Distracted Walking: Should it be a Crime?

You've probably by now seen the video clip of the woman walking into a fountain at a shopping mall while texting on her handset (no link here because I have reason to believe that the video was illicitly and perhaps illegally released, violating the woman's privacy, but that's another matter); it's actually pretty funny. This one has been all over the TV news, along with other more serious stories about various legislative efforts to criminalize (via a fine) walking or biking (and perhaps other outdoor activities) while distracted by a handset, music player, or similar device. This looks to me like little more than another effort by cash-strapped municipalities to raise revenue, wrapped up in this-is-for-your-own-good paternalism. I think this is an absolutely idiotic idea, although at first blush it's not that different from bans on talking or texting while driving, which I wholeheartedly support. After all, both involve simple common sense, don't they?

Indeed they do -- but there's big difference. The operator of a motor vehicle has a fundamental responsibility to those around them to above all else do no harm, and the law should enforce this principle in spades. But someone walking while texting, talking, or listening to music is in far greater danger of harming themselves as a result of inattention to their surroundings, with relatively little damage potential with respect to others. Of course, anyone causing harm to the person or property of another, no matter the circumstances, should be forced to pay up. But causing harm to oneself due to stupidity? Should that be a crime?

It boggles my mind to see bikers racing through traffic while listening to an iPod (it's hard to imagine them texting, although I do suppose many also attempt to hold a phone conversation), and I personally consider it rude to walk along city streets while doing the same. Being unaware of what's going on nearby while out and about indeed seems counter to common sense. And if one of these people should be injured or killed while so doing, as thousands are every year, well, the knowledge is there, and should someone choose not to avail themselves of this knowledge, well, we have another tragic example for those of us who do -- and, hopefully, the next generation. Just because technology enables us to doesn't mean we should.

But is such behavior criminal? No way -- and the government should get back to work on the numerous real problems we pay them the big bucks to address. And it is regardless my hope that anyone out in public will put their personal safety, and especially that of those around them, above all other considerations.

For more information about enterprise networking, go to NetworkWorld. Story copyright 2010 Network World Inc. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Retaining Data Does Not Help Fight Crime, Says Group

Retaining telecommunications data is no help in fighting crime, according to a study of German police statistics, released Thursday. Indeed, it could even make matters worse, according to a civil liberties group.

The European Union's Data Retention Directive, which is currently under review, requires telecom providers to store data about customers' communications in order to facilitate "the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime."

The directive was established in 2006 and was implemented by Germany two years later. But this has made almost no difference to the prosecution of serious crime, according to an in-depth study by civil liberties group AK Vorrat. German authorities would seem to agree as courts annulled the data retention law last year for interfering disproportionately with fundamental rights. Romania has also declared the law unconstitutional.

The Data Retention Directive requires fixed and mobile telephone companies and ISPs providers to retain traffic, location and subscriber information of all their customers. Germany wrote the E.U. law into national legislation in 2008, mandating a six-month retention period. During the period that data retention was in effect, serious crimes went up by nearly 64,000. Yet, despite access to retained data, fewer crimes were solved: 77.6 percent in 2007 compared to 76.3 percent in 2009.

This is because users began to employ avoidance techniques, says AK Vorrat. A plethora of options are available to those who do not want their data recorded, including Internet cafés, wireless Internet access points, anonymization services, public telephones and unregistered mobile telephone cards.

"This avoidance behavior can not only render retained data meaningless, but also frustrate more targeted investigation techniques that would otherwise have been available to law enforcement. Overall, blanket data retention can thus be counterproductive to criminal investigations, facilitating some, but rendering many more futile," said the organization.

But there is a middle way. German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger wants to see a targeted investigative approach where data would be collected only for specific, suspicious cases.

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Peter Hustinx seemed to call for the same thing in December when he demanded that the European Commission demonstrate the necessity and justification for the directive with concrete facts and figures. "Without such proof, the directive should be withdrawn or replaced by a less privacy invasive instrument which meets the requirements of necessity and proportionality," he said.

According to the European Commission there are on average 148,000 requests per year for the retained data in each of the 20 member states that have implemented the directive. "If the data were not helpful, law enforcement authorities would presumably not spend human and financial resources on requesting them in those numbers," argued Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström.

Lawsuits challenging blanket data retention are currently under way in several E.U. countries and member states Austria, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden have not implemented the directive. The European Court of Justice is expected to decide the matter in 2012.

Follow Jennifer on Twitter at @BrusselsGeek or email tips and comments to jennifer_baker@idg.com.

View the original article here