Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.10.2-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, since March of this year, the European Parliament and the Commissioner have come a great deal closer to each other in this matter. That is to say, Mr Bolkestein has written an excellent letter to Mr Ridge, but the upshot of this is somewhat less convincing. During your speech to the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I gathered that you are serious about having Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation 22/99/89 observed. Despite this, Mr President and Commissioner Bolkestein, we yesterday held a lengthy discussion in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs about a resolution in which we want to convey the fact that, in Europe, certain minimum standards must be observed. This resolution could have been approved yesterday thanks to the level of unanimity within the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. I was of the opinion, though, that you should also have the opportunity of reacting to our questions, so that we can incorporate your reaction in our resolution. Our objective is to announce a common position that we could also take to the United States because the negotiations that fundamentally matter must be brought to a successful conclusion over there. In the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, a number of suggestions have been made, such as whether it would not be possible after all to put an end to the existing situation earlier than within the suggested two months, for example by imposing a push system on the airlines at this stage. I should also like to ask you – since I could not make out clearly what you were saying in your contribution in the committee – whether you agree with us that we should develop a European standard as soon as possible on the basis of the recommendation of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data – Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC. Do you agree with us that we should only transmit limited information, as indicated on the passport and airline ticket? The issue of data storage also requires further attention. In my view, the period of storage should not exceed the duration of the stay. Six to seven years is still far too long. During the purchase of tickets, passengers must be made aware of the fact that this data is required. It is also extremely important to our committee that passengers be given the opportunity of having incorrect data corrected promptly, efficiently and independently and that there be a clear judicial process in the US. It is unacceptable for citizens to get into difficulty over there.
Furthermore, I should like to find out from Mr Bolkestein what he expects to achieve in the next two months with the United States, since hardly any headway has been made in the course of six months? I should also like to point out to Mr Bolkestein that the course currently taken by matters has led to unrest in the US too. A few days ago, I read in the paper that it had become known in the US that the airline company, Jet Blue, has secretly transmitted personal data of more than 1 million passengers to a bureau of the Pentagon. The American Civil Liberties Association deems this a highly ‘un-American system of border controls’. A US citizen who was working in the World Trade Center on 11 September, and luckily survived, says that he can understand that safety is important, but that it should not be done in this way, for that is ludicrous!
The US is lobbying for its own standards, but should we not be doing the same thing in the US? This brings me to another point which may not entirely fall within this Commissioner’s remit: would it not be preferable for organised crime and terrorism to be fought by setting up a transatlantic system along the lines of the European Schengen system for the exchange of data on potentially dangerous persons?
In my view, the solution is two-pronged. First of all, we need to regulate data protection effectively and then look for another way of fighting terrorism.
This matter has, meanwhile, also been raised at international level. As you know, a conference took place in Sydney on 12 September last that involved the members of the data protection committee. A resolution was adopted on this matter, and I should like to hear the opinion of the Commissioner about the proposal to conclude an international agreement in this area. According to this resolution, such an international agreement should in any case contain the following components:
the required conditions for data protection;
the reason why the data is collated;
a defined list of the required data, which should not be excessive;
strict time limits for the storage period;
adequate information to the people in question;
and methods of rectifying any errors in the data.
This is, in fact, more or less what Parliament wants too. What is your opinion about this and do you consider an international agreement to be a viable solution?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples