Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-016-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR to the US Department of Homeland Security (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"ro"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120419.4.4-016-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-19-Speech-4-017-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Renate Weber2
lpv:spokenAs	member; CRIM (2012-03-28--2013-10-23)3 member; ALDE (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Partidul Naţional Liberal (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; AFET (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, colleagues, this is a controversial agreement because, while its aim – fighting terrorists through preventive means – is welcome, it undeniably interferes with the protection of other equally important values such as privacy and data protection. I am not the only person saying that the agreement violates this right and EU legislation; the European Data Protection Supervisor demonstrated it in a thorough analysis. What is more, the scope of the agreement goes far beyond combating terrorism. Many say it is a better agreement than the previous one – which only means it is less bad than the previous one – but it remains an agreement with severe consequences for our fundamental rights. I respect the fact that the American authorities and lawmakers are interested in their citizens’ rights, but I believe that we are entitled to care above all about the protection of our own European citizens’ rights. It has been said that, without this agreement, our air carriers will violate EU legislation on data protection because if they want to land in the USA they will continue to transfer data. But you must remember that the agreement obliges the air carriers to implement the ‘push’ obligations in two years, which means investing a huge amount of money in equipment and software to transmit all data to the US authorities in real time. What if some of the air carriers are not able to implement this obligation? Big companies will probably do it, but either smaller companies will be forced out of business by this expenditure or the current situation will continue. They will allow the extraction of data by the American authorities directly from their computers. I have never believed that a bad law is better than no law."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Renate Weber,"1 "on behalf of the ALDE Group. –"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph