Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-04-Speech-1-144-000"

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	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110704.24.1-144-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-07-04-Speech-1-145-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Rui Tavares2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--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 member; G/EFA (2011-06-24--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Independente (2011-06-30--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I think that there is no excuse here for the lack of clarity. We are facing a paradigm change in investigation. Citizens know that, previously, they were investigated if they were suspected of a crime or if they had committed a crime. What happens with the processing of passenger name record (PNR) data is that everyone is investigated, including innocent people, and therefore, whether or not this is justified, proportional or necessary, it is essential that citizens are told clearly that they are being investigated, even when they are innocent. This cannot happen without a very clear debate with the citizens, particularly when their data are in the hands of third countries, as is the case. This is why we are discussing the agreement with the United States here today. Most people would agree to their data being used to stop a terrorist blowing up the plane in which they are flying. That is not the issue. However, what would people say if a large part of their data, including credit card details and addresses, were in the hands of a third country for 15 years, a long time after the aeroplane had reached its destination? This is what is happening now with the agreement that we have with the United States. Let us be clear: over 15 years many administrations come and go, so an administration that says that it will not carry out data mining might do so at a later date It is therefore necessary for the agreement to be perfectly clear, as I believe that the agreement that we have today contains large gaps and loopholes that can be exploited for different purposes. I would like to know what the Commission is going to do to close these big gaps in the agreement that we have at the moment."@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