There was an ATTACK on the Trade World Center ...regrettably NOT an ARMED one.
The US military men did NOT like what I said and they TRACED me all the way from Arlington,Virginia to
Berlin,Germany. They EVEN wrote back to me the IP number of my computer.
Anyway,they could NOT debunk my legal analysis of "ARMED ATTACK".
One of them tried to bring an argument,that a COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT could be
under some circumstances an"ARM...weapon).
When I asked him to produce a decision by the SUPREME COURT of USA
where a JUDGE said,that a COMMERCIAL aircraft is a WEAPON,
he became silent.