Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-053-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120419.4.4-053-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, a number of years ago, terrorist attacks were given as the reason for introducing measures such as the retention of data or PNR. Obviously, terrorism alone is no longer enough to justify this gathering of data to our citizens, however. That is why we are currently talking about serious and organised crime and debating human trafficking; however the fact is that despite the millions of data records already on file, there have only been a few isolated successes so far. Ms Malmström argues that data protection has been improved, referring in particular to the fact that some data will be retained for ‘only’ 10 years.
Data protection begins at an earlier stage, however, for example when a specific limitation of purpose is applied or when restricting the data that needs to be collected. What is it that the agreement that is to be voted on today allows? The retention of millions of data records relating mostly to completely innocent citizens, that will be checked and rechecked with different criteria for almost every conceivable purpose for the next 10 years. Other criminal activities are punishable with a custodial sentence of three years. The German Government has this to say on its website: Those travelling to the US should consider that some offences that do not even warrant a judicial process in Germany are punishable with custodial sentences of several years in the US. Penalties must apply across borders. According to the wording, it is sufficient for the suspect to intend to cross the border. This is something we all want to do when we travel to the US, as we already have the ticket for our return flight in our pockets. Furthermore, any court can demand this information.
Will we have better data protection? In view of the broad range of applications, the possibility of data being forwarded to other authorities and to third countries is more than questionable. It is also regrettable that there is at present no provision for the participation of data protection specialists in the planned evaluation. At this point I do not wish to go into the fact that, in the US, terrorist suspects frequently remain in prison for several years awaiting official charges. A number of these people are innocent. We need to combat terrorism. However, this formulation clearly goes too far. Every citizen comes under suspicion and is delivered up to the US legal system, instead of protecting our values and the rights of our people.
I have one final comment: Mr Albrecht asked whether those who vote in favour of the agreement should feel ashamed. No, no one should be ashamed about the way they vote today. Nonetheless, I am extremely concerned at the direction we would take by adopting this agreement and for this reason I am absolutely against it."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples