We should remember that the Directive is in reality an exception to the base rule that is that information MUST be deleted when it is not needed anymore. Neither the ones that want more data retained nor the ones that is against data to be retained like the Directive.
Opening it can because of that be viewed as a success for both(!) sides.
The ones being AGAINST the directive, they see an ability to make it more clear
what is to be retained and not together with shortening the time data is
retained (up to including "quick freeze").
The ones being IN FAVOR of the directive are happy because they see it being
possible to include in the new version also other kinds of communication than
what is in the directive today.
Etc.
Patrik
On 8 apr 2014, at 12:24, mariann unterluggauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> patrik,
> can you be more specific?¿
>
> thanks!
> mariann
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 8 apr 2014, at 11:09, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf
>>>
>>> enjoy.
>>
>> Exactly what both opponents and proponents of the directive wanted.
>>
>> This will be messy...
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
