Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.19.3-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commission shares the overall concern that Member States are aiming to address with the envisaged framework decision on data retention, which is to guarantee the capability of law enforcement authorities to access certain data related to electronic communication to underpin their efforts to fight crime, including terrorism and organised crime. From a legal point of view, the initiative of France, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom on data retention currently under discussion was tabled under Title 6 of the Treaty on European Union.
As regards the EU’s global plan for PNR policy, the Commission issued a communication in December 2003 on the EU’s global approach on passenger data, advocating a comprehensive and balanced approach. The Commission indicated in the communication that it will pursue its task with other third countries requesting passengers’ data. The Commission has entered into talks with Canada and Australia. Concerning Canada, we will soon seek Parliament’s opinion on a draft Commission document and an accompanying international agreement. Talks with Australia are also well advanced. In both cases the Article 29 Working Party has issued a positive opinion. As you can see, the Commission’s strategy as outlined in the communication of December 2003 is being put into practice.
Finally, as regards the International Civil Aviation Organization, that organisation established the passenger name record access study group in June 2004, following an initiative by several states within that organisation. They called for the development of a harmonised set of principles under the auspices of the ICAO. Guidelines are currently being prepared. The European Commission and several EU Member States are participating actively in the work of the study group. I will keep you well informed about further developments in that programme.
However, the Commission is of the opinion that the provisions of the draft instrument that deal with the harmonisation of obligations on electronic communication providers to retain data related to the provision of electronic communication services fall under the European Community Treaty, notably in view of the existing provisions of Community law on the subject. As a consequence, the Commission will present an alternative proposal on data retention based on Article 95 of the European Community Treaty by early spring 2005. Personally, I hope that the four Member States in question will withdraw their proposal.
The Commission is fully aware of the possible cost implications of data retention obligations on the providers of electronic communication services. An impact assessment will be carried out to determine to what extent the creation of obligations to retain data will have economic implications.
Regarding a third pillar general data protection instrument, the Commission intends to issue the first comprehensive proposal in the second half of 2005; in October or November. To that end, the Commission has started consultations with experts representing the relevant ministries and data protection control authorities of the Member States and the Schengen States.
As regards the transfer of passenger data to the United States joint review, a number of questions concerning the transfer of passenger data – the PNR issue – are related to the implementation of undertakings by the US Customs and Border Protection agency. Those undertakings provide for a joint review on their implementation to be conducted by the US authorities and the Commission, the latter assisted by representatives of European law enforcement authorities and data protection supervisors. This joint review will take place in the first half of this year, i.e. during the first year of operation of the agreement and associated undertakings, which entered into force on 28 May 2004. The review aims to provide a clear picture of the way the undertakings function. It is my intention to inform this Parliament of the outcome of this joint review and any important developments in this file.
As I have already mentioned, national data protection authorities will be part of the Commission-led team conducting the joint review. This should allow the Article 29 Working Party to participate to assess fully the implementation of the undertaking. I am pleased to tell you that, in spite of differences of opinion on the US PNR package, there is excellent cooperation on the implementation of this package between the Article 29 Working Party and the Commission.
As regards passenger information, as an example of that excellent cooperation between the Article 29 Working Party and the Commission, the Working Party has issued a passenger information notice, which airlines and travel agents use in order to inform airline passengers of the fact that personal data are transferred to the US Customs and Border Protection agency for the purpose of preventing and combating terrorism and other serious crimes.
As regards data transfers to third countries, according to information we received from the United States, no passenger data have been transferred so far to third countries. No doubt this issue will be looked into during the joint review exercise that will take place very soon.
As regards ‘Secure Flight’ and CAPPS II, you will be aware that the US Transportation Security Administration has dropped its controversial computer-assisted passenger pre-screening system – also known as CAPPS II – in favour of a new programme called ‘Secure Flight’. That programme will use passenger data for pre-screening passengers on US domestic flights against a terrorist watch list, with the aim of helping to identify potential terrorists. Unlike CAPPS II, ‘Secure Flight’, for the time being, is limited to US domestic flights, which make it much less problematic than CAPPS II from a new data protection point of view. ‘Secure Flight’ is only in its testing phase. That is why, for the moment, no negotiations are planned. This is an issue to be watched very carefully."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Vice-President of the"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples