WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Development of a worldwide system of Internet filters and other forms of data mining under the authority of the US Department of Defence.
Date: 2002-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Internet, United States, cross-frontier data flow, data processing, defence policy, protection of privacy

C 222 E/64

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

At Community level the Commission reacted by drawing up two packages of measures known as ERIKA I
and ERIKA II. The aim of these packages was to strengthen inspection and safety systems in ports (port
State control), among certification bodies (classification societies) and as regards vessels themselves (double-
hull tankers).

In view of the accident off the Galician coast involving the tanker ‘Prestige’, which was apparently on its
way from Latvia to Gibraltar, does the Commission consider that according to the information available
Community rules regarding port State control have been complied with? If not, what measures will it
adopt?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

According to the information available, the Prestige last underwent a Port State control (PSC) inspection in
Rotterdam in 1999. This inspection revealed only minor deficiencies, which were corrected before the
departure of the ship.

After this date, the ship did not call at any Union port with the exception of Kalamata, Greece and
Gibraltar, United Kingdom. The ship called, however, at Ventspils, Latvia and at Saint Petersburg, Russia.
During these visits, no PSC inspection was performed under Directive 95/21/EC (1) (PSC) or the Paris
Memorandum of Understanding rules.

The Commission wrote to the competent authorities of the countries concerned in order to obtain
information on the absence of PSC inspection to the Prestige.

In any case, in its Communication of 3 December 2002 on improving safety at sea (2) in response to the
Prestige accident, the Commission draws the attention of Member States to the need to respect PSC
obligations. It calls upon Member States to recruit a sufficient number of inspectors to enable them to fulfil
the 25 % minimum inspection rate obligation set out in Community law. The Commission also invites
Member States to ensure a sufficient level of inspection in all their ports and anchorage areas in order to
avoid the emergence of ‘ports of convenience’. The Commission will propose specific measures on this
respect.

The Commission will remain particularly vigilant on PSC issues. In this context, it has recently lodged an
application to the Court of Justice aiming at declaring that two Member States, France and Ireland, have
disrespected the 25 % PSC inspection minimum rate and have thus failed their Community obligations.

(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community
ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship
safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (cid:1) OJ L 157,
7.7.1995.

(2) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2003/C 222 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Development of a worldwide system of Internet filters and other forms of data mining under the

authority of the US Department of Defence

Has the Council noted the statement in ‘The Washington Post’ of 12 November 2002 by the former
1.
US National Security Adviser
John Poindexter, who heads up the Information Awareness Office
researching into a system of data mining by the US Department of Defence in order, throughout the
world, to be able to examine and analyse databases and information flows, such as those involving airlines,
immigration services, banks and telecommunications (Internet traffic)?

2.
Prior to publication of the statement, was the Council aware that the US is working on such a
system, which will influence telecommunications not only in the US, but also in the rest of the world,
including the territory of the EU Member States?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/65

To what extent will this expand eavesdropping capabilities over those of the US-directed ‘Echelon’

3.
system which have existed for much longer?

4. What are the implications of this for present-day privacy protection and mail service inviolability,
which has been recognised for more than a century and a half in democratic states based on the rule of
law?

5. What are the implications of this in terms of potential industrial espionage carried out from the US
on European firms?

6. What are the implications of this for the ability of other government authorities, including the EU
and its Member States, to operate independently, i.e. away from US monitoring and improper influence?

Is the Council willing to declare that the EU will not share data with the US, for the new system,
7.
which is held as a result of any obligation to store electronic communications data? Does it have ways and
means of refusing to cooperate in this way and, if so, what are they?

8.

Has the Council now objected to the US plans or does it intend to do so?

(2003/C 222 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3401/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Total Information Awareness

According to some articles that have appeared in the press, the United States Government approved last
February a USD 200 million budget to develop two new offices: the Information Exploitation Office and
the Information Awareness Office. The latter is notably building a programme called Total Information
Awareness (TIA), whose aim is the collection, integration and treatment of any kind of information in
order to detect suspect individual behaviours and identify potential terrorists. Some of the planned
activities of TIA are the development of the Genoa I software for the clandestine exploration of all
electronic databases and other forms of data-mining and information collection at international level.

Given the global nature of electronic communications, the system would have immediate implications for
and be effective on communications even between EU citizens.

Can the Council ask the US Government for confirmation of this information? If this information is
confirmed, does the Council not think that the planned activities of TIA would be in breach of EU
directives on data protection, and of other relevant treaties between the EU, its Member States and the US?
What measures will the Council take in order to have EU law and European citizens’ rights and freedoms
fully respected?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3384/02 and E-3401/02

(8 May 2003)

The Council never comments on press statements and underlines that the work on a prototype system of
the so-called Total Information Awareness (TIA) system was available from open sources before the said
statement appeared in ‘The Washington Post’ on 12 November 2002.

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the statement it made on this subject to the plenary
part-session of the European Parliament on 23 October 2002.

From a more general point of view the Council maintains a constant dialogue with the United States
Government, particularly within the framework of the Transatlantic Dialogue, where information is
exchanged about matters of mutual interest and concern.