Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-29-Speech-4-085-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-09-29"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Security scanners (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110929.5.4-085-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-09-29-Speech-4-086-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Gesine Meissner2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; FEMM (2010-11-25--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; ALDE (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-12-16)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2012-12-16)3 member; TRAN (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; EMPL (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I am much obliged to the Commissioner for his presentation. Commissioner, you said that in this case, this proposal largely meets all Parliament’s demands. In my opinion, that is not the case, and also in my opinion, it is not the case either that all the privacy rights of passengers have been safeguarded. That is why we have just tabled an oral question on this. In fact, as Mr de Grandes Pascual stated, we had a report in which we discussed and set out what form scanners should take where these are permitted to be deployed as an additional security measure at airports. In this report, we also said that people must have a free choice as to whether or not they go through them. Health and human dignity must be protected; data and privacy must also be safeguarded. In fact, what has now been proposed is exactly what we did not want. We did not want to have scanners that show real images – whether or not these are blurred. I am familiar with these images; I have been to the US and have seen such scanners. I do not want something like that placed in Europe’s airports. These scanners do, in fact, allow quite a lot of a person’s body to be seen. To me it makes no difference whether or not the person looking at them is in another room and does not see the people in real life. It is a violation of privacy and intimacy, and we expressly discussed the fact that that is exactly what we do not want. Despite this, the Commission’s proposal now states that something along these lines is to be permitted in order to implement our decision. Naturally, we are upset about it. That is why we are asking you to reconsider. There is the option of having simple stick figures, as they are known – in other words, schematic illustrations; either a green OK or a stick figure with red dots – showing, for example, that an arm should be investigated because something suspicious is indicated there. That really is something that we would like, without images being stored. That would protect people’s privacy as well as protecting data. We are astonished, and we are not happy that something different is now being proposed. If the installation of something that is actually quite different is being considered, then we need a legislative process. We are talking about the citizens of Europe and that is why the representatives of these citizens need to be involved in a proper procedure."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph