Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-026-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120419.4.4-026-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left intends voting against this agreement because it nullifies an elementary right of EU citizens, namely the right to the protection of personal data. Ms Malmström, I can only shake my head in despair at what you have had to say. You seem to be chasing an imaginary level of security that does not exist and that will not come into existence with this agreement or any other agreement of this kind.
We are not talking about a small amount of travel information about European citizens, but rather about the combination of this information with other long-established databases, enabling profiling and thus the monitoring of individual citizens. We reject this agreement because no adequate evidence has been provided – not even by you, Ms Malmström – of the possible benefits of this agreement. We also oppose it because proportionality and purpose limitation are taken to absurd lengths when millions of data records belonging to innocent citizens are retained. We reject it because the use of this data goes far beyond the purpose you have indicated – the fight against terrorism and the combating of serious, organised, cross-border crime.
Article 4 contains an escape clause that also needs to be discussed. This clause significantly widens the purpose for which data can be used. We cannot support this agreement because it involves the processing and forwarding of the PNR data to an authority, the Department of Homeland Security, where the intelligence services hold power, and even to third countries; none of this can be controlled by Parliament, so that there is no guarantee of transparency. We reject the agreement because the period for which the data is to be retained goes against all understanding of proportionality and appropriateness, whereby even sensitive data can be retained for 30 days and possibly even longer. This is scandalous.
It is quite impossible for our group to vote in favour because there is no serious provision for judicial remedy. The judicial remedy provisions contained in the agreement are laughable. All that is offered is a limited right to information and it is not even possible to take legal recourse according to a proper data protection law. This is just not possible. Judicial remedy is transformed into the obstruction of justice. To Mr Voss and the other Members who intend voting in favour of this agreement I would say: if our own EU Treaties mean anything to us, then we must reject this agreement. It is all a question of responsibility, Mr Voss, namely responsibility to the citizens of the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples