Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-034"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-07"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vabadus ja turvalisus⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050907.2.3-034"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-07-Speech-3-035⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Sophia in 't Veld⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Democraten 66 (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² substitute; FEMM (2004-09-03--2007-01-14)²² substitute; LIBE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)²² member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, hr. Frattini og hr. Clarke, EU skal yde sikkerhed for Europas borgere, men reel sikkerhed, ikke blot en falsk følelse af sikkerhed. Vi har ikke brug for store løfter. Men vi har brug for snarlig handling. Et forstærket samarbejde og udveksling af oplysninger, fuldstændig og hurtig gennemførelse af aftalte foranstaltninger, ikke blot yderligere indsamling af data, men også langt bedre udnyttelse af de data, der er til rådighed. Europol og Eurojust skal omsider have lov til at spille en vigtig rolle i bekæmpelsen af kriminalitet og terrorisme. Jeg bifalder hr. Frattinis fornuftige vision, hvor der er en rimelig balance mellem sikkerhed og frihed, og hvor nødvendigheden af et europæisk samarbejde med henblik på mere effektivitet understreges. Jeg mener ærlig talt, at denne vision er langt mere overbevisende end formandskabets ensidede ønsker om strengere tiltag. Medlemsstaterne hævder, at de ønsker at træffer disse foranstaltninger for at beskytte vores demokrati, men foranstaltningerne træffes uden om parlamentarisk kontrol, idet det er alt for besværligt. Jeg tager også stærkt afstand fra ethvert forslag om, at menneskerettighedskonventionen bør fortyndes. Jeg mener, at det er et skråplan. Der er for megen snak om at finde den rette balance. Ingen vil sige, at de ønsker at skabe ubalance, men det er afslørende, at formandskabets dokument ikke engang indeholder et kapitel om borgerlige frihedsrettigheder. Vi må ikke glemme, at der opnås størst sikkerhed inden for vores åbne, frie og demokratiske samfund. Jeg ønsker at rejse tre specifikke spørgsmål. Hvad angår passagerdata, insisterede hr. Clarke på retlige beskyttelsesforanstaltninger over for misbrug, men vi ved alle, at aftalen med USA om passagerlister netop mangler denne form for beskyttelsesforanstaltninger. EU-borgere har ingen tilstrækkelige retsmidler i tilfælde af fejl og misbrug. Lister over personer med flyveforbud er en anden bekymring. På hvilket grundlag er disse personer anført på listerne? Hvem har adgang til listerne? Hvis personer er anført på en liste af de forkerte årsager, hvordan fjernes den pågældende person så fra listen? Fordelen ved opbevaring af data i forbindelse med efterforskning og retsforfølgning er åbenbar, men der er endnu ikke fremlagt overbevisende dokumentation for behovet for omfattende overvågning. Endvidere skal der fokuseres langt mere på området for efterretninger fra menneskelige kilder, dvs. gammeldags spioner, frem for den moderne teknologi, selv om det er mere interessant."@da² "Herr Präsident, Herr Frattini und Herr Clarke! Europa muss seinen Bürgern Sicherheit bieten, aber wirkliche Sicherheit und nicht nur ein falsches Gefühl von Sicherheit. Wir brauchen keine großen Erklärungen, sondern schnelles Handeln: engere Zusammenarbeit und Informationsaustausch, die vollständige und zügige Umsetzung vereinbarter Maßnahmen sowie eine wesentlich bessere Nutzung der verfügbaren Daten anstelle eines bloßen Ausbaus der Datenspeicherung. Außerdem müssen Europol und Eurojust bei der Bekämpfung der Kriminalität und des Terrorismus endliche eine vollwertige Rolle spielen dürfen. Ich begrüße das in sich stimmige Konzept von Herrn Frattini, in dem ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen Sicherheit und Freiheit vorgesehen ist und die Notwendigkeit der europäischen Zusammenarbeit zur Effektivitätssteigerung betont wird. Offen gesagt, finde ich dieses Konzept wesentlich überzeugender als die einseitige Wunschliste der Präsidentschaft mit ihrer Forderung nach schärferen Maßnahmen. Die Mitgliedstaaten begründen diese Maßnahmen mit dem Schutz unserer Demokratie, umgehen dabei aber die parlamentarische Kontrolle, weil sie ihnen äußerst lästig ist. Darüber hinaus lehne ich vehement alle Vorschläge ab, die Menschenrechtskonvention aufzuweichen. Meiner Meinung nach begeben wir uns damit auf unsicheres Terrain. Die Phrase, das richtige Gleichgewicht erzielen zu wollen, ist zu einem Gemeinplatz geworden. Niemand wird sagen, dass er das falsche Gleichgewicht erzielen möchte. Aber bezeichnenderweise ist in dem Dokument der Präsidentschaft nicht einmal ein Kapitel zu den bürgerlichen Freiheiten enthalten. Wir sollten nicht vergessen, dass die Menschen nirgendwo sicherer sind, als in unserer offenen, freien und demokratischen Gesellschaft. Ich möchte drei konkrete Punkte ansprechen. Was die Fluggastdaten angeht, hat Herr Clarke zwar besonderen Nachdruck auf rechtliche Garantien zur Verhinderung des Missbrauchs gelegt, aber uns allen ist bekannt, dass das PNR-Abkommen mit den USA gerade dieses Erfordernis nicht erfüllt. Den EU-Bürgern steht bei einem Fehler oder Missbrauch kein angemessener Rechtsbehelf zur Verfügung. Ein weiterer Punkt, der mir Kopfzerbrechen bereitet, sind die Flugverbotslisten. Auf welcher Grundlage werden Personen in eine solche Liste aufgenommen? Wer hat Zugang zu diesen Listen? Wenn jemand fälschlicherweise auf einer Liste steht, wie kann er von dieser Liste wieder gestrichen werden? Die Tatsache, dass die Datenspeicherung ein äußerst nützliches Mittel für Ermittlungen und bei der Strafverfolgung darstellt, ist unbestritten, aber die Notwendigkeit einer umfassenden Überwachung wurde bisher noch nicht überzeugend begründet. Des Weiteren müssen die Humanressourcen der Geheimdienste, sprich die herkömmlichen Spione, wesentlich stärker zum Einsatz kommen, anstatt sich ausschließlich auf moderne Technologien zu konzentrieren, auch wenn das vielleicht aufregender ist."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Frattini και κύριε Clarke, η Ευρώπη πρέπει να παράσχει στους πολίτες της ασφάλεια, αλλά πραγματική ασφάλεια, όχι απλώς μια ψευδή αίσθηση ασφάλειας. Δεν χρειάζεται να εκδίδουμε ανακοινώσεις. Χρειαζόμαστε επειγόντως δράση: στενότερη συνεργασία και ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, πλήρη και τάχιστη εφαρμογή των συμφωνηθέντων μέτρων, όχι απλώς μεγαλύτερη συγκέντρωση δεδομένων, αλλά επίσης πολύ καλύτερη χρήση των διαθέσιμων δεδομένων. Πρέπει επιτέλους να επιτραπεί στην Ευρωπόλ και την Eurojust να παίξουν έναν ολοκληρωμένο ρόλο στην καταπολέμηση του εγκλήματος και της τρομοκρατίας. Καλωσορίζω την εμπεριστατωμένη εικόνα που παρουσίασε ο κ. Frattini, με την δέουσα ισορροπία μεταξύ ασφάλειας και ελευθεριών, υπογραμμίζοντας την ανάγκη για ευρωπαϊκή συνεργασία και περισσότερη αποτελεσματικότητα. Ειλικρινά, τη βρίσκω πολύ περισσότερο πειστική από τη μονόπλευρη ευχετήρια λίστα για σκληρότερα μέτρα από την Προεδρία. Τα κράτη μέλη υποστηρίζουν ότι λαμβάνουν αυτά τα μέτρα για να προστατεύσουν τη δημοκρατία μας, αλλά το πράττουν με το να καταστρατηγούν τον κοινοβουλευτικό έλεγχο γιατί είναι πολύ άβολος. Επίσης, απορρίπτω σθεναρά οποιαδήποτε πρόταση για περιορισμό της Ευρωπαϊκής Σύμβασης για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα. Πιστεύω ότι βρισκόμαστε σε μια ολισθηρή οδό. Τα λόγια περί της σωστής ισορροπίας έχουν γίνει κοινός τόπος. Κανείς δεν θα ισχυριστεί ότι επιθυμούμε να επιτύχουμε λανθασμένη ισορροπία, αλλά είναι εντυπωσιακό το ότι η ανακοίνωση της Προεδρίας δεν περιέχει ούτε ένα κεφάλαιο για τα πολιτικά δικαιώματα. Ας μην ξεχνάμε ότι οι άνθρωποι δεν είναι πουθενά ασφαλέστεροι από ό,τι στην ανοικτή, ελεύθερη και δημοκρατική κοινωνία μας. Θα ήθελα να θίξω τρία συγκεκριμένα θέματα. Αναφορικά με τα στοιχεία των επιβατών, ο κ. Clarke επέμεινε στις νομικές δικλίδες ασφαλείας ενάντια στην κατάχρηση, αλλά όλοι γνωρίζουμε ότι η συμφωνία για τις καταστάσεις ονομάτων επιβατών με τις ΗΠΑ έχει ελλείψεις ακριβώς σε αυτό. Οι πολίτες της ΕΕ δεν διαθέτουν κατάλληλα ένδικα μέσα για περιπτώσεις λαθών και καταχρήσεων. Οι λίστες απαγόρευσης επιβίβασης αποτελούν μια άλλη ανησυχία. Βάσει ποιών στοιχείων περιλαμβάνονται άτομα σε μια τέτοια λίστα; Ποιος έχει πρόσβαση σε αυτές τις λίστες; Εάν κάποιος βρίσκεται στη λίστα για τους λάθος λόγους, πώς μπορεί να διαγραφεί από αυτήν; Η χρησιμότητα της διατήρησης δεδομένων για έρευνα και δίωξη είναι αδιαμφισβήτητη, αλλά η ανάγκη για μυστική παρακολούθηση δεν έχει ακόμα αποδειχθεί πειστικά. Επιπλέον, πρέπει να γίνουν πολύ περισσότερα στον τομέα των πληροφοριών από ανθρώπινο υλικό, δηλαδή, τους παλιομοδίτες κατασκόπους, αντί να επικεντρωνόμαστε αποκλειστικά στη σύγχρονη τεχνολογία, ακόμα και αν αυτό είναι πιο σέξι."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, señor Frattini y señor Clarke, Europa debe ofrecer seguridad a sus ciudadanos, pero una seguridad real, no simplemente una falsa sensación de seguridad. No necesitamos declaraciones grandiosas. Necesitamos acciones urgentemente: cooperación más estrecha e intercambio de información; aplicación plena y rápida de las medidas acordadas; no solo más recopilaciones de datos, sino también un uso mucho mejor de los datos disponibles. Debe permitirse al fin que Europol y Eurojust participen plenamente en la lucha contra el crimen y el terrorismo. Acojo con satisfacción la visión coherente expuesta por el señor Frattini, con un equilibrio adecuado entre seguridad y libertad, subrayando la necesidad de una cooperación europea para una mayor efectividad. Francamente, me parece mucho más convincente que la defensa unilateral de medidas más firmes por parte de la Presidencia. Los Estados miembros alegan que toman esas medidas para proteger nuestra democracia, pero lo hacen burlando el escrutinio parlamentario, porque resulta terriblemente incómodo. También rechazo firmemente cualquier sugerencia de que se suavizarse el Convenio para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos. Creo que estamos pisando terreno resbaladizo. Hablar del equilibrio adecuado se ha convertido en un tópico. Nadie dirá que quiere un equilibrio inadecuado, pero por algo será que la declaración de la Presidencia no contenga siquiera un capítulo sobre libertades civiles. No olvidemos que las personas no están más seguras en ningún otro sitio que en nuestra sociedad abierta, libre y democrática. Me gustaría plantear tres cuestiones específicas. Con respecto a los datos de los pasajeros, el señor Clarke ha insistido en las salvaguardias jurídicas contra el abuso, pero todos nosotros sabemos que el acuerdo sobre los expedientes de los pasajeros (PNR) con los Estados Unidos carece precisamente de ellas. Los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea no cuentan con los medios de compensación adecuados, en caso de que se produzcan errores o abusos. Las listas de exclusión aérea son otro motivo de preocupación. ¿Sobre qué base se incluye a las personas en estas listas? ¿Quién tiene acceso a estas listas? Si alguien está en una lista por equivocación, ¿cómo se puede borrar de la lista? La utilidad de la conservación de datos para las investigaciones y los procesamientos es indiscutible, pero la necesidad de una vigilancia general todavía no se ha demostrado de forma convincente. Por otra parte, es necesario hacer mucho más en el ámbito de la inteligencia humana, es decir, de los anticuados espías, en vez de concentrarse exclusivamente en la tecnología moderna, aunque esta sea más atractiva."@es²⁰ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komission jäsen, arvoisa neuvoston puheenjohtaja, Euroopan on tarjottava kansalaisilleen todellista turvallisuutta, ei vain valheellista turvallisuuden tunnetta. Emme tarvitse mahtipontisia lausuntoja vaan pikaisia toimia: tiiviimpää yhteistyötä ja tietojen vaihtoa sekä sovittujen toimenpiteiden täysimääräistä ja nopeaa toteuttamista. Emme tarvitse ainoastaan lisää tiedonkeruuta vaan myös käytettävissä olevien tietojen tehokkaampaa hyödyntämistä. Europolille ja Eurojustille on lopultakin annettava todellinen tehtävä rikosten ja terrorismin torjunnassa. Suhtaudun myönteisesti komission jäsenen Frattinin johdonmukaiseen näkemykseen asianmukaisesta tasapainosta turvallisuuden ja vapauden välillä sekä tarpeesta lisätä eurooppalaisen yhteistyön tehokkuutta. Totta puhuen tämä näkemys on mielestäni huomattavasti vakuuttavampi kuin puheenjohtajavaltion esittämä ankarien toimenpiteiden yksipuolinen toivomuslista. Jäsenvaltiot väittävät, että ne toteuttavat näitä toimia suojellakseen demokratiaamme, mutta itse asiassa ne tekevät tämän kiertämällä parlamentaarisen valvonnan, joka se on erittäin epämukavaa. Torjun lisäksi täysin kaikki ehdotukset Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen vesittämisestä. Mielestäni olemme nyt heikoilla jäillä. Oikean tasapainon löytämisestä on tullut kulunut fraasi. Kukaan ei sano, että haluaisimme löytää vääränlaisen tasapainon, mutta erittäin kuvaavaa on se, ettei puheenjohtajavaltion asiakirja edes sisällä kansalaisoikeuksia koskevaa kappaletta. Älkäämme unohtako, että meidän avoin, vapaa ja demokraattinen yhteisömme on turvallisin paikka ihmisille. Haluan ottaa esille kolme seikkaa. Neuvoston puheenjohtaja vaatii oikeudellisia takeita matkustajatietojen väärinkäytöksiä vastaan, mutta tiedämme kaikki, että juuri nämä takeet eivät sisälly Yhdysvaltojen kanssa tehty sopimukseen lentomatkustajia koskevasta matkustajarekisteristä. EU:n kansalaisilla ei ole käytössään mitään asianmukaista oikeussuojakeinoa virheiden ja väärinkäytösten tapauksessa. Lentokieltoluettelot ovat toinen huolenaihe. Millä perusteella ihmisiä kirjataan tällaiseen luetteloon? Kenellä on pääsy näihin luetteloihin? Jos joku on kirjattu luetteloon vääristä syistä, kuinka hänet voidaan poistaa siitä? Tietojen säilyttämisen hyödyllisyys tutkimusten ja syytteeseenpanon kannalta on kiistaton, mutta yleisen valvonnan tarpeellisuutta ei ole vielä osoitettu vakuuttavasti. Lisäksi paljon on vielä tehtävä inhimillisen tiedustelun alalla eli vanhanaikaisissa vakoilutoiminnoissa sen sijaan, että keskitytään yksinomaan moderniin tekniikkaan, vaikka se onkin seksikkäämpää."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Frattini, Monsieur Clarke, l’Europe doit fournir à ses citoyens la sécurité, mais la vraie, pas simplement un faux sentiment de sécurité. Nous n’avons pas besoin de grandes déclarations. Nous avons besoin d’actions de toute urgence: une coopération plus étroite et un échange d’informations, une pleine et rapide mise en œuvre des mesures décidées, non seulement davantage de collectes de données, mais aussi un meilleur usage de ces données disponibles. Europol et Eurojust doivent en fin de compte être autorisées à jouer un rôle complet dans la lutte contre le crime et le terrorisme. Je me réjouis de la vision cohérente exposée par M. Frattini et de son juste équilibre entre sécurité et liberté, qui souligne la nécessité d’une coopération européenne pour plus d’efficacité. En toute franchise, je trouve cela bien plus convaincant que la liste unilatérale de souhaits en faveur de mesures plus dures de la présidence. Les États membres avancent qu’ils prennent ces mesures pour protéger notre démocratie, mais ils procèdent de la sorte en contournant le contrôle parlementaire parce que ce dernier est très gênant. Je rejette également fermement toute suggestion visant à édulcorer la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Je crois que nous nous trouvons sur une pente glissante en la matière. Parler de trouver le juste équilibre est devenu un lieu commun. Personne ne dira qu’il souhaite trouver un mauvais équilibre, mais il est révélateur de voir que le document de la présidence ne possède même pas de chapitre sur les libertés civiles. Ne perdons pas de vue que c’est dans notre société ouverte, libre et démocratique que les gens sont le plus en sécurité. Je voudrais soulever trois problèmes spécifiques. En ce qui concerne les données des passagers, M. Clarke a insisté sur les sauvegardes juridiques contre les abus, mais nous savons tous que c’est précisément ce qui fait défaut dans l’accord sur les PNR avec les États-Unis. Les citoyens européens n’ont pas de recours approprié en cas d’erreur ou d’abus. Les listes de personnes interdites de vol constituent une autre de nos préoccupations. Sur quelle base inclut-on les gens sur cette liste? Qui a accès à ces listes? Si une personne se trouve sur une liste pour de mauvaises raisons, comment la sortir de la liste? L’utilité de la rétention des données pour les enquêtes et le ministère public est incontestée, mais la nécessité d’une surveillance complète n’a toujours pas été démontrée de façon convaincante. De plus, beaucoup de choses peuvent encore être faites au niveau des services de renseignements humains, c’est-à-dire les bons vieux espions, plutôt que de se concentrer exclusivement sur les techniques modernes, même si ces dernières sont plus attrayantes."@fr⁸ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, Commissario Frattini, Ministro Clarke, l’Europa deve garantire la sicurezza ai suoi cittadini, ma una sicurezza reale, non solo un falso senso di sicurezza. Non abbiamo bisogno di grandi dichiarazioni. Abbiamo urgente bisogno di azioni: una più stretta cooperazione e lo scambio di informazioni, la piena e rapida attuazione delle misure adottate e, oltre alla raccolta di più dati, anche un uso migliore dei dati disponibili. L’Europol e l’Eurojust devono infine poter svolgere un pieno ruolo nella lotta contro la criminalità e il terrorismo. Accolgo con favore la visione coerente illustrata dal Commissario Frattini, con il giusto equilibrio tra sicurezza e libertà, con l’accento sulla necessità di cooperazione europea ai fini di una maggiore efficacia. Francamente, la trovo molto più convincente della lista di desideri unilaterale della Presidenza su misure più severe. Gli Stati membri affermano di adottare queste misure per proteggere la nostra democrazia, ma lo fanno aggirando il controllo parlamentare perché esso è terribilmente scomodo. Respingo anche fermamente qualsiasi proposta di indebolire la Convenzione dei diritti umani. Siamo su una brutta china. Parlare di ottenere il giusto equilibrio è diventato un luogo comune. Nessuno dirà di voler ottenere l’equilibrio sbagliato, ma è significativo che il documento della Presidenza non contenga nemmeno un capitolo sulle libertà civili. Non dimentichiamo che non vi è luogo più sicuro della nostra società aperta, libera e democratica. Vorrei sollevare tre questioni specifiche. Riguardo ai dati sui passeggeri, il Ministro Clarke ha insistito sulle salvaguardie giuridiche contro gli abusi, ma sappiamo tutti che ciò che manca nell’accordo in materia con gli Stati Uniti sono proprio tali salvaguardie. I cittadini dell’Unione non dispongono di adeguati rimedi giuridici in caso di errori e abusi. Le liste relative al divieto di volo sono un’altra fonte di preoccupazione. Su quali basi si è inclusi in tali liste? Chi vi ha accesso? Se una persona vi figura per errore, in che modo può essere cancellata dalla lista? L’utilità della conservazione dei dati ai fini delle indagini e dei procedimenti giudiziari è indiscutibile, ma la necessità di un controllo totale non è ancora stata dimostrata in modo convincente. Inoltre, occorre fare molto di più nell’ambito dell’ umana, cioè le vecchie spie, anziché concentrarsi esclusivamente sulle tecnologie moderne, anche se sono più affascinanti."@it¹² "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@lv¹³ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, mijnheer Frattini, mijnheer Clarke, Europa moet zijn burgers veiligheid bieden, echte veiligheid en geen schijnveiligheid. We hebben geen behoefte aan grote woorden. Waar we dringend behoefte aan hebben zijn daden: nauwer samenwerken en informatie uitwisselen; volledig en snel toepassen van overeengekomen maatregelen; gegevens verzamelen, en die gegevens vervolgens ook gebruiken. Europol en Eurojust moeten nu toch echt de mogelijkheid krijgen om een volwaardige rol te spelen in het bestrijden van misdaad en terrorisme. Ik ben verheugd over de heldere voorstelling van zaken die de heer Frattini heeft gegeven. Hij had aandacht voor een goede balans tussen veiligheid en vrijheid, en heeft benadrukt dat wij om effectiever te kunnen zijn, Europees moeten samenwerken. Ik vind dit eerlijk gezegd veel overtuigender dan de eenzijdige lijst met hardere maatregelen van het voorzitterschap. De lidstaten voeren, ter verdediging van de maatregelen die ze nemen, de bescherming van onze democratie aan. Ze nemen die maatregelen echter buiten het toeziend oog van het Parlement om, want dat komt hun zo vreselijk slecht uit. Tevens wijs ik vastbesloten ieder voorstel van de hand dat kan leiden tot verwatering van het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens. Ik ben namelijk van mening dat we ons in een dergelijk geval op glad ijs begeven. Het is een gemeenplaats geworden om te spreken over het bereiken van het juiste evenwicht. Niemand zal zeggen een onjuist evenwicht te willen bereiken, maar het is wel typerend dat het onderwerp burgervrijheden geen punt is op de agenda van het voorzitterschap. Laten we niet vergeten dat de burger nergens veiliger is dan in onze open, vrije en democratische maatschappij. Ik wil graag drie specifieke kwesties noemen. De heer Clarke eist wettelijke maatregelen ter voorkoming van misbruik van passagiergegevens, maar we weten allemaal dat deze maatregelen nu juist ontbreken in de PNR-overeenkomst met de VS. In geval van fouten en misbruik zijn er geen behoorlijke compensatiemogelijkheden voor de EU-burgers. Een volgende zorg zijn de zogenaamde no-fly-lists. Op welke gronden worden personen aan een dergelijke lijst toegevoegd? Wie beheert deze lijsten? Indien iemand ten onrechte op een lijst wordt gezet, hoe kan hij of zij daar dan weer vanaf worden gehaald? Het heeft zonder meer zin gegevens te bewaren voor onderzoek en vervolging, maar de noodzaak van allesomvattende bewaking is nog niet overtuigend bewezen. Verder moet er veel gebeuren op het gebied van . Ik bedoel hiermee de inzet van ouderwetse spionnen in plaats van enkel en alleen moderne technologie, ook al is dat sexier."@nl³ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, Senhor Frattini e Senhor Clarke, a Europa tem de garantir a segurança dos seus cidadãos, mas segurança efectiva e não apenas um falso sentimento de segurança. Não precisamos de grandes proclamações. Precisamos urgentemente de acção: cooperação mais estreita e intercâmbio de informação; aplicação expedita e cabal das medidas acordadas; muito melhor aproveitamento dos dados disponíveis e não apenas mais recolha de dados. À Europol e à Eurojust tem de ser permitido, finalmente, participar plenamente no combate ao crime e ao terrorismo. Saúdo a visão coerente apresentada pelo senhor Frattini, com um equilíbrio adequado entre segurança e liberdade e frisando a necessidade de cooperação europeia em ordem a uma maior eficácia. Francamente, parece-me muito mais convincente do que a ‘lista de desejos’ de medidas mais duras da Presidência, baseada numa óptica única. Os Estados-Membros alegam que tomam essas medidas para proteger a nossa democracia, mas fazem-no furtando-se ao escrutínio parlamentar, por ser terrivelmente incómodo. Rejeito também veementemente todo e qualquer alvitre no sentido de que a Convenção dos Direitos do Homem deva ser flexibilizada. Penso que se está a seguir por um caminho perigoso, nesta questão. Falar de alcançar um equilíbrio adequado tornou-se um lugar comum. Ninguém vai dizer que deseja um equilíbrio inadequado, mas o facto de o documento da Presidência não ter, sequer, um capítulo sobre as liberdades dos cidadãos é revelador. Não esqueçamos que não há lugar algum em que as pessoas estejam mais seguras do que na nossa sociedade aberta, livre e democrática. Gostaria de levantar três questões específicas. No que respeita aos dados referentes aos passageiros, o senhor Clarke insistiu em mecanismos legais de salvaguarda contra os abusos, mas todos sabemos que isso é, precisamente, algo que o acordo com os EUA relativo aos PNR não prevê. Os cidadãos da UE não dispõem de meios de reparação adequados em caso de erro ou abuso. As listas de pessoas proibidas de viajar são outra preocupação. Em que critérios se baseia a inclusão das pessoas numa lista dessa natureza? Quem tem acesso a essas listas? De que modo pode alguém que integre uma lista por razões erradas ser retirado dela? A utilidade da retenção de dados para efeitos de investigação e perseguição criminal é inquestionável, mas a necessidade de vigilância indiscriminada ainda não foi demonstrada de modo convincente. Acresce que é necessário fazer muito mais no campo da actividade de informações por meios humanos, isto é: espionagem à antiga, em lugar de nos centrarmos exclusivamente na tecnologia moderna, ainda que esta seja mais sedutora."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, Mr Frattini and Mr Clarke, Europe must provide its citizens with security, but real security, not just a false sense of security. We do not need grand statements. We urgently need action: closer cooperation and exchange of information; full and rapid implementation of agreed measures; not just more data collection, but also much better use of the available data. Europol and Eurojust must finally be allowed to play a full role in combating crime and terrorism. I welcome the coherent vision set out by Mr Frattini, with a proper balance between security and liberty, stressing the need for European cooperation for more effectiveness. Frankly, I find it much more convincing than the one-sided wish list for tougher measures by the Presidency. The Member States argue that they take these measures to protect our democracy, but they do so by circumventing parliamentary scrutiny because it is terribly inconvenient. I also firmly reject any suggestion that the Convention on Human Rights should be watered down. I believe that we are on a slippery slope here. To speak of striking the right balance has become a commonplace. No-one will say that the want to strike the wrong balance, but tellingly the Presidency's paper does not even have a chapter on civil liberties. Let us not forget that people are nowhere safer than in our open, free and democratic society. I should like to raise three specific issues. With regard to passenger data, Mr Clarke insisted on legal safeguards against abuse, but we all know that the PNR agreement with the US lacks precisely that. EU citizens have no proper means of redress in the event of mistakes and abuse. No-fly lists are another concern. On what basis are people included on such a list? Who has access to these lists? If someone is on a list for the wrong reasons, how can he be taken off the list? The usefulness of data retention for investigations and prosecution is undisputed, but the need for blanket surveillance has still not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, much more needs to be done in the area of human intelligence, that is, the old-fashioned spies, rather than focusing exclusively on modern technology, even if that is sexier."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman, herr Frattini och herr Clarke! EU måste erbjuda sina medborgare säkerhet, men verklig säkerhet och inte bara en falsk känsla av säkerhet. Vi behöver inga stora uttalanden. Vi har ett brådskande behov av handling. Det behövs ett närmare samarbete och utbyte av information och ett fullständigt och snabbt genomförande av överenskomna åtgärder och det behövs inte bara mer datainsamling utan även ett mycket bättre användande av tillgänglig data. Europol och Eurojust måste äntligen tillåtas att spela sina roller fullt ut i kampen mot brottslighet och terrorism. Jag välkomnar Franco Frattinis sammanhängande bild av en lämplig avvägning mellan säkerhet och frihet och hans betoning av behovet av ett europeiskt samarbete för att uppnå större effektivitet. Jag anser helt ärligt att detta är mer övertygande än ordförandeskapets ensidiga önskelista om tuffare åtgärder. Medlemsstaterna hävdar att de vidtar dessa åtgärder för att skydda vår demokrati, men de gör det genom att kringgå den parlamentariska kontrollen, för den är hemskt obekväm. Jag förkastar också bestämt alla förslag om att konventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna ska urvattnas. Jag anser att vi befinner oss på hal is. Att tala om att få till stånd den rätta avvägningen är en sliten fras. Ingen kommer att säga att de vill göra en felaktig avvägning, men det är ganska talande att ordförandeskapets dokument inte ens innehåller ett kapitel om de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna. Låt oss inte glömma att människor inte är säkrare någon annanstans än i vårt öppna, fria och demokratiska samhälle. Jag skulle vilja ta upp tre specifika frågor. När det gäller passageraruppgifter insisterade Charles Clarke på rättsliga säkerhetsåtgärder mot missbruk, men vi vet alla att PNR-avtalet med Förenta staterna saknar just detta. EU-medborgare har inga riktiga möjligheter att få upprättelse om det skulle förekomma misstag eller missbruk. Flygförbudslistor är ett annat bekymmer. På vilka grunder inkluderas människor på sådana listor? Vem har tillgång till dessa listor? Om någon finns med på en lista av fel orsaker, hur kan personen tas bort från listan? Det står utom allt tvivel att bevarandet av uppgifter är till hjälp vid undersökningar och åtal, men behovet av övergripande övervakning har fortfarande inte bevisats på ett övertygande sätt. Dessutom måste mycket mer göras på området för underrättelse med personkällor, det vill säga de gammaldags spionerna, i stället för att enbart fokusera på modern teknik, även om det är mer attraktivt."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE )."^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4} "human"³ "intelligence"^3,12