kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
privacy is fundamental to human rights in the digital age.
in the confidence in the privacy of individual citizens you and i.
the questions that we are going to present in the oral question are first of all what is the council's and commissions general political assessment as to any electronic mass surveillance eu citizens are subject to?
they did it because they were acting in a very mature way;
what measures have the council and commission undertaken since the adoption of the resolution of twelve march two thousand and fourteen in order to protect fundamental rights in a digital age and what further measures do the council and commission plan to take? i am very conscious commissioner i am sorry that you have just taken your seat but i am sure you will catch up that these are very broad questions but what i want to say to colleagues present in the chamber
is that one of the most surprising things about the inquiry of march two thousand and fourteen into mass surveillance was the outcome of the plenary vote an extraordinary five hundred and forty four members in this plenary across the political spectrum voted for a very sensitive and far reaching report.
do the council and commission consider eu citizens to be sufficiently protected against unnecessary electronic mass surveillance?
they understood that what was happening was that we were not just dealing with one of the most important issues that all individual sovereign countries have to deal with that is the protection of their citizens and therefore intelligence agencies have to do their work but we were dealing with one of the biggest growth areas
madam president again i am not in my usual seat for the reasons i mentioned earlier. the oral question which i present today to the commissioner he is not yet in his place but i am going to present the questions first and then explain this very sensitive and important topic to colleagues.
and we have seen in recent days massive data breaches of major telecom companies like talk talk.
from the european union which had higher standards of data protection compared to the united states which had lower standards would end up with this kind of situation and a negative situation.
so the resolution that we present to members and to the commission and council is about what follow up we have.
in transferring data as a european union to other places;
but most importantly it is about the privacy of the citizen paramountly and we need to represent the citizen ensure they are confident in their privacy and ensure they have the confidence to go forward and they feel they are represented.
i think we set some good standards in march.
two thousand and fourteen what we are now trying to do in this oral question is to see with the four questions i have put to both council and commission what follow up we actually have on all of these key points.
since then the council of europe and individual member states individual parliaments of member states have gone into great detail with their inquiries.
privacy is fundamental to consumer confidence;
let us not forget that it is exactly the eu commission's safe harbour agreement with the usa that gave citizens a false sense of security and national supervisory authorities that had such a passive role.
the last thing we want is big brother spying on the eu member states and their citizens.
i strongly suggest that the commissioners watch the new james bond film spectre.
seven if so they will be under the control of the british government and not the eu which is as it should be.
this is one of the main conclusions of the ecj ruling.
institutions snooping on all of us without proper controls is something that has no place in a democratic society but it is up to our national parliaments and national courts to strike the balance between upholding civil liberties of our citizens and ensuring our nations security.
this place has no right to lecture anyone on any of those principles because you lot put the interests of the european union first. you have the euro which has created mass unemployment.
you have the desire for ever closer union which rejects democracy. you have created the borders crisis.
you have no right whatsoever to lecture any of the governments or any of the peoples of this european union because if you keep doing that we will break free.
britain will be free and after that many other nations in this union will be free.
madam president commissioner our rights and our freedoms must always be the compass which guide society.
these rights must always be defended with equal force to that which we use to defend our borders and our safety.
robust data protection and digital privacy laws must be constantly updated for the modern world and accountability and effective and meaningful oversight of the agencies and the institutions charged with keeping us safe must form part of the fabric of democratic norms.
of course independent and thorough investigation must take place where any potential wrongdoing is revealed.
i will never regard edward snowden or his actions as heroic'.
i cannot bestow the label of hero upon a person who has endangered the lives of so many citizens across the world and those individuals serving overseas who risk their lives day in and day out to protect ours.
in my opinion the language in this resolution does little to offer a sensible approach but instead just seeks to escalate the rhetoric.
i fail to see how producing a report from an investigation conducted in the political arena with no access to official documents with no powers to call relevant individuals to give evidence and with no competence under eu law can produce recommendations with even the smallest perceived amount of objectivity.
i cannot in conscience ever support a resolution of this parliament that calls for the suspension of important anti terror agreements with the united states given the security situation in europe at present.
a resolution of this kind in my view is something that can never be credible relevant or responsible in the legitimate quest to provide real oversight and protection of individual rights for the people of europe as a whole.
so please excuse me if i do not place my trust in the eu to protect my personal freedom as everything in this place is all aimed at and targeted round the power of the state over the individual.
so when it comes to this kind of thing about mass surveillance and individual rights i have to ask for leave not to support the eu to do anything.
i think this is the moment at least where heads of states and the european commission should act and take their responsibilities.
that is the problem. the second reaction is not by any politician in the european union not by any head of state nor by any minister has there been taken action on behalf of the snowden revelations but here it was the highest court which took the action three weeks ago with the judgment on safe harbour.
if the highest court of the european union says there is something which edward snowden rightfully said is an infringement to the fundamental rights charter to our treaties should we not take that seriously?
should not the commission start infringement procedures against those member states which obviously still cooperate with those intelligence services or even have intelligence services doing the same unlawful activities?
where is the activity by the council and where is the activity with regard to common rules and standards for intelligence services in europe and for the protection of each individual's fundamental right before the courts effective judicial protection?
forty five there is much that i welcome in this report but i believe that the content of those paragraphs is partly based on a historical view of agriculture policy and certainly not based on the real situation on the ground at the moment.
before i deal in detail with that in the moments i have let me just say that paragraph fifteen is a very key paragraph in the report and perhaps should have been dealt with in more detail. it states that only four per cent of overseas development aid is dedicated to agriculture.
there have been many failed or bad investigations in the european union.
at the time they were detained we were informed that financial transactions were part of the substantial evidence against them.
in my constituency alone twelve innocent people were detained and were not able to be charged.
mr president the security of our citizens is of paramount interest to us all and it is all too easy for us to be painted as soft on fighting terrorism when we stand and ask for the civil liberties of our citizens to be protected.
what can we learn from those bad instances?
for technical reasons swift has to transfer bulk data thereby violating the basic principles of eu data protection law such as necessity and proportionality.
indeed the proposed interim agreement is a significant departure from european law in how enforcement agencies would obtain financial records of individuals namely through court approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions but with the proposed interim agreement we instead rely on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records of european citizens.
however we cannot keep falling for fake promises of jam tomorrow.
at all times it must be clear that parliament is not out there to just passively take note of the actions of the council and the commission.
without a doubt the targeted exchange and use of data for counter terrorism purposes is and will remain necessary but let me be clear european citizens must be able to trust both security and data claims. getting it right first time round should be the objective and with all due respect
true reciprocity would allow the eu authorities to obtain similar data stored in the us and in the long term consider the necessity of building up our own eu capacity.
the lack of reciprocity is not being addressed.
tell me;
council states yet again that it wants to ensure that the tftp will continue.
i made that clear last week but so far it has failed to act accordingly.
transfer and storage are in other words by definition disproportionate under the terms of the interim agreement and the council does not address a european solution for the supervision of data exchange.
a push' system does not mean anything if in actual practice swift has to transfer bulk data.
president in office tell me how on earth i can tell five hundred million european citizens that we are selling out on important safeguards and principles just because we are not able to put our foot down because council is not able to get its act together.
the council states that it wants to ensure the utmost respect for privacy and data but fails to address in particular the rights of access rectification compensation and redress outside the eu for data subjects.
why have the negotiation guidelines not already been submitted?
the council does not show any commitment to line up with existing legislation such as the data retention directive for the telecom service providers which does deal with specific and targeted data.
however it fails to address the fact that in this way the eu continues to outsource its financial intelligence service to the us.
mr president i shall start by saying that i too support a strong outward looking eu that is capable of acting shoulder to shoulder as a true counterpart to the us and in that framework i think it is of crucial importance to be open fair and transparent if we are to address the issue of how europe should cooperate with the us for counter terrorism purposes including law enforcement use of data collected for commercial ends.
the fact is that this house is always being promised jam tomorrow if only we would be patient.
by the very nature of swift it is not possible to refer to the so called limited' requests.
the council has been insufficiently strong to do so.
the second bruguire report was made available to meps on monday last week and it demonstrates the significance and the value of tftp in the investigation and disruption of terrorism including in the european union.
it is in our common interest.
