Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101110.15.3-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In recent years, more and more fundamental rights have been curtailed in the name of combating terror. The rationality of this is often dubious. While passengers are searched almost down to their underwear and are not allowed to carry nail files or deodorant in their luggage, checks on freight are often left to the shippers themselves. If this changes in future, the balance between freedom and security must be preserved because, in the case of passenger checks, this has already been lost, and thus, as the hysteria surrounding terrorism subsides, the requirements are relaxed once again.
Just as questionable is the issue of whether, in the case of travel to the US, the FBI needs to know someone’s name, address, email address, credit card number and baggage number and be permitted to store this data for up to 15 years. In future, if someone arouses slight suspicion in the United Kingdom, for example – not on account of religious affiliation, where there is a proven terrorism connection – but is suspicious because they fly at short notice, possibly without luggage, and pay in cash, then, for the transfer of passenger name record data, and not only to the US, at the very least there should be a general right to complain and to take legal action and the data should not simply be stored in perpetuity. Of course, the data must only be stored for a specific purpose. If fundamental rights are infringed in order to provide a sense of security, the infringement must be as small as possible and the rights of those affected must be reinforced."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples