ETNO believes that a general obligation to store traffic data would render it impossible for TOs and ISPs to provide services in an anonymous way as well as on a basis of guaranteed confidentiality. ETNO strongly objects to this obligation, not only on the basis of the right to privacy for a large part of the population but also with respect to the freedom of TOs and ISPs to provide services. In addition, just as law enforcement authorities require a warrant to search physical premises, Member States should require law enforcement authorities to obtain a warrant to search, seize or intercept data. As a matter of principle ETNO therefore considers that the costs incurred for the sake of law enforcement purposes should be borne by the latter. The technical implementation of procedural law measures with respect to new communications technologies, i.e. the provision of traffic and subscriber data and the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, can only be implemented by means of extensive additional investments and operational expenditures.
Experience shows that the costs of reengineering existing systems are far from trivial.
Also, Member States should not impose design or technical standards for systems as this would limit innovation further. ETNO views it as indispensable that the provision of personal data to law enforcement is monitored and evaluated on a statistic level in the form of a periodic report. Member States should also guarantee the protection of confidential data of companies who have been subject to search, production and preservation orders. Against this background of complex and difficult issues arising in the context of the approximation of substantive criminal and procedural laws, ETNO is convinced that non-legislative measures are of great importance to reach overall acceptable solutions. In this context, ETNO would welcome the opportunity to contribute its expertise in the debate and participate actively in the Forum.