The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) in Mexico will soon discuss the constitutionality of Articles 189 and 190 of the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Act (known simply as the “Telecom Law”), which went into effect in August 2014. These articles state that, among other things, telecommunication companies must maintain records of their users’ metadata for a period of two years, and grant unrestricted access to the proper state authorities. As defined by the NGO Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights), metadata is information that puts into context other data, such as the information we exchange when we communicate. FayerWayer Magazine adds that the stored metadata makes it possible to know many of the behaviors and habits of a user, including: Nombre y domicilio del suscriptor Tipo de comunicación -voz, datos, conferencia- y servicios- suplementarios, de mensajería o multimedia- empleados En telefonía móvil: datos para conocer el origen y destino de las comunicaciones Fecha, hora y duración de la comunicación Fecha, hora y ubicación de la primera activación del equipo Datos de identificación y características técnicas de los equipos Geolocalización digitalizada The subscriber’s name and address The type of communication (voice transmission, voicemail, conference) and additional services employed, such as messaging or multimedia. Data about the origin and destination of mobile communications. The date, time, and duration of communication. The date, time, and location of the first service activation. Identification data and technical characteristics of the device. The geographical position of the lines. In 2014, when the telecom law was passed, it was billed as a much-needed reform of the telecommunications sector, which continues to be dominated by monopolies. To date, authorities have not discussed in depth why the two articles in question were included, beyond justifying them for vague reasons of “security”. At the time, the Network in Defense of Digital Rights (R3D) filed a writ of amparo (a legal instrument that aims to defend fundamental rights and counter arbitrariness) against the legislation's “Collaboration With Justice” articles, arguing that they violate human rights. Other organizations dedicated to defending digital rights, free expression, and transparency (such as Article 19 and FUNDAR) also supported the amparo. R3D later published a paper titled “Frequently Asked Questions About the Unconstitutional Nature of Articles 189 and 190 of the LFTR,” noting that the content of the articles violates citizens’ right to the inviolability of private communications and the right to protection of personal data. The organization also says “there is an absence of clarification about who constitutes the competent authorities.” The following video is part of R3D’s informational materials developed to show the importance of what the court will discuss: La conservación masiva e indiscriminada de metadatos nos asume a todos como presuntos delincuentes y nos pone en mayor riesgo […] En otros países la retención de metadatos ya fue prohibida. En abril de 2014, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea invalidó su ley de retención de datos argumentado que “constituye una injerencia de gran magnitud y especial gravedad en los derechos fundamentales al respecto de la vida privada…” It is thus possible to deduce things like your personal relationships, your political and religious preferences, or health status. Metadata conservation assumes we are all criminal suspects and puts us at greater risk. In other countries metadata retention has already been prohibited. In April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union overruled its data retention law arguing that it “constitutes an interference of a large magnitude and is particularly serious with respect to the fundamental rights to privacy…” The Supreme Court was scheduled to settle the amparo on Wednesday, March 20, 2016, but a resolution was postponed, as announced by Ivan Martinez, an advocacy writer for R3D: Corte pospuso decisión una semana más sobre el amparo de @r3dmx. ¡No hay que bajar la guardia! #LeyStalker#LeyTelecom — Iván (@protoplasmakid) April 20, 2016 Court postponed decision regarding the amparo of @r3dmx another week. Don’t let your guard down! Stalker Law. Telecom Law. In preparation for the hearing, more than a dozen national and international organizations for the defense of digital rights have urged the court to protect the right to privacy and reject the constitutionality of the telecom law.