Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100421.6.3-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr López Garrido, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on Passenger Name Record (PNR) data is very similar to the one we have just held on SWIFT. Basically, we are talking about the quest for a healthy, acceptable balance between security and the protection of privacy. Both are important, of course, and a careful balance needs to be struck between them. The problems in European aviation over recent days have demonstrated once more the essential role played by passenger and freight transport in the organisation of today’s society. Just about everyone will travel by air sooner or later.
Therefore, it is unacceptable for us to have dozens of items of data continually transferred and updated, often completely unwittingly, without there being cast-iron guarantees to prevent abuse; particularly as, for example, the US authorities already use a wide variety of information sources for a very long time to assess whether or not a person is suspicious, ranging from his or her visa application to check-in procedures at the airport. A few weeks ago, I was able to see for myself in the PNR centre in Washington how a whole team is working round the clock to reduce an initial rough list of approximately 5 000 people each day to a small list of a handful of people to be denied access to US territory. Evidently, only an administrative appeal is possible against such a ban on entering US territory.
It is clear that this flow of data must remain confined within certain limits and that the minimum conditions set out in the resolution must be laid down, such as restricting the use of this data to the detection of terrorism and international crime. I agree with my fellow Members who have said that this must indeed be well defined, that all of this must, of course, be in keeping with the European data protection standards, and that this also applies when transferring data to further third countries where applicable.
In my opinion, we also need to provide rather more clarity regarding the ‘sensitive’ PNR data, as I believe quite a few things are open to interpretation in this regard. Therefore, I support the proposed postponement, so as to enable a new negotiating mandate to be presented, sooner rather than later, that takes account of our questions. I take note of the constructive position of the Council and the Commission and, like my fellow Members, expect to see more clarity by the summer months."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples