Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-315-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120419.15.4-315-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I, like 409 fellow members, supported the Passenger Name Records (PNR) Agreement on the transfer of passenger data to the United States Department of Homeland Security. This is a compromise and the text is flawed. So be it. However, to have rejected it would simply have had the effect of maintaining the preceding agreement in force, which was less satisfactory in terms of protection of privacy. Nor would its rejection have led to new negotiations with the United States. For some people, what is at issue is respect for privacy. For others, it boils down to the fight against terrorism. Our role was to strike a balance between these two demands. That is what I think has been achieved. The right to security is fundamental, a cardinal right. Without security about who we are and what we own, what is the point of being able to travel, think, speak, publish or demonstrate? Frankly, the ‘privacy’ hardliners, who merrily throw the baby out with the bathwater, might be better advised to take a look at the control to which we willingly allow ourselves to be subjected on social networks. This is a rather more intrusive kind of ‘Big Brother’ and, as you will no doubt agree, a rather less legitimate one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples