The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, Rodoljub Sabic, has approved of the amendments submitted by the Ombudsman, Sasa Jankovic, to the Electronic Communications Bill and appealed to the MP’s to adopt them. Highlighting that disinformation is not and cannot be in the MP’s interest when making right decisions, the Commissioner has also asked the Minister for Telecommunications, Jasna Matic, to refrain from placing disinformation.
In relation to that, the Commissioner, Rodoljub Sabic has stated the following:
’’I understood that, as someone who is the manager of a public body with a mandate to protect citizens’ privacy, it is my obligation to point out, to say the least, the problematic relations between the Draft Law provisions, which do not envisage the court decision as the only basis for processing the so called ’’retained data’’, and certain provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. My point of view is already known. I think that the data form telephone or internet communications, which indicate who, when, with whom, how long and the like has communicated, offer as much information as the content of the communication. Therefore, according to my opinion, the Constitutional guarantee, which states that exemptions to the secrecy of communication means can be made only under the court decision, also refers to ’’retained data’’. I have given examples of concrete court decisions from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to illustrate this.
The Minister for Telecommunications, of course, has a legitimate right to think differently. Her and everyone else who share her opinion can and should state arguments to support their point of view. Therefore I have, among other things, been calling for a serious public debate. But, it should be understood that arguments to be used have to be serious, responsible and in accordance with the truth.
When asked - Whether or not, a court decision is envisaged as the basis for processing ’’retained data’’- it is unprofessional to answer – But keeping records is envisaged. And it is highly irresponsible, even if it is done out of ignorance, to propose that a body, which does not exist, control the legitimacy of processing ’’retained data’’. Such proposal can mean only one thing – the lack of any control what so ever.
The Minister’s claims that the text of the law is compatible with numerous subjects, including the Commissioner and the Ombudsman, are absolutely not true. One version of the Bill has been harmonized, but it is completely different form the one that has been proposed in relation to the contentious issues. In any case, the amendments proposed by the Ombudsman illustrate the said ’’compatibility’’ best.