they have told us that the reliable information that the tftp provides on known and suspected terrorism is an important source of legitimate intelligence needed to address the complex threat notably from al qaeda inspired terrorism.
the report also highlights that tftp is a valuable source of reliable information necessary in the fight against terrorism.
the interim agreement obliges the treasury department to delete data within five years of receipt a period which is in keeping with the retention period in eu legislation on terrorist financing. the agreement also provides for a detailed eu review in which some of our own data protection authorities will participate to ensure that these and many other data protection obligations are complied with.
i can assure you that only a fraction of swift data will be transferred under the interim agreement. it does not in any way affect the powers of data protection authorities with regard to processing activities performed in the eu by swift or financial institutions.
only if there is a reason to believe that one identified person is a terrorist can the data of that person be seen and extracted from the database.
they include for example a strict limitation on the purpose of processing which is limited to the investigation detection and prosecution of terrorism.
two thousand and nine we firmly intend to strengthen further the data protection part when negotiating the long term agreement particularly concerning the right to receive information about whether one's rights have been respected under the agreement and stronger guarantees about effective redress lawful data
i give a personal commitment to you to ensure that the european parliament's concern will be addressed and that we shall seek a strong protection of privacy and data protection in the new agreement.
we know that the threat of terrorism in some of our member states remains as high as ever and i am sure that you can see that rejection of the interim agreement by this house would represent a serious blow to eu security.
it can and it will be improved.
you will see that it contains significant and detailed legally binding commitments on the way that the us treasury department can process data under the agreement.
if the interim agreement falls it is likely to take considerable time before any alternative can be put in place.
one of the aims of the interim agreement has been to ensure implementation of the conditions in the european parliament resolution of september.
some of our member states have made it very clear that they want the tftp to continue because they have benefited from it in the past and will continue to do so.
the commission is now finalising the draft mandate and the guidelines for the long term agreement and we will adopt them swiftly.
that means that the data held on the tftp database are effectively anonymous.
it includes an absolute prohibition on data mining searches of the database can only be undertaken where it is possible to show a reason to believe that the subject of the search is engaged in terrorism.
the agreement does not involve the transfer of virtually all swift data to the us treasury department.
the report confirms that tftp has been used to identify and arrest individuals who have subsequently been convicted of terrorism within our member states.
much has been said about the level of protection of data in the interim agreement and this is of course a key concern.
it is an interesting first day at work and i am grateful to share with you the important issue of sharing information with the us for the purpose of combating terrorism this time in relation to the terrorist finance tracking programme the.
the interim agreement is not only a favour to the us;
it might not be the best agreement in the world.
it is the full intention of the commission and the council to involve the european parliament under the lisbon treaty in the permanent agreement.
we did achieve certain concessions from the united states and some very good data protection mechanisms.
that is totally accurate because we talk about such important matters as how we can maintain the security of our citizens but also maintain good information and exchange systems with a high level of data protection.
well it was because swift was moving and we were finding ourselves in a situation where we did not have a regulation on the transfer of data so the council and the commission moved swiftly to arrange something.
but i think we need to understand and remember why we have an interim agreement.
it might be a very good idea to postpone the vote and we might need more time to discuss the mandate.
this is not about a battle of wills between the council and the european parliament nor is it about transatlantic relations.
let us not forget that the member states were not unanimous on this agreement either.
the answers of the council so far are utterly inadequate and the democratic rights of european citizens cannot be bargained away with promises of trips to the us or vague promises by the council for future agreements.
this is a first key decision for the european parliament to take with its new lisbon powers and expectations are high but we need to keep a clear head.
parliament cannot and should not take a decision if it does not have access to all relevant information and documents.
our voters have a right to know that we consider all elements very seriously and that we do not simply rubber stamp council decisions.
so if the council wants the consent of this house it will have to meet our demands.
finally the european parliament has been very clear for years about its concerns and expectations and instead of coming up with more vague promises the council should finally provide us with the opinion of its legal service and the requested information demonstrating the use of the data for counter terrorism purposes.
the council has had countless opportunities since two thousand and seven to handle this in a proper manner and ensure security as well as protection of personal data and civil liberties or ensure proper democratic scrutiny by national parliaments or since one december the european parliament but the council has been incredibly stubborn.
this is about european citizens being entitled to a proper democratic and transparent procedure.
we can only give our consent to an agreement that has full democratic legitimacy on grounds of substance and procedure.
we owe it to our citizens to make a well considered decision free from outside pressures or scare tactics such as false claims of a security gap because data and we know this can still be obtained by the us without disagreement.
let me underline to mr busuttil and the president in office in particular that by our withholding our consent on the interim agreement the security of european citizens is not being compromised.
other legal instruments remain available for targeted transatlantic data exchange and as stated by claude moraes nobody has the moral high ground here.
it must be seen and i want it acknowledged as a departure from european law and practice.
i said this before and i want to hear it again clearly.
i also want to say that nobody doubts the necessity for continued and stronger cooperation between the us and the eu though the eu and its member states in the council in particular must be strong in setting their own objectives.
finally let me stress that it is all about european responsibility and a european solution is to be found.
the netherlands and belgium cannot end up being the dupe' of all this. i listened carefully to your statements to the request for more time and i am willing to refer that request to the conference of presidents but you did not give me the reassurances i was looking for it was too vague.
mr president we too in the socialists and democrats want to fight for the european citizens and we want to fight against terrorism so that is why we will be recommending as my leader said a no' vote tomorrow to ensure that we vote in this parliament on the first consent procedure under lisbon against a bad agreement for this whole parliament.
now in coreper it is absolutely true that the council came up with all the issues that we as a group regarded as the important issues.
mrs clinton too in her letter acknowledged that parliament had a point but neither of these documents went further and gave us a blueprint for solving this problem and that is why a no' will in our view push towards a better agreement for the whole parliament.
so we in our group are appealing across the house and not just within our group to support the rapporteur in what she is trying to do a better agreement to fight terrorism.
no one has the moral high ground here;
we want an effective fight against terrorism that means a better agreement and that is what we will be recommending to the socialist and democrats this evening in our group.
mr president a simple letter from the council that the negotiation guidelines will fully contain parliament's concerns that negotiations will begin immediately with the united states and not at some point in the future and that parliament will be fully involved in these negotiations might have sufficed and it would not be that difficult to give in order to alleviate this parliament's concerns about the way it has been treated ignored and played with in the past.
the bulk transfer of data the commissioner said is not a problem.
i urge the united states and council to work very seriously together with us after our vote tomorrow and not to choose bilateral routes or dream about breaking the solidarity but to work together to protect fundamental rights while we protect security.
the reciprocity of data protection should be beyond reproach and the manner in which the agreement has been negotiated and concluded must never be repeated.
however i have been reassured at least by the united states authorities and by the multi layered data protection systems and judicial safeguards that are in place through this interim agreement.
so our poor treatment by the council should not compromise the eu's agreement with the united states or any future agreements on the security of europe.
we are now receiving loads of assurances and promises from the council and from the commission.
i cannot yet judge whether these answer all the reasonable requirements we have laid down so in my opinion we now need some time before proceeding further with our consideration of this vital measure.
is the council aware of the fact that precisely because of that there is an agreement between the us and swift that stations swift personnel in the treasury department in order to ensure that the bulk data the treasury gets does not get searched in a bulk manner?
however the accession must meet two requirements.
madam president i do not believe that it is necessary on such a day to underline once more how important fundamental rights are for europe and how important they are for all the acts we are proposing.
first of all with the entry into force of the lisbon treaty the charter of fundamental rights is legally binding and this legally binding charter is the most modern qualification of fundamental rights in the world in terms of political commitment for fundamental rights
for this purpose but it was designed for the member states and therefore a limited number of technical and procedural adaptations to the conventions are necessary with regard to the specific nature of union law.
as for the method of electing this judge the normal procedure provided for in the convention should also apply here.
safeguarding the court of justice and its prerogatives following accession is an important issue.
which is enshrined in the lisbon treaty is not an option.
it is of particular importance to take account of the decentralised implementation of union law by member states.
we believe that an appropriate number of members of the european parliament should be allowed to participate in sessions of the parliamentary assembly when it elects the judges of the strasbourg court.