2014.07.08【英译中】英国部长力争追踪电话使用情况的新法律2

发表于:2014-07-08 10:57 [只看楼主] [划词开启]

A Liberal Democrat source said Nick Clegg was open-minded about some form of replacement for the data directive but stressed: "There is no question of a snooper's charter, watered down or otherwise, being introduced by this government."

来自自由民主党的消息称对于用某种形式的数据替代指令,尼克·克莱格持开放态度,但是他强调:“毫无疑问,不论窥探者法案是被削弱还是如何,都是由政府来颁布结果。

 The source disclosed: "The government does have to respond to the European court of justice ruling, which we are currently examining, and will respond in due course. But that is about the retention of existing powers rather than their extension."

该党还透漏:“政府不得不回应欧洲法院的裁定,目前,我们正在审核,并将及时回应。但只针对现有权力的保留信息,而不涉及他们的延伸范围。”

The ECJ ruling in April said it was unlawful for the security services and government to require telecommunications firms to keep user data for up to two years. The power had been granted under a 2006 Data Retention Directive that was written after terror attacks in Spain, Britain and the US.

欧洲法院在四月做出的裁定称,安全服务和政府要求通信公司保留用户数据信息达两年,这是不合法的。在西班牙、英国和美国遭受恐怖袭击后出台的2006年《数据保留法令》授予了这项权力。

It required communications carriers to "retain traffic and location data as well as related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user" for between six and 24 months, although "it does not permit the retention of the content of the communication or of information consulted". Under the rules Britain allows retention for 18 months.

尽管“它没有授权保留通信内容或信息咨询的信息”,但它要求通信运营商“保留能够识别用户身份的通信量和位置数据,以及必要的相关数据”,保留时间为6个月至24个月。在这一规定下,英国可保留这些信息长达18个月。

Challenges to the law were filed in both Austrian and Irish courts, arguing that the rules violated the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

此项法律在澳大利亚和爱尔兰法院遇到了阻碍,他们称那些规则违反了欧盟基本权利宪章。

The courts said the directive breached "the fundamental right to respect for private life and the fundamental right to the protection of personal data", saying applied "in a generalised manner [to] all individuals, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any differentiation, limitation or exception".

这些法院称,该指令违反了“尊重私人生活和保护个人资料的基本权利”,言论引用到“对所有个人、所有电子通讯方式和所有通信数据采用普遍方式,没有任何区分、限制和例外”。

The ECJ also said the directive included no clear criteria on when national authorities could access the telecommunications data, nor on precisely how long companies should store the user information; and did not require data to remain within the EU, another requirement of the charter.

欧洲法院也称,该指令没有明确的标准规定国家当局什么时候能够获取通信数据,没有精确公司能够保留用户信息的时长;也没有要求将数据保留在欧盟范围内,这是宪章的另一个要求。

Since the ruling the Home Office has been reluctant to say how it will respond, and has been waiting for its lawyers to interpret the implications for the validity of British surveillance laws.

But it has left the communications providers and the government clearly exposed to a legal challenge.

做出裁定后,内政部始终不愿意说他们将如何回应,而是等着他们的律师来解释英国监督法有效性。

但这无疑已经让通信服务供应商和政府面临着法律挑战。

In written answers, James Brokenshire, the minister for security at the Home Office, said data-holders, despite the ECJ ruling, had been instructed to observe regulations requiring them to retain data.

内政部安全部长詹姆斯·布罗肯希尔在书面回答中说,不管欧洲法院的裁定如何,数据持有人已经得到指示,要求遵守保留数据的条例。

 A Home Office spokesperson set out the formal position: "The retention of communications data is absolutely fundamental to ensure law enforcement have the powers they need to investigate crime, protect the public and ensure national security.

一位内政部发言人发表声明说:“保证执法机关拥有所需权力,以便调查犯罪、保护公众和确保国家安全,就这一点来说,保留通信数据是非常重要的。”

"We are carefully considering the European court of justice's judgment on data retention and are currently examining potential next steps."

“我们正认真考虑欧洲法院的对数据保留判决,目前正在探索下一步行动。”


字数统计:752


相关:

2004.07.08【英译中】英国部长力争追踪电话使用情况的新法律1 

最后编辑于:2014-07-22 16:48
分类: 英语
全部回复 (8) 回复 反向排序

  • 0

    点赞

  • 收藏

  • 扫一扫分享朋友圈

    二维码

  • 分享

课程推荐

需要先加入社团哦

编辑标签

最多可添加10个标签,不同标签用英文逗号分开

保存

编辑官方标签

最多可添加10个官方标签,不同标签用英文逗号分开

保存
知道了

复制到我的社团