A/HRC/28/39 regime, as well as oversight and remedies ex post facto to make sure that the regime was not abused. 28. Mr. Milanovic noted that States often made a distinction between the collection of the content of a communication, on the one hand, and data about the communication, or metadata, on the other, with the former subject to stronger safeguards than the latter. He asked whether such distinctions were relevant regarding digital communications. Ms. Nyst noted that such distinctions must be unequivocally abandoned, as they reflected an outdated understanding of the nature of today’s communications and a failure to update laws accordingly. She noted that such distinctions dated back to an era where there was indeed a difference between the envelope and the content of the envelope, whereas when looking at digital communications, the so-called envelope, or metadata, contained very sensitive, valuable and extensive information. For instance, that information could be derived from the metadata and analysed to obtain information about an individual’s political or religious beliefs. She referred to a study by Stanford University, which showed that medical, financial and legal information could be obtained from metadata. She stressed the serious need, therefore, to re-evaluate that distinction, as noted in the report of the High Commissioner. Ms. Nyst noted progress in several countries, which had recognized the need for increased protection of metadata. She also noted that the European Court of Justice had recently invalidated the blanket data retention law6 and concluded that there was a trend towards increased protection of metadata. However, Ms. Nyst stressed that further guidance on how domestic laws should follow suit was needed. 29. From an operator’s perspective, Mr. Nissim said that data such as tracking calls was often retained by telecommunications companies for technical reasons, to ensure the quality of services and networks. He noted, however, that when Governments asked telecommunications companies to retain the information collected for longer periods of time, or to provide access, the information could be misused. He added that any access by Governments should require legislation. Mr. Nissim also noted that where the level of “big data” was reached, and if the information was anonymized, it could be used in a very positive way, e.g. for urban planning, transportation and communications. IV. Summary of the discussion 30. During the interactive discussion, delegations from Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Cuba (on behalf of the like-minded group of countries), Ecuador, the European Union, Estonia, France, Germany (on behalf of Austria, Brazil, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland), India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), Romania, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) took the floor. Statements by Chile, Myanmar and Uruguay were not delivered due to lack of time. Copies of their statements were posted on the Human Rights Council extranet. 31. Delegates of the following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: the American Civil Liberties Union (in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch), Article 19, the Association for Progressive Communications and the Korea Center for United Nations Human Rights Policy. 6 See European Court of Justice, judgement of 8 April 2014, joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12. 9