In the public consultation it is required the obligation for the e-service providers to store IP addresses in order that the police can have the access to IP address, prevent and investigate on criminals acts.
The consultation memorandum is focused on those cases in which the police desires information on an IP address.
Anyway, the implications on privacy related to the right to obtain all the IP address that a person has used in a specific period are less discussed.
The collection will also include movements.
The use of IP addresses is increasing together with the digitalization of the society. We are full of devices – PC, smartwatch, telephones, cars, etc. – that have IP addresses. The IP address, the name and the hour matched with the device can offer information about movements when they are contextualized in a specific period.
The police will have access to information without the previous control, this can involve a secret surveillance.
The threshold is low.
It is available, among other things, in order to obtain information.
By permitting to obtain information for the prevention, it is possible to control people without that they are suspected for a criminal act. It is absolutely necessary that the conditions are clear and they offer the possibility to control when we obtain IP addresses.
This is a type of secrete video surveillance which, until now, has been under strict control, but now it is open in order to provide free access.
We can see that the police shall have the access in order to identify IP addresses, among other things for fighting the cyberbullying. Consequences for privacy were not sufficiently investigated and the threshold for which criminals can activate the surveillance is low.
Any independent judicial control
In addition, the proposal does not comply with the established requirements in the European Judgements “Digital rights/Quadrature on requirements for an independent judicial control which shall be present when we obtain IP addresses relative with name or hour.
In addition, the obtaining of IP addresses based on another person for a specific period of time could involve a secret surveillance which could be in contrast with the article 102 and 8 of the Constitution.
In those articles are written the strict rules about when secret surveillance can be allowed and there are requirements for a preventive control in order to implement the secret surveillance.
It shall be seen in compliance with the new e-law.
The proposal must be seen in compliance with the pression the general surveillance into the society, including the implementation of the easy recollection according to the new law on intelligence services.
If the measures will be implemented, the great amount of Internet communication of norwegian citizens will be available to authorities.
The Data Inspectorate is concerned that the proposal, if it will be adopted, can have a freezing effect on our society.
In the privacy investigation of the Data Inspectorate, the 16% have replied to have not participated in a debate in the field of comments or Facebook because it is not sure that authorities, like the police, the PST or intelligence services, can have the access to information. It is about an important percentage in a country that has an high confiance in public authority.
There is a lack of input from the Privacy Commission.
The government has named a privacy commission in order to assess the Norwegian Privacy position that, among other things, will examine privacy in the judicial sector.
It is a pity that is this proposal like the one for the preferential recollection are implemented before that the commission has studied and assessed the possible consequences for the democracy and the society by introducing such an intrusive measures.