Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-017-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR to the US Department of Homeland Security (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120419.4.4-017-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-19-Speech-4-018-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Philipp Albrecht2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; JURI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Iraq (2011-02-14--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; CRIM (2012-03-28--2012-12-09)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, about three years ago, just a few metres from this spot, the European Court of Human Rights issued a decisive judgment on the relation between criminal prosecution interests and the right to respect for private and family life. In the case of Marper v. the United Kingdom, the Court declared the gathering of personal data in national databases without clear evidence of need and without stringent restrictions to be unlawful. Two years ago, just a few kilometres from here, the German Federal Constitutional Court made a finding in relation to the retention of telecommunication data and came to the conclusion that only the most extraordinary circumstances can justify an obligation on private businesses to retain personal data without cause, even for just a few months. Shortly after this, the European Parliament refused to approve an agreement that obviously failed to comply with these criteria in any way. In a resolution, we clearly indicated that data retention for up to 15 years was disproportionate. We also indicated that the use of such collection of data without due cause could only be permitted within the most stringent restrictions, for example to combat terrorism or organised crime. We also made it clear that wholesale searching, or profiling, of information must not be permitted. Ms Malmström, this agreement allows all data to be used and processed. It is not a question of accessing isolated data, but rather of processing all data. That is the principle that underlies this measure: a wholesale search, automatically comparing all information relating to anyone travelling to the US with threat profiles. We must be very clear about this: such searches openly contravene European law. At this point I need to direct a question to the Conservatives and Social Democrats in the European Parliament: Are you not ashamed of yourselves? Are you not ashamed of flouting the law so openly? Do you really think that the US Congress would debate the sovereignty of our laws with the same degree of commitment? That is absurd. What concerns us here is not the question of whether the US can decide for itself what measures it may or may not take, but rather whether or not we Europeans are willing to legitimate these measures. I must be honest: we cannot legitimate this. A large number of citizens will be very disappointed if the European Parliament approves this agreement today after 10 years of debate, despite the fact that the provisions it contains are unchanged. For this reason, I can only urge you to uphold the honour of Parliament and vote no."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph