Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-508"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.45.2-508"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to focus the House’s attention on the recent announcement by the Commission to apply whole-body imaging technology to Europe’s airports by 2010.
Here I would like the Commission to clarify and justify many points which have been raised in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The most important is why this step is seen merely as a technical change to the existing aviation security regulation and, thus, why parliamentary scrutiny of fundamental issues of personal privacy and dignity are being bypassed.
This technology has the potential – and, I stress, the potential – to force air passengers to undergo what could be seen as undignifying treatment, and this is certainly not a small technical step.
If we are to justify this to our citizens, we first need to know why it is needed at all. Are we heading down the route of using more technology just for the sake that that technology is available, and also, what extent will the technology be used for? I can understand that, in some cases, this should be a secondary measure, where an individual chooses not to be, as we say, frisked by a security official. But as a primary screening measure it is a very serious breach of our basic rights to privacy and
intrusive.
We have already seen, with the liquids rules, that the precedent is being set for extra security measures to become the norm in airports. However inconvenient these liquids rules are to passengers, it is certainly not an invasion of privacy.
Other major concerns I have are with the storage of data. As I understand, storing of images is not the initial intention, but this is not to say that it is not possible to do so. Therefore, could the Commission outline what events could lead to the storing of this data, how it would be protected, and whether (and how) it could be ruled today that this possibility would not be used, so that it could be ruled out completely, thereby greatly alleviating many of the concerns of law-abiding passengers?
I would also like to see that proper consultation is carried out with user groups. Tests have, indeed, been carried out on these machines at some airports – including in my own country at London Heathrow – but as yet, I understand, the results of this process have not been scrutinised by experts or the relevant parliamentary committees.
Finally, I would urge the Commission not to head down the route of forcing individuals to submit to a potentially degrading process without first understanding the rightful concerns of innocent travellers.
Of course we should be serious about security, but this form of blanket approach to technology has the potential to turn a legitimate security concern into an unacceptable peepshow for security industries."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples