Green Paper on detection technologies in the work of law enforcement, customs and other security authorities
Date: 2006-09-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data protection, exchange of information, harmonisation of standards, new technology, public safety, public-private partnership, technical cooperation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 1.9.2006 
COM(2006) 474 final 

GREEN PAPER 

on detection technologies in the work of law enforcement, customs and other security 
authorities 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 

I. STANDARDISATION AND SECURITY RESEARCH....................................................... 7 

1. 

2. 

Standardisation............................................................................................................. 7 

Security research .......................................................................................................... 7 

II. NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................. 9 

1. 

1.1 

1.2 

2. 

3. 

Technological needs and solutions............................................................................... 9 

Versatile solutions........................................................................................................ 9 

Portable and mobile solutions .................................................................................... 10 

Interoperability of systems......................................................................................... 10 

Integration of information from different detection technologies and  
improved data analysis............................................................................................... 10 

III. USE AND CERTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS...................................... 12 

1. 

2. 

3. 

5. 

Best practice and the use of existing tools and equipment......................................... 12 

Identification and dissemination of best practice and the use of new tools and 
equipment................................................................................................................... 12 

Use of data- and text-mining tools ............................................................................. 13 

Testing and certifying the quality of equipment and tools......................................... 15 

IV. STUDIES ........................................................................................................................... 16 

V. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS OF CONSULTATION........................................... 17 

1. 

2. 

Enhanced Specific Public Private Dialogue on detection and  
associated technologies .............................................................................................. 17 

Action Plan................................................................................................................. 18 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 19 

I. 

II. 

Background information on the preparation of the Green Paper ............................... 19 

Standardisation and the exchange of personal data.................................................... 20 

III. 

Studies ........................................................................................................................ 20 

1. 

2. 

Protection of mass events........................................................................................... 20 

Cooperation and information-sharing among forensic laboratories and security 
research institutes ....................................................................................................... 21 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

Law and specific detection technology ...................................................................... 21 

Specific detection technology and its practical use.................................................... 21 

Personal detection technologies and biometrics ........................................................ 21 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
GREEN PAPER 

on detection technologies in the work of law enforcement, customs and other security 
authorities 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

INTRODUCTION 

Security is a cornerstone of Commission policy. Combating crime and terrorism is a crucial 
dimension  of  security  policy.  The  Commission  set  out  its  counter-terrorism  policy  in  its 
"Communication on Prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist attacks" of  October 
2004. This Communication highlights Public-Private Security Dialogue as a tool for private 
and public sectors to engage in a meaningful dialogue on Europe's security needs. The Hague 
Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union adopted by 
the  European  Council  in  November  2004,  which  constitutes  at  present  the  political 
programme  of  the  Union  on  Justice  and  Home  Affairs,  also  highlights  the  importance  of 
public-private interaction in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. This Green Paper 
aims  to  provide  the  ingredients  for  initiating  such  dialogue  within  the  field  of  detection 
technologies. 

Detection technologies are increasingly used in the daily work of security authorities to fight 
terrorism  and  other  forms  of  crime.  Detection  technologies  are  widely  used  to  protect 
passengers  when  boarding  aeroplanes  and  sports  fans  when  watching  their  favourite  sports 
events, and to detect dangerous substances in the air, water or food. Security authorities also 
use  these  technologies  to  protect  our  borders  and  check  goods  entering  the  territory  of  the 
European Union. Moreover, detection technologies are essential for guarding private property 
and critical infrastructure. This Green Paper aims to find out what role the Union could play 
in order to foster detection technologies in the service of the security of its citizens. On the 
other  hand,  detection  technologies  are  inherently  intrusive  into  privacy  or  can  pose  a 
challenge  to  freedoms  and  rights.  Therefore,  each  time  when  considering  improvement  and 
use of detection technologies, this aspect and the fundamental question of what the limitations 
of their intrusiveness should be, will have to be carefully analysed. The Commission intends 
to contribute to both issues with this initiative. 

The  Commission  organised  a  conference1  –  Public-Private  Security  Dialogue:  Detection 
Technologies  and  Associated  Technologies  in  the  Fight  against  Terrorism  –  in  Brussels  on 
28-29 November 2005. The participation of over a hundred representatives both from major 
European business and industry associations and from the public sector attested to the interest 
of  stakeholders  in  pursuing  a  policy  in  this  area.  The  public  sector  was  represented  by 
members of law enforcement, customs and other security authorities. 

The role of Europe, in areas such as security research or standardisation, is clearly established. 
Although considerable work has been achieved in certain areas in close cooperation with the 

1 

For further background information, see part I of the Annex. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Member  States,  industry  and  other  interested  parties,  there  is  still  room  for  an  enhanced 
European  policy  on  detection  technologies  as  such.  With  respect  to  aviation  security,  both 
Regulations (EC) No 2320/2002 and No 622/20032 contain detailed requirements as regards 
the  performance  of  the  screening  equipment  to  be  used  and  the  methodology.  In  this  field, 
standards  and  test  protocols  have  been  established  in  close  cooperation  with  the  European 
Civil  Aviation  Conference,  which  regroups  experts  from  the  appropriate  authorities  of  the 
Member States and other European States. In addition, the Commission is regularly in close 
contact with the industry and other stake holders concerned (Stakeholders Advisory Group on 
Aviation Security – SAGAS Group). 

In  view  of  strengthening  the  common  approach  towards  detection  technologies  the 
Commission  took  this  initiative  to  further  enhance  interaction  between  public  and  private 
sectors  in  an  effort  to  focus  investment  on  standardisation,  research,  certification  and 
interoperability  of  detection  systems  and  to  transform  research  results  into  useful  and 
applicable tools. A virtuous circle has to be established in which the private sector is guided in 
its research effort and expenditure by a public sector that knows what it wants and what the 
private sector can offer. This should help to develop an advanced market in detection products 
and  security  solutions,  which  in  turn  should  lead  to  greater  availability  of  products  and 
services at lower cost.  

Common  action  and  better  coordination  and  information  exchange  between  everyone 
involved  in  Europe  are  essential  if  this  aim is  to  be  reached.  Needs  have  to  be  defined 
better and both technologically and economically viable solutions brought to the surface. 
This Green Paper certainly does not aim to overlap with other activities either at national 
or European level. The Commission does not wish to reinvent the wheel but to find out more 
about existing good approaches and practices, and to support them and spread them across the 
Union.  

The Commission is keen for this Green Paper to generate as many thought-provoking answers 
and  concrete  suggestions  on  steps  ahead  as  possible.  Extensive  participation  by  Member 
States, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders is therefore indispensable. The 
Commission  is,  however,  aware  of  confidentiality  requirements  in  both  the  public  and  the 
private  sectors,  both  for  security  and  for  commercial  reasons.  Therefore,  respondents  are 
asked to indicate any answers that are too sensitive to be shared and to suggest an alternative 
approach to take account of such concerns. 

Policies  relating  to  detection  and  associated  technologies  have  to  comply  in  full  with  the 
existing  legal  framework,  including  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  the  European 
Convention  on  Human  Rights  and  data  protection  principles  and  rules  as  laid  down  in 
Directive 95/46/EC. In this context, the Commission stresses that the design, manufacture and 
use  of  detection  technologies  and  associated  technologies,  together  with  legislation  or  other 
measures aiming to regulate or promote them, must fully comply with Fundamental Rights 
as  provided  for  in  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and  the  European  Convention  on 
Human Rights. Particular attention must be paid to compliance with the protection of personal 
data  and  the  right  to  private  life.  Indeed,  as  the  use  of  detection  technologies  will  usually 
mean an intrusion of the fundamental rights to private life and protection of personal data, any 

2 

Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 
establishing  common  rules  in  the  field  of  civil  aviation  security,  O.J.  L355  of  30.12.2002,  p.  1  and 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  622/2003  of  4  April  2003  laying  down  measures  for  the 
implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, O.J. L89 of 5.4.2003, p. 9 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
intrusion  of  fundamental  rights  has  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  European  Convention  on 
Fundamental Rights; in particular, it must be in accordance with the law and necessary in a 
democratic  society  to  protect  an  important  public  interest  and  must  be  in  proportion  to  the 
public interest pursued.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
I. STANDARDISATION AND SECURITY RESEARCH 

1. 

STANDARDISATION 

An  enormous  range  of  technological  possibilities  exists  in  areas  concerning  detection  and 
associated  technologies  and  the  work  of  the  security  authorities.  Therefore,  minimum 
standards  are  required.  However,  given  this  range  the  process  of  standardisation  must  be 
prioritised, which is only possible if there is sufficient interaction between the public sector 
(needs) and the private sector (solutions). At European level, this interaction is considered to 
be insufficient by both public and private sectors. Furthermore, numerous positive activities 
are developing at both national and European levels. However, a general overview of what is 
happening is missing, and this is needed to avoid duplication and improve prioritisation. It is 
evident, that for security reasons, the development of standards cannot be openly discussed. 
The  discussion  will  therefore  concentrate  mainly  on  the  question  to  which  extent  common 
standards may be desirable. 

The  use  and  handling  of  data  and  information  collected  by  detection  tools,  for  example  as 
evidence  in  court  proceedings,  are  also  closely  related  to  standardisation.  The  relevant 
authorities  could  benefit  from  identification  and  exchange  of  best  practice  on  the  subject. 
Creating technical standards to ensure that the data collected complies with the requirements 
of law for the use of such data in court proceedings should also be considered.3  

Questions 

Are  common  standards  needed  in  detection  and  related  technologies  used  in  the  work  of 
security authorities? What standards do you consider to be a priority? 

What standards lack financial support in the pre-standardisation phase? 

To  avoid  any  duplication  and  to  improve  transparency,  would  a  regularly  updated 
list/handbook/searchable  database  of  past,  ongoing  and  planned  standardisation  efforts  in 
detection and closely related technological fields at national and European level be useful? 

Would you be interested in identifying and exchanging best practice in the use and handling 
of  data  and  information  collected  by  detection  tools  in  an  effort  to  comply  in  full  with  the 
relevant legislation and rules governing the use of evidence in court proceedings? 

What would be the best way of identifying and exchanging these practices? 

2. 

SECURITY RESEARCH 

Security  research  is  another  area  which  is  essential  for  the  development  of  new  security 
solutions and products for the Member States' security authorities. In this context, the role of 
the European Security Research Advisory Board (ESRAB) must be highlighted. The ESRAB 
adopts a global and broad perspective in this area and advises the Commission on the content 

3 

For the legal provisions governing the exchange of personal data, see part II of the Annex. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  implementation  of  the  research  to  be  performed,  together  with  mechanisms  to  monitor 
relevant developments in other programmes. 

A  number  of  security  research  activities  are  ongoing  at  European  level  and  in  the  Member 
States.  However,  there  is  no  mechanism  for  aggregating  and  disseminating  information  on 
previous, current and proposed security research at European, national and ultimately private 
sector  level.  Such  a  mechanism  could  ensure  that  scarce  resources  are  not  wasted  on 
duplication  and  overlapping  projects.  Furthermore,  if  considered  necessary,  a  separate 
mechanism  for  disseminating  classified  security  research  activities  could  be  designed, 
ensuring that only those who are entitled to access the information can do so. 

After  more  than  a  year  of  work,  ESRAB  is  finalising  its  report  which  will  be  published  in 
September  2006.  The  report  identifies  around  120  security  capabilities  and  100  key 
technologies which need further research and development at EU level, while a series of other 
technologies are or will be dealt with at national level. 

Questions 

How should information on security research in Europe be disseminated in order to promote 
competitiveness while avoiding waste of scarce resources? 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
II. NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS 

1. 

TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS 

Good, effective and usable solutions and products can be developed only if the producers of 
these solutions and products have sufficient information regarding the real needs of the end-
users.  However,  at  European  level  there  seems  to  be  a  need  for  better  interaction  between 
those  who  need  technological  solutions  (i.e.  the  relevant  security  authorities)  and  those 
offering them. Any such interaction should also attempt to identify what the short-, medium- 
and long-term needs are. On the other hand, those providing solutions should also indicate the 
timescale for when the solutions will be available. 

Furthermore,  in  the  dialogue  between  producers  and  users  more  fundamental  questions 
relating  to  the  nature  of  our  societies  and  the  role  of  the  detection  technologies  should  be 
asked and addressed. Such a debate is also important in the view of preserving the values and 
nature of our societies.  

Questions 

Are you interested in a broader debate on the role of detection technologies and the influence 
their use potentially has on European societies? 

In  what  specific  areas  do 
the  relevant  security  authorities  require 
improvements? Please specify the level of priority in relation to specific needs? 

technological 

Is there a gap between requirements for detection capabilities and the technology currently on 
offer on the market? What are possible solutions to these gaps? 

In  what  specific  areas  does  the  private  sector  already  offer,  or  plan  to  offer  technological 
solutions?  Please  state  the  timescale  for  when  such  solutions  would  be  available,  and  cost-
effective? 

Would  it  be  helpful  and  useful  to  create  a  Europe-wide  searchable  list/database  containing 
specific  areas  of  needs  of  the  relevant  security  authorities,  and  at  the  same  time  solutions 
offered by the private sector? 

If  not,  what  other  solutions  would  you  propose  in  order  to  improve  the  information  flow 
between those who need technological solutions and those who offer them? 

1.1 

Versatile solutions 

Today’s  threats,  from  crime  or  terrorism,  are  diverse,  constantly  changing  and  present  in 
different forms and at different levels in different situations. Therefore they require different 
levels of protection and response at different times, i.e. versatile solutions.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Question 

For what existing tools and equipment could the applicability and effectiveness be improved 
by enhancing their versatility? 

What new versatile tools and equipment are needed? 

1.2 

Portable and mobile solutions 

The  nature  of  the  threat  from  terrorism  and  crime  is  not  only  changing  with  time,  it  is  also 
becoming  increasingly  mobile.  Hence,  security  authorities  require  portable  solutions.  Such 
solutions  can  improve  cost-effectiveness  and  be  readily  transferred  from  one  location  to 
another where they are most needed, as it is simply not feasible to cover every entry point or 
point of concern with the same level of security. Furthermore, portable and mobile solutions 
may offer new operational approaches.  

Question 

What existing tools and equipment could be better and more effectively used in the work of 
the relevant security authorities if they were mobile and portable? 

What new portable and mobile tools and equipment are needed? 

2. 

INTEROPERABILITY OF SYSTEMS

4 

The  EU  Member  States  and  their  relevant  authorities  already  have  a  number  of  systems  to 
help  in  the  fight  against  crime  and  terrorism.  However,  these  systems  are  often  not  able  to 
communicate with each other. This may impede the common efforts in the fight against crime 
and  terrorism  at  national  and  European  levels.  On  the  other  hand,  systems  need  to  comply 
with  existing  legal  frameworks  and  other  guidelines  (e.g.  data  protection,  intrusiveness  of 
detection systems). 

Question 

What systems need improved interoperability? 

Would a study on legal and other constraints for interoperability of systems across the EU be 
useful to identify limitations? 

3. 

INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES AND 
IMPROVED DATA ANALYSIS 

The integration of data from different detection technologies into a single data analysis system 
may  make  detection  systems  more  effective.  Any  measure  adopted  in  this  respect  has  to 
comply with data protection rules. 

4 

Systems other than information systems should also be considered. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Question 

In  what  areas  do  you  believe  that  the  integration  of  information  from  different  detection 
technologies would improve overall performance? 

In what areas are improved data analysis techniques required? 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
III. USE AND CERTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 

1. 

BEST PRACTICE AND THE USE OF EXISTING TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 

Completely new technological solutions are not always required to deal with existing or new 
threats  in  an  efficient  manner.  Public  budgets  often  cannot  afford  them.  Hence,  attention 
should  also  be  paid  to  how  existing  and  previously  purchased  tools  can  be  put  to  more 
efficient use or upgraded. This can be a cost effective way to improve effectiveness, increase 
reliability and reduce the number of false alarms. 

A  mechanism  for  sharing  experience  on  such  issues  among  the  authorities  in  different 
Member  States  is  lacking.  For  example,  information  could  be  shared  about  improvements 
obtained through changes in operating procedure or cost-effective upgrades. 

Questions 

What would be the best way of identifying and sharing best practice in this field? 

Identification of best practice 

Would it be through peer evaluation or questionnaires sent to the Member States? 

Dissemination of best practice 

Would it be through a secure and searchable database or through meetings and seminars? 

Can  you  suggest  any  other  options  on  how  best  to  identify  and  disseminate  best  practice  in 
this field? 

If  an  upgrade  of  a  tool  or  equipment  was  considered  necessary  and  no  authority  in  other 
Member States would have performed such an upgrade, would consultation with the private 
sector on the subject be acceptable? 

2. 

IDENTIFICATION  AND  DISSEMINATION  OF  BEST  PRACTICE  AND  THE  USE  OF  NEW 
TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 

National authorities can also benefit in their work from a system which  would  facilitate  the 
exchange  of  information  on  the  use  of  new  tools  and  equipment,  and  enable  them  to  learn 
from  each  other  and  build  on  the  experience  of  others.  Such  exchanges  of  information, 
experience  and  best  practice  on  tools  and  equipment  could  help  the  authorities  to  identify 
equipment to address their particular needs. 

