On Friday the justice and interior ministers of the 25 European Union member countries agreed to oblige operators to store all data of phone, cell phone and internet communications for at least 6 to 24 months. The stored data detail the caller’s and the receiver’s numbers, but not the actual conversations themselves. The data retention measure was adopted in order to fight terror and organised crime, but the EU members disagreed so much that they could only reach a watered-down decision. Storing the data of the past 6 to 24 months is already required by most national regulations. This renders the EU decision entirely irrelevant.

It is still uncertain what the effects of this decision will be for prepaid phones. Most terrorists and professional criminals probably do not use normal phone lines nor cell phones that can be directly linked to them. They probably do not use international credit cards either, unless they are on a suicide mission. What this means, of course, is that the people affected by the EU decision, if it leads to a ban on pre-paid phones, will be poor people with bad credit standing. Hardly the people that need more hardship.

But even if the plan does not have any direct effect it is still a step in the wrong direction, because it is a step towards a more drastic infringement on individual rights. The original plan called for the storing of actual conversations. This would have been a severe infringement on privacy. It would also add extremely high costs to European consumers, who would end up paying the bill.

The British interior minister Charles Clarke originally attempted to convince his colleagues that the EU needed an even stronger directive in order to combat terrorism. He did not succeed and had to reduce his initially high ambitions in favour of a soft compromise deal, leaving more freedom for member states to decide on the duration of data storage and on what to do with so-called unanswered calls.

That is not all, however. Several member states, including Poland, France, Spain and Sweden, still favour stronger regulations – and it is probably just a matter of time before they will try to push for a longer data-rentention period. The Spanish justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez said: “This is a matter of major importance to Spain, because it deals with the fight against terrorism, which is an absolute priority in our interior policy.” Referring to the Madrid bombings in March 2004, he continued: “A consensus that allows for one step forward is better than nothing.” Obviously, Spain will want to seek to expand the data-storage period at the first opportunity.

However, a number of countries, including Ireland, Slovenia and Slovakia, voted against Clarke’s proposals. Ireland even announced that it will take the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) if the European Parliament approves the proposed scheme. Dublin argues that the matter is not for the EU to decide. It is very fortunate for freedom loving people all over Europe to have these Fightin’ Irish willing to bring the issue before the ECJ. Data are already being retained by all phone companies in the world, but storing them under the counter-terrorism scheme will only mean that Europeans soon will suffer severe infringements on individual freedoms and have to pay higher phone bills to cover this.