Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-04-Speech-1-138-000"

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.20110704.24.1-138-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-07-04-Speech-1-139-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Axel Voss2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2012-09-09)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; PETI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, the challenge that we constantly face when it comes to data and data transfer is the endless search for balance between security and freedom. Freedom without security is fragile. Security without freedom is repressive. In other words, we need as much security as is necessary in order to allow freedoms, but not so much security that these freedoms are jeopardised. In my view, that is exactly what the debate on passenger name records (PNR) is about. Such a system can indeed generate greater security and make travel easier, but in this area – where we must constantly find the right balance – there is one question that continually arises, and that is: where is the line that we do not want to cross? These questions are our attempt to communicate this to you. There are legal problems. There are practical problems. There may be problems relating to its application generally under European law. Where the agreement with Australia is concerned, it seems to me that we have a good starting point that we can build on. The same cannot be said of the agreement with the US. This naturally leads us to ask – as Mrs in ’t Veld has just mentioned – just how so many different agreements can be reconciled with each other. What do the others want? To start with, we need to clarify exactly what profiling means. It may sound highly dangerous at first, but profiling can also be highly objective – as in the case of the UK authorities. That seems to me to be entirely acceptable. I have a feeling that this is our last opportunity where the US agreement is concerned, so we should continue negotiating in any event. I have a last brief question regarding Canada. I have heard that the negotiations have been broken off. I would be grateful if you could give me some feedback on this."@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