We would like to emphasize, though, that such information exchange also includes sharing of information by government authorities with the private sector. Most national governments have conducted assessments of their nation s network vulnerabilities. Governments have often collected and analyzed threat information in the process of providing for their national security. Both types of information, vulnerabilities and threats, can be of great value to businesses, and governments should assess how, and to what extent, it should be shared with industry. It should also be taken into account that the possibility for an independent court and not for the police or other law enforcement authorities - to get hold of calling data and content must be limited to serious crimes only.
Experience shows that costs for reengineering existing systems are far from trivial.
Therefore, as a matter of principle, costs incurred for the sake of the law enforcement system should be borne by the latter. As stated in the Communication a measure that limits or violates the right to privacy must prove to be necessary for a clearly defined and accepted interest. Standard definitions and harmonized minimum penalties will facilitate the application of the relevant substantive criminal law and thereby create greater security and reliability in all Member States. The approximation of procedural laws, such as the principle of mutual recognition for pre trial orders, will certainly help to combat cyber crime. However, these measures will only increase consumer trust if appropriate fundamental rights involved are safeguarded.