A comparative analysis of some legal implications of recent developments in the collection and processing of metadata

Abstract

This paper sought to begin by analysing the Data Retention Directive and what led to its invalidity. Then, an analysis was made of the recent amendments made to Australian and UK legislation in the field of the collection and processing of metadata. The research conducted was split up into four sections, tackling interception, bulk interception, equipment interference and data retention, where each section delved into the procedure set out in the respective legislative texts of the UK and Australia, as well as the safeguards which are codified in these same legislative texts. Reference was also made, where possible, to Maltese law in each of these sections, and how it compares to UK and Australian law. The next chapter delves into the legal implications of these recent amendments, how these recent amendments will affect an individual's fundamental rights and the areas in which the legislation can be improved. Significant reference is also made as to how Malta lags behind in this field of law and how significant amendment is required in this area, especially in regard to implementing more safeguards in this field. It was also felt that bulk interference was an unnecessary infringement of Article 8 ECHR. It was concluded that, in order to better protect the fundamental rights of individuals, the powers granted under these legislative texts are not to be unnecessarily abused of and that more protection and safeguards are necessary in the fight against abuse in this field of law.