Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-26-Speech-3-431-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111026.24.3-431-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, in a conversation with the Australian authorities about the passenger name record (PNR) issue, they told me what it would take for a person, a passenger on an aircraft, to be subjected to greater surveillance at Australian borders: this would happen if the name on the ticket were not consistent with the name on his credit card, for example, or if he made sudden changes to his route, or if had travelled through countries deemed dangerous. I found this strange because, in my case, with my Portuguese name which is made up of five names – that is, two personal names and three surnames – I fell into all these categories, and some of the reasons for this were that I was acting in the service of Parliament.
However, this story has a broader significance, which it is important that the public understand: namely, that we have become used to being investigated as if we were suspected of a crime, and what is happening with this new model of investigation is that we are investigated even when we are innocent and not under suspicion. At this point, when we are going to vote on the first PNR agreement, which is the first time that we are legalising this kind of transfer in Parliament, it is crucial that the public know this, and we have not been sufficiently clear on this issue.
In short, I am concerned about several things in this agreement, including the consistency of our arguments about the time for which data should be stored. We in Europe are talking about months, but according to this agreement the data will be kept for five and a half years. As for issues of proportionality and whether a proportionality test has been approved or not, in her explanatory statement the rapporteur herself says that this proportionality test has not exactly been proven. I would like to say here that I am very sorry not to be voting in the same way as the rapporteur, who is a colleague, and I have no doubt that she has major concerns about the freedoms, civil rights and privacy of the European public. Nevertheless, I still do not believe that this agreement sets a good standard for what other foreign countries will ask of us further down the line, and what we say to the Australians now, we will also have to say to the US, Saudi Arabia and Korea."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples