Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-26-Speech-3-423-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111026.24.3-423-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our group is taking a clear stance against this agreement, and will vote accordingly, in the clear knowledge that there are some aspects of the agreement that might seem acceptable according to the principle of ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’. Of course we have understood this, thanks to Ms in ’t Veld. The counter-arguments are more convincing, however. We still have no proof of the need to record PNR data. The mass of data, or so-called waste data, actually makes it harder to find potential criminals. Despite everything, what we have here is a willy-nilly approach to data retention, even when no suspicion exists, and this, as my colleague has pointed out, is prohibited, not just in Germany but in several other Member States too.
We wish to register genuinely serious concerns that this agreement cannot be reconciled with EU law. That is why we requested a corresponding legal opinion, which we are also presenting for the purposes of the discussion and vote. Even though it is, of course, better to a certain extent to have some sort of retention period rather than none at all, I would ask you seriously why it is necessary to store data for five-and-a-half years. This makes profiling realistic and feasible, particularly since it is not completely and definitively excluded by this agreement.
A word about the scope of the agreement: the Commissioner referred to the fact that serious cross-border crime does not exist as a criminal offence in Australia. It simply does not exist. Instead of a minimum mandatory sentence of four years, we would have been better served with a list of specific criminal offences.
Otherwise, our main concern is that this agreement will be used as the template for negotiations with the US, but not because the agreement is so bad, but rather because at least in Australia the data is processed by the customs authorities when it arrives there, while in the US, the responsible authority is the unknown quantity that is the Department of Homeland Security.
This agreement turns innocent people into objects of suspicion on a wholesale basis and undermines elementary freedoms. My group wants nothing to do with this."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples