Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-05-Speech-3-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060705.18.3-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the ideas that you have given me during the debate.
I think it can be said that the SWIFT affair has a special feature, which suggests to me that the 1995 ‘first pillar directive’ on data protection is probably the one that is applicable, since the data was transferred through SWIFT Belgium and SWIFT United States, that is between two private branches of a private organisation. That is why my interpretation, obviously subject to what the Belgian authorities will tell us, is that there would have been a communication to the Data Protection Authority and the national responsibilities of the competent bodies in this case would indeed exist. Unlike the PNR affair, which, as we were correctly reminded by Mr Lambrinidis, involved a transfer from a private airline directly to a US public body, here the transfer was between two private parties. It happens that on US territory, in accordance with US legislation, data transmitted for commercial reasons is used for security purposes. That is the structural difference. The result, as illustrated by Mr Lambrinidis, is that there is a grey area that really needs to be regulated.
In my opinion, there are two immediate possibilities: the first, to be implemented with the help of the Council and the Presidency, consists of rapidly approving the proposal that the Commission has put forward for a framework decision under the third pillar, in order to protect the confidentiality of personal data. To this extent, it is evident that we will at least have covered one area, the one in which data are transmitted for reasons of security, investigation and to combat terrorism. That would leave the first pillar part, that is the transfer between two private parties for commercial reasons.
A third aspect would still be missing: transfer between a Member State and a third country, that is not data transmitted from the European Union to a third country, but by an individual Member State directly to a third country. This is the third aspect that I think should be examined.
If we look at these three points together, which, quite honestly, do not make for a controversy with the United States of America, but they do concern all third countries, we will be able to get a precise handle on that grey area."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples