Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-23-Speech-1-085"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Establishment, operation and use of SIS II (regulation) – Establishment, operation and use of SIS II (decision) – Access to SIS II by the services responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061023.16.1-085"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-23-Speech-1-0862
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Schlyter2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Miljöpartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, thank you, Mr Coelho for your work on improving this proposal. It is important for us to enhance data protection, something that the European Parliament is trying to do. It is important for people to be allowed to know what information is being recorded about them, for sound reasons. I think that Schengen, including the Schengen Information System, has been beset by problems from the very beginning. In practice, we have replaced simple border controls by an ability on the part of the authorities constantly to keep a check on people when they are actually in their own countries. What is being proposed here is an increase in the number of authorities that have access to data. The proposal thus entails increased use of this data, so we have to be still more careful about the information we submit. For that reason, I think it inappropriate to submit biometric data. When the United States debated going down this road, it allowed its Supreme Court to examine the options. The implication for ourselves of their decision is that there would be a great risk either that many people who are entitled to enter the EU would not be able to do so, or – in the event of the safety margins being reduced – that undesirables would get in. There are many people – for example, hard-working people with poor fingerprints – who it would not be possible to identify with certainty using fingerprints. There is a danger that innocent people would be turned away and that guilty people would slip though. Biometric data is also extremely expensive. Increased use of such data is unacceptable when it is now to be possible to search for such data. Nor is it acceptable for a decision on the matter to be made through a committee procedure. Biometric data entails an invasion of privacy, especially as it might very well affect innocent people. It is not a route we should go down. A number of governments now wish, at the last minute, to introduce a provision whereby the security police are to have access to the data concerned. That would put an end to the whole principle of data protection, to the whole principle of the right to know what has been recorded about oneself and to the whole principle of legal certainty and the rule of law. It would be as well, I think, if the Council were to withdraw this debate from the agenda. The security police must not have access to such information."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph