Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-04-Speech-1-133-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Negotiations on the PNR agreements with the US, Australia and Canada (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110704.24.1-133-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-07-04-Speech-1-134-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Cornelia Ernst2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2012-01-10)3 unknown; DIE LINKE. (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2012-07-08)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Iran (2009-09-29--2014-06-30)3 substitute; FEMM (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with Afghanistan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; REGI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have already adopted a number of resolutions on the subject of passenger name records (PNR), which include specific requirements. In all cases these have been concerned with necessity, appropriateness, proportionality and the prohibition of profiling. We consider the legal basis of the agreement with Australia to be inappropriate. The agreement with Australia is aimed at harmonising the transfer of data prescribed under Australian law with European law, and particularly the law on data protection. An absolute requirement, therefore, is that reference must be made to Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Moreover, we would question once again its proportionality. If you bear in mind that, according to the Australian Government, in 2009 just five people were traced and accused of terrorist offences – and it was not even clear whether this was achieved as a result of PNR data – then it does not seem particularly proportionate for millions of records nonetheless to be retained for years on end. As we all know, when it comes down to it they are being used for profiling purposes – and we do not even have a uniform agreed definition of profiling yet. I do not know how often the Commission has already been asked for such reasons to prove that the transfer of PNR data is necessary, or to present and look into alternatives. A really substantive report is necessary if this is to be investigated. One more comment on purpose limitation: how can we ensure that the data is used only for the intended purpose if various third countries conclude agreements with each other under which PNR data is systematically exchanged? This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to ensure this. Moreover, we are awaiting a very clear answer from the Commission on the relationship between PNR and the US Secure Flight programme. As everyone is aware, the purpose of the Secure Flight programme is to exclude so-called potentially dangerous passengers from flights. There have been frequent cases of mistakes being made and passengers being misidentified, as a result of which the persons concerned have been prevented from travelling and have practically no legal means by which to defend themselves. One final word: please do not forget that we are talking not just about self-determination – about self-determination in the sphere of information – but also, and above all, about freedom of movement as a basic right, as laid down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph