it
en
fr
es
eo
Nl
Passenger terror data deal may be derailed
Tweet
WASHINGTON -- Privacy campaigners and European parliamentarians pledged this week to stop the implementation of a deal between the European Commission and the United States on the controversial issue of access to airline passengers' personal data.
The deal, announced Tuesday in Brussels and Washington, allows the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, access to personal data collected by airlines from passengers when they buy tickets.
U.S. officials say they need the data to check for suspected terrorists and those involved in other transnational crimes such as human trafficking, drug dealing and arms smuggling.
But critics say the arrangement is a breach of European laws on privacy and data protection. And, according to members of the European Parliament, privacy campaigners and European officials, the deal is far from done and may face a rocky path next year when it has to be codified.
"Will it be implemented? That depends on the degree to which European institutions are willing to accept an agreement that is in breach of European law," Italian Radical Party Member of the European Parliament and privacy campaigner Marco Cappato told United Press International.
Tony Bunyan of the British civil liberties group Statewatch questioned the value to counter-terrorist measures of collecting so much information from the millions of trans-Atlantic fliers.
"All they're doing is making the haystack bigger," he said.
"It is now the job of European civil society and our elected representatives to stop this from happening."
Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the European Commission, which negotiated the deal, acknowledged that the Parliament and the privacy protection officials of the 15 member states had to be consulted.
"We are not prejudging the outcome of this process," he told UPI.
Bunyan said the deal "violates the three fundamental tenets" of European data protection. It used data collected by the airlines for one purpose for another; it allowed the data to be passed on from the first third party recipient -- the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection -- to other agencies; and it allowed other data to be added to the original record.
But Todd said that the European Parliament -- which has in the past been vociferous on the issue -- had received the news Tuesday in a "generally supportive" fashion.
Johanna L.V. Boogerd-Quaak, a Dutch member of Parliament from the centrist Liberal, Democrat and Reformist bloc is the Parliament's "raporteur" on the question -- selected by her fellow members to take the lead on the issue.
"The Parliament doesn't know what we think of the deal yet, because there is no deal," she said, explaining that it will not be until next year -- probably February -- that the agreement is codified and formally presented to the Parliament.
Although the Parliament is unlikely to have a veto over the deal, commission officials admit that it would be politically embarrassing if a significant number of members reject it. Moreover, if a majority agrees, the Parliament can refer the terms of any proposed deal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, for an advisory opinion.
In the past, the parliament has voted by large majorities to support tough enforcement of privacy rules, but both Cappato and Boogerd-Quaak pointed out that with a commission-negotiated deal on the table, the political equation would be different.
"They have really brought out the big guns on this issue," Cappato said, pointing out that four commissioners -- out of a total of 20 -- had taken the five-hour train ride from Brussels to Strasbourg to present the deal to the parliament.
Cappato said that he expected swift action from the supporters of the commission to try and ram the deal through.
Nonetheless, Boogerd-Quaak said there were already grave doubts among some members over the number of data fields of personal information to be handed over -- 34, rather than the 15 that the Europeans had offered -- and the length of time U.S. agencies wanted to store the data -- three and a half years.
"I am stunned that the United States is asking so much," she said, pointing out that Australia had requested only 19 data fields and was prepared to purge the data as soon as it had been checked.
"They also have a very robust data-protection regime," she said, contrasting this with the status of the chief privacy officer of the Department for Homeland Security -- responsible for ensuring that the undertakings about privacy made by the U.S. government were upheld -- who was "not fully independent."
Cappato pointed out that a vote for a court review would be easier to gain support for than one to reject the deal outright. "It is difficult politically to say you don't want to hear the views of the court," he said.
But Todd said that despite some doubters in the Parliament, several member states were keen to push ahead with the deal, because they too wanted to use passenger data for counter-terrorism or law enforcement purposes.
And that, according to Bunyan and Cappato, is a big part of the problem. For them, the deal looks like the thin end of a very thick wedge.
"This issue will be the beginning of a sweeping effort to undermine our data protection regime," predicted Bunyan, pointing out that the commission said it intended to use the deal as a jumping off point for negotiations aimed at creating a global system of data exchange about airline passengers.
Cappato called the deal with the United States "manna from heaven for those in Europe who want to do the same thing."
He slammed those who presented the issue as a submission to the United States. "It is pointless to blame the United States if we are not porepared to enforce our own laws," he said. "The main problem is not what the U.S. government wants, it is what others want to do with (this data) in Europe itself."
"Once the principle (of using commercially collected data for law enforcement and intelligence purposes) is established," he added, "why not extend it?
"There must be information useful to these (law enforcement and intelligence) agencies in insurance data, in other kinds of travel data, why not even health data?"
Boogerd-Quaak appealed to "the people of the United States" -- a country she said had been "a symbol of freedom and liberty."
"I hope they wake up," she said. "I hope they see what is being done."
The deal, announced Tuesday in Brussels and Washington, allows the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, access to personal data collected by airlines from passengers when they buy tickets.
U.S. officials say they need the data to check for suspected terrorists and those involved in other transnational crimes such as human trafficking, drug dealing and arms smuggling.
But critics say the arrangement is a breach of European laws on privacy and data protection. And, according to members of the European Parliament, privacy campaigners and European officials, the deal is far from done and may face a rocky path next year when it has to be codified.
"Will it be implemented? That depends on the degree to which European institutions are willing to accept an agreement that is in breach of European law," Italian Radical Party Member of the European Parliament and privacy campaigner Marco Cappato told United Press International.
Tony Bunyan of the British civil liberties group Statewatch questioned the value to counter-terrorist measures of collecting so much information from the millions of trans-Atlantic fliers.
"All they're doing is making the haystack bigger," he said.
"It is now the job of European civil society and our elected representatives to stop this from happening."
Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the European Commission, which negotiated the deal, acknowledged that the Parliament and the privacy protection officials of the 15 member states had to be consulted.
"We are not prejudging the outcome of this process," he told UPI.
Bunyan said the deal "violates the three fundamental tenets" of European data protection. It used data collected by the airlines for one purpose for another; it allowed the data to be passed on from the first third party recipient -- the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection -- to other agencies; and it allowed other data to be added to the original record.
But Todd said that the European Parliament -- which has in the past been vociferous on the issue -- had received the news Tuesday in a "generally supportive" fashion.
Johanna L.V. Boogerd-Quaak, a Dutch member of Parliament from the centrist Liberal, Democrat and Reformist bloc is the Parliament's "raporteur" on the question -- selected by her fellow members to take the lead on the issue.
"The Parliament doesn't know what we think of the deal yet, because there is no deal," she said, explaining that it will not be until next year -- probably February -- that the agreement is codified and formally presented to the Parliament.
Although the Parliament is unlikely to have a veto over the deal, commission officials admit that it would be politically embarrassing if a significant number of members reject it. Moreover, if a majority agrees, the Parliament can refer the terms of any proposed deal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, for an advisory opinion.
In the past, the parliament has voted by large majorities to support tough enforcement of privacy rules, but both Cappato and Boogerd-Quaak pointed out that with a commission-negotiated deal on the table, the political equation would be different.
"They have really brought out the big guns on this issue," Cappato said, pointing out that four commissioners -- out of a total of 20 -- had taken the five-hour train ride from Brussels to Strasbourg to present the deal to the parliament.
Cappato said that he expected swift action from the supporters of the commission to try and ram the deal through.
Nonetheless, Boogerd-Quaak said there were already grave doubts among some members over the number of data fields of personal information to be handed over -- 34, rather than the 15 that the Europeans had offered -- and the length of time U.S. agencies wanted to store the data -- three and a half years.
"I am stunned that the United States is asking so much," she said, pointing out that Australia had requested only 19 data fields and was prepared to purge the data as soon as it had been checked.
"They also have a very robust data-protection regime," she said, contrasting this with the status of the chief privacy officer of the Department for Homeland Security -- responsible for ensuring that the undertakings about privacy made by the U.S. government were upheld -- who was "not fully independent."
Cappato pointed out that a vote for a court review would be easier to gain support for than one to reject the deal outright. "It is difficult politically to say you don't want to hear the views of the court," he said.
But Todd said that despite some doubters in the Parliament, several member states were keen to push ahead with the deal, because they too wanted to use passenger data for counter-terrorism or law enforcement purposes.
And that, according to Bunyan and Cappato, is a big part of the problem. For them, the deal looks like the thin end of a very thick wedge.
"This issue will be the beginning of a sweeping effort to undermine our data protection regime," predicted Bunyan, pointing out that the commission said it intended to use the deal as a jumping off point for negotiations aimed at creating a global system of data exchange about airline passengers.
Cappato called the deal with the United States "manna from heaven for those in Europe who want to do the same thing."
He slammed those who presented the issue as a submission to the United States. "It is pointless to blame the United States if we are not porepared to enforce our own laws," he said. "The main problem is not what the U.S. government wants, it is what others want to do with (this data) in Europe itself."
"Once the principle (of using commercially collected data for law enforcement and intelligence purposes) is established," he added, "why not extend it?
"There must be information useful to these (law enforcement and intelligence) agencies in insurance data, in other kinds of travel data, why not even health data?"
Boogerd-Quaak appealed to "the people of the United States" -- a country she said had been "a symbol of freedom and liberty."
"I hope they wake up," she said. "I hope they see what is being done."