In addition to this, the trial of new or experimental equipment could be promoted through co-
financing from the Community budget and/or by the private sector. Wider testing of new and 
experimental  equipment  could  help  European  industry  to  transform  security  research  into 
effective and competitive products. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Questions 

What would be the best way of identifying and sharing information and best practice in this 
field? 

Identification of best practice 

Would it be through peer evaluation or questionnaires sent to the Member States? 

Dissemination of information and best practice 

Would  it  be  through  a  secure  and  searchable  database  or  through  restricted  meetings  and 
seminars? 

Have you any other suggestions for how to identify best practice in this field and disseminate 
them effectively? 

Experimental and new tools 

Are you interested in the trial of new or experimental tools and equipment? 

If yes/no, please explain 

Would  partial  financing  of  trials  of  new  or  experimental  tools  and  equipment  by  the 
Community and/or the private sector be of interest? 

3. 

USE OF DATA- AND TEXT-MINING TOOLS 

National  and  European  security  authorities  are  facing  a  constant  increase  in  the  volume  of 
documentation  and  information  they  have  to  process.  To  address  this  challenge  more 
efficiently, modern software tools for data and text mining exist. This technology can help to 
extract relevant information from huge numbers of documents. For example it is possible to 
intelligently  filter  text  and  documents  to  aid  navigation  (clustering  of  documents),  for  auto-
categorisation  (channelling  and  prioritising  document  flow  within  investigation  teams)  and 
code utilisation validity checking. The objectives are: 

•  fast overview of key entities in document collections; 

•  pre-processing for targeted document search; 

•  content-based classification of documents to help focus further analyses; 

•  automated information analysis across various sources. 

The  potential  of  these  modern  tools  is  not  sufficiently  exploited  across  the  Member  States. 
However,  while  promoting  use  of  these  technologies,  it  has  to  be  very  carefully  considered 
that  their  use  in  certain  applications,  for  example  monitoring  of  e-mails,  is  in  itself  an 
intrusion of citizens’ fundamental right to privacy. E-mails are correspondence and, as such, 
they are covered by the right to confidentiality of communication laid down in the European 
Convention  on  Human  Rights.  The  use  of  any  techniques  for  data  and  text  mining  must 
therefore  be  in  accordance  with  the  law,  be  necessary  in  a  democratic  society  to  protect  an 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
important  public  interest  and  be  proportionate  to  the  public  interest  pursued.  Support  for 
compliance with fundamental rights and data protection principles should be inherent in such 
tools  and  their  use.  Finally,  these  activities  will  be  carried  out  under  the  control  and 
supervision of relevant public authorities. 

Questions 

Awareness raising exercise 

Would Member States and the relevant European bodies be interested in sharing best practice 
and in the potential benefits arising from the use of data- and text-mining tools? 

Would  Member  States  authorities  using  this  technology  be  willing  to  share  experience  with 
their peers? 

Would restricted seminars on the subject organised by the Member States, Europol or OLAF 
be useful?  

Enhancement of the EU capacity for data and text mining 

Would  a  centre  of  excellence  at  European  level  accessible  to  all  Member  States  and  their 
relevant authorities help to tap the potential of these tools in practice? 

If not, what other options would you suggest to maximise the potential of these tools? 

Identification and dissemination of best practice 

Would a peer evaluation or a questionnaire sent to the Member States be useful in identifying 
best practice in the use of these tools? 

If not, what other approaches would you suggest to identify best practice in this area? 

Enhancement of the regional capacity for data and text mining 

Would there be any spare capacity available in Member States and European bodies to help 
Member States that do not possess this technology to work on their documents?  

If there were no such spare capacity or only a limited capacity, would an EU-funded increase 
of capacity in Member States or at the European level be useful and practical? 

Would  Member  States  that  lack  sufficient  data  and  text-mining  capacity  consider  using  the 
tools of other bodies, if made available? 

Would  it  be  possible  to  create  European  or  regional  centres  for  data  and  text  mining  which 
several Member States and their authorities could use for data and text mining? 

Do  existing  data  and  text  mining  tools  sufficiently  deal  with  the  various  languages  within 
Europe?  

Are  there  adequate  tools  to  support  authorities  dealing  with  foreign  language  text  and 
documents?  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Other 

If you disagree with any of the options suggested above, how would you address the concerns 
raised by this point? 

5. 

TESTING AND CERTIFYING THE QUALITY OF EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 

The market already offers a number of detection products. However, very often it is difficult 
to  identify  what  tools  and  products  are  the  best  or  at  least  meet  certain  minimum 
requirements.  An  EU-wide  system  of  certifying good quality tools and benchmarking them, 
designed to simplify the process of establishing which of the tools or equipment can meet the 
particular needs of a particular authority, could address this deficit. This may make it easier 
for  national  authorities  to  decide  what  equipment  and  tools  to  purchase.  It  might  also  help 
authorities to make optimum use of scarce resources. 

A  network  of  national  certifying  authorities  sharing  experience  and  knowledge  could  be 
established to address this lack of a system determining the quality of tools. These authorities 
would  also  agree  on  standards  for  benchmarking  and  certifying  good  quality  technological 
solutions.  This  type  of  certification  could  not  only  be  used  to  help  national  authorities  to 
determine  whether  a  tool  is  good  or  not,  but  also  to  advertise  European  solutions  in  other 
markets. It is evident, that for  security reasons, the development of test protocols cannot be 
openly discussed.  

Question 

Would  creating  a  network  of  national  certifying  authorities  sharing  experience  and 
knowledge, along with a system of quality certification and benchmarking, be useful? 

If not, what other solution would you suggest to address the problem raised? 

Would common standards for certifying and benchmarking be helpful? 

If not, how would you ensure transparency of this process and usability of the results across 
the EU? 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
IV. STUDIES5

The  participants  at  the  conference  identified  several  topics  which  require  further  studies. 
Hence, the Commission proposes to conduct studies on: 

(1) 

technology and the protection of mass events; 

(2) 

obstacles  to  cooperation  and  information-sharing  among  forensic  laboratories  and 
security research institutes; 

(3) 

legal provisions regulating the use of specific detection technology; 

(4) 

practical use of specific detection technology; 

(5) 

(6) 

legal  framework  governing  the  use  of  personal  detection  (including  surveillance) 
across the EU; 

levels  of  acceptance  of  personal  detection  (including  surveillance  and  use  of 
biometrics) across the EU. 

In general, the aim of the studies is to use them as an instrument to enhance the knowledge of 
the relevant stakeholders and to ensure compliance with the existing legal frameworks when 
preparing or using detection technologies. In other cases, the studies could be used to consider 
policy options and options for further practical steps. 

Question 

Would  you  be  interested  in  receiving  studies  on  these  topics  based  on  the  background 
information outlined in the Annex? 

If not, please specify reasons and suggest alternatives of how to address the concerns raised. 

5 

For a further description of the ideas behind the need for these studies, see part III of the Annex. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS OF CONSULTATION 

1. 

ENHANCED SPECIFIC PUBLIC PRIVATE DIALOGUE ON DETECTION AND ASSOCIATED 
TECHNOLOGIES 

This Green Paper reflects a number of possible activities which can help to improve public-
private interaction in the field of detection technologies, and thus help security authorities of 
the Member States to have access to the best available tools, solutions and best practice. On 
the other hand, these activities can help the private sector to focus its investment and match 
the needs of the public sector. It is obvious, however, that this requires intensive cooperation 
between  public  and  private  sectors.  Hence,  there  is  a  need  for  an  enhanced  specific  public 
private  dialogue  in  this  area.  This  could  be  done  in  different  ways,  inter  alia,  through  the 
establishment  of  a  specific  body  or  the  setting  up  of  a  specific  group  in  the  framework  of 
horizontal public private partnership exercises related to security which should be launched in 
the close future. 

The aim of this activity would not be to compete with existing bodies, but rather to address 
gaps  in  the  interaction  between  public  and  private  sectors  involving  the  relevant  security 
authorities  at  European  level.  Nor  should  it  be  a  permanent  body;  it  would  have  clearly 
defined  objectives  but  when  these  are  achieved  it  would  cease  to  exist.  It  would  serve  as  a 
forum for experts from both public and private sectors, helping to address the issues raised in 
this document or  new  challenges  which may surface in the course of the implementation of 
results from the public consultation on this document. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  clear  that  a  number  of  possible  actions  proposed  in  this  document 
would require activity on the part of the Member States without the involvement of the private 
sector.  Moreover,  the  definition  of  the  tasks  of  such  cooperation  would  be  subject  to 
agreement  between  both  public  and  private  sectors,  and  thus  through  their  membership 
Member States would be able to influence its role and focus. It would also have to address the 
issue  of  sharing  confidential  information  between  public  and  private  sectors,  although  it 
should be underlined that the public sector is not the sole repository of sensitive information. 

Question 

Would a tool such as an enhanced specific public private dialogue on detection and associated 
technologies be helpful in implementing the results of the public consultation on this paper? 

If yes, would you agree with the above suggestions or do you have different ideas? 

If  not,  what  other  mechanisms  would  you  suggest  to  follow  up  the  results  of  the  public 
consultation of this document? 

Would you be interested in contributing to its work or directly participating in it? 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
2. 

ACTION PLAN 

At national and European level action plans have proved to be a successful tool for overseeing 
action in complex areas such as the fight against terrorism or crime. Both the conference and 
this  document  have  raised  numerous  questions  in  relation  to  detection  and  related 
technologies in the work of the relevant security authorities. To monitor progress in this field, 
and to set objectives, an Action Plan based on the replies to these questions and, if necessary, 
on further consultations could be drawn up. 

Question 

Would an action plan be a useful tool for implementing the measures identified in the replies 
to this document? 

Concluding remark 

The  responses  to  this  document  should  be  sent  electronically  by  10  January  2007  to  the 
following e-mail address: JLS-D1-Detection@ec.europa.eu. All responses from both public 
and  private  sectors  will  be  published  on  the  Commission’s  internet  site  unless  respondents 
explicitly state that they wish to keep particular information confidential. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  

I. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE GREEN PAPER 

This Green Paper is based on the results of the conference and raises themes and issues that 
featured prominently in the discussions (e.g. standardisation, security research, improvement 
of technological solutions, protection of privacy, the legal framework and other guidelines by 
which  technologies  have  to  abide,  etc.).  Over  one  hundred  participants  from  business, 
industry and the public sector engaged in the debate. The public sector was represented by the 
members of law enforcement, customs and other security authorities, by the Commission and 
by representatives of the Member States. The title of the conference suggests that it focused 
on the fight against terrorism. However, it became clear from the outset that a broader security 
approach  was  inevitable  if  important  security  concerns  were  not  to  be  omitted.  This  broad 
approach  was  reaffirmed  by  the  December  2005  Council  decision  to  base  European  critical 
infrastructure protection on an 'all hazards' approach. Moreover, the conference took a holistic 
approach  by  bringing  together  stakeholders  from  different  areas  of  expertise  to  discuss  the 
following topics: 

•  Detection technologies in the protection of infrastructure 

•  Personal detection technologies and biometrics 

•  Detection  of  explosives  and  chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear 

(CBRN) substances. 

All  themes  focused  on  the  work  of  law  enforcement,  security  and  customs  authorities.  This 
approach  enabled  the  conference  to  identify  numerous  areas  of  common  concern  for  both 
public  and  private  sectors  (e.g.  interaction  between  solution-providers  and  those  who  need 
solutions in the public sector). This is reflected throughout the document. 

Definition of detection technologies and relevant categories 

For  the  purposes  of  the  consultation,  the  term  'detection  technology'  is  used  in  the  broadest 
sense. Detection technologies can be "in situ" or external and probably the more sophisticated 
means to deal with some of the security challenges in various scenarios are when integrated 
into  the  complex  system  (such  as  transport  system).  A  detection  technology  can  be  almost 
anything  used  to  detect  something  in  a  security  or  safety  context,  with  the  focus  on  law 
enforcement, customs or security authority. It is possible to identify several categories6 which, 
if taken into consideration when responding to the questions outlined in this document, may 
help to sharpen the answers:  

•  Hand-held detectors 

•  Detection portals 

•  Surveillance solutions 

6 

This is a non-exhaustive list of categories. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Detection of biometrics 

•  Data- and text-mining tools 

•  Other software-based detection tools, etc. 

Furthermore, respondents should also consider associated technologies when replying to the 
questions,  as  technologies  which  help  humans  to  make  sense  of  the  data  collected  by  the 
detectors  are  also  important  for  effective  solutions.  Technology  is  needed  to  integrate 
solutions  and  to  make  systems  interoperable.  Despite  having  highlighted  these  categories, 
respondents should not feel constrained by them, and are encouraged to go beyond them. 

II. 

STANDARDISATION AND THE EXCHANGE OF PERSONAL DATA  

The  Commission  points  out  that,  in  terms  of  handling  personal  data,  Directive  95/46/EC 
already provides the legal framework for exchange of information containing personal data in 
respect of activities relating to the "first pillar". As regards exchange of information as part of 
judicial and criminal cooperation, and under the principle of availability, the Commission has 
tabled a legislative proposal, which is under discussion. 

III. 

STUDIES 

1. 

Protection of mass events 

Every year EU Member States organise several public mass events of national, European, but 
also of international importance. In today’s security environment the costs of security for such 
events may take up a substantial part of their budgets. All Member States could benefit from a 
common approach to this problem. 

To prepare the ground for eventual steps to be taken in this area, the Commission proposes to 
organise  a  study  on  the  protection  of  mass  events.  The  study  would  analyse  what  security 
tools, equipment and expertise applied in the protection of mass events are transferable from 
one event/site to another. The study would also consider the practicality and implications of 
Community-owned  equipment,  of  Community-shared  equipment,  of  developing  a  business 
model for services provided by the private sector or of a combination of all three approaches. 
This part of the study should determine which solution: 

•  is  the  most  cost-effective  and  flexible  enough  to  fit  diverse  needs  of  Member 

States; 

•  can ensure access to this solution by all Member States together with appropriate 

sharing of the costs by the Member States. 

When the results of the study are ready, the Commission would consider further steps in this 
area in conjunction with the Member States and other relevant stakeholders. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
2. 

Cooperation and information-sharing among forensic laboratories and security 
research institutes 

The participants in the conference highlighted the fact that legal and other obstacles exist at 
national  level  which  prevent  effective  cooperation  and  information-sharing  among  national 
forensic institutes at European level. Therefore, the Commission suggests conducting a study 
on the subject. This study could also address options for remedying the situation. 

A similar concern was raised regarding cooperation and information exchange among security 
research institutes. A separate study addressing this issue could also be conducted.  

3. 

Law and specific detection technology 

Law  enforcement,  customs  and  other  security  authorities  are  often  scrutinised  for  whether 
they comply with applicable legal standards. Even if the technology as such is not in breach of 
legal standards, the manner of its use may raise concerns. Accordingly, identifying the legal 
framework governing the use of, and setting limits for, technological solutions could help to 
raise  greater  awareness  in  both  public  and  private  sectors  and  facilitate  compliance  with 
existing  standards.  The  private  sector  could  also  benefit  from  such  a  study  when  proposing 
and designing technological solutions and services for the public sector. 

4. 

Specific detection technology and its practical use 

Similarly,  guidance  and  best  practice  in  the  use  of  technologies,  particularly  detection 
technologies, must take into account how users of these technologies actually use such tools 
in practice, and how they act in relation to persons subject to detection. A specific technology 
as  such  may  not  breach  legal  standards,  but  its  real  world  use  by  an  operator  may  raise 
concerns.  In  addition,  the  development  of  new technologies  or  the  changing  use  of  existing 
technologies  may  result  in  situations  where  a  law  regulating  their  use  does  not  exist. 
Alternatively a particular use of a technology may not be in breach of the law, but it may run 
counter  to  best  practice  or  codes  of  conducts  developed  to  supplement  legal  provisions. 
Knowledge of regulations (instruments) in this area might provide guidance on whether they 
comply with the legal framework (in particular fundamental rights and data protection) and on 
what is acceptable or not in a situation where legal provisions have not been developed. 

5. 

Personal detection technologies and biometrics 

Personal detection (including surveillance) and biometrics are issues which affect individuals 
directly, and therefore a sensitive political debate is ongoing on the use of these tools for the 
purposes of improving security in Europe. The Commission suggests that a study should be 
undertaken  to  identify  the  legal  framework  governing  personal  detection  technology  and 
biometrics. This study would analyse the legal systems of the Member States and the EU and 
thereby establish what existing rules govern personal detection and biometrics. A study of this 
kind  is  particularly  important  when  making  technological  solutions  proposed  by  the  private 
sector compliant with the law. In simple terms, it would help the private sector to understand 
the legal and other constraints on technological solutions they develop. 

Special  studies  could  also  be  drawn  up  on  the  levels  of  acceptance  of  surveillance  and 
biometrics by the population in individual Member States and in the EU. The methodology of 
these  studies  would  have  to  ensure  that  there  is  no  confusion  between  the  two  subjects  – 
surveillance  and  biometrics.  Such  studies  could  help  the  EU  and  national  governments  to 
deploy  adequate  communication  strategies  on  these  issues.  In  general,  both  studies  would 
further contribute to the political debate in Europe on these important matters. 

EN 

21 

   EN