Index 
 Vorige 
 Volgende 
 Volledige tekst 
Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen
Dinsdag 11 juni 2013 - Straatsburg Herziene uitgave

4. Amerikaans toezicht op internetgebruik EU-burgers (NSA PRISM-programma) (debat)
Video van de redevoeringen
PV
MPphoto
 

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο της ημερήσιας διάταξης είναι η ανακοίνωση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με την Επιτήρηση από τις ΗΠΑ των πολιτών της ΕΕ μέσω του διαδικτύου (πρόγραμμα NSA PRISM) (2013/2677(RSP)).

Θα ήθελα να σας ενημερώσω ότι τη συζήτηση αυτή ακολουθεί ένας γύρος ομιλητών από τις πολιτικές ομάδες καθώς και ότι δεν προβλέπεται διαδικασία "catch the eye", ούτε γίνονται δεκτές ερωτήσεις με γαλάζια κάρτα.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I am reading this statement on behalf of the Commission. I am here today instead of Vice-President Reding, who is unavoidably absent.

The European Commission is concerned about recent media reports that the United States authorities are accessing and processing on a large scale the data of European Union citizens using major US online service providers.

Programmes such as ‘PRISM’ and the laws under which such programmes are authorised jeopardise EU citizens’ fundamental right to privacy and data protection. The PRISM case, as reported in the media, is also likely to reinforce EU citizens’ concerns regarding the use of their personal data online and in the cloud. Already in 2012, 70% of EU citizens were concerned that their personal data held by companies could be used for a purpose other than the one for which it was collected.

The PRISM case as reported in the media also highlights the difference between the European Union’s and the United States’ approaches to data protection. Whereas in the US legal system only US citizens and residents benefit from constitutional safeguards, in the European Union everyone’s personal data and the confidentiality of their communications are recognised and protected as fundamental rights, irrespective of their nationality.

While the reports are particularly worrisome, the legal issue at hand is not a new one. It has been tackled by the Commission in the past. To give a single example, the Commission has already raised the matter of law enforcement access to personal data of European citizens in the framework of the ongoing negotiations with the United States for a general data protection agreement in the field of police and judicial cooperation.

As you know very well, Vice-President Reding has received a mandate to negotiate this agreement with the United States, and she is keeping this House, and in particular the Members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee (LIBE), informed about the progress of these negotiations.

The Commission is asking for clear commitments from the United States on respect for the fundamental right of EU citizens to data protection and on access to the same judicial redress as is afforded to United States residents.

As far as the PRISM programme is concerned, the Commission will raise this matter with the United States authorities at the earliest possible opportunity. It will request clarification as to whether access to personal data within the framework of the PRISM programme is limited to individual cases and based on concrete suspicions, or whether it allows bulk transfers of data. Vice-President Reding will raise this issue with force and determination at the upcoming EU-US ministerial meeting on Friday in Dublin.

Beyond the context of relations with the United States, the European Union can also act by making sure that it equips itself with robust legislation able to confront such situations, and I refer in particular to data protection. Under current EU legislation, the 1995 Data Protection Directive, when the rights of an EU citizen in a Member State are concerned, it is for national judges to determine whether the data can be transmitted in accordance with legal requirements, be they national, European or international.

The Commission believes that these concerns need to be further addressed. This is the aim of the proposed general Data Protection Regulation. The reform proposed by Vice-President Reding maintains the current high level of data protection in the EU by updating citizens’ rights, guaranteeing they know when their privacy has been violated and making sure that, when their consent is required, the consent is real.

More specifically, the EU data protection reform should ensure that the European Union is able to tackle situations such as the PRISM programme by laying down data protection rules with a clear provision on territorial scope. Non-European companies, when offering goods and services to European consumers, will have to apply EU data protection law in full: a broad definition of personal data, clear responsibilities for data processors and strong rules for international transfers.

Recital 90 of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation reflects our view that in order to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction, access by third-country law enforcement authorities to the personal data of EU citizens held on the servers of US companies should be done via established legal channels such as the EU-US mutual legal assistance agreements. The European Parliament has submitted amendments to further clarify in the provisions of the regulation the conditions under which the judgment of a court or a tribunal of a third country is enforceable under EU law. The Commission will look at these proposals.

The Commission believes that the quick adoption of this proposal would resolve any legal loopholes created when companies collect and handle the personal data of European citizens and face two different sovereigns. The Commission therefore counts on this Parliament to support the objectives and principles of the EU data protection reform and work on the swift adoption of the package.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Meine Daten gehören mir. Das ist das Grundprinzip der europäischen Denkweise zum Datenschutz. Auch der Staat hat dieses Prinzip, dass meine Daten mir gehören und von mir entschieden wird, was damit passiert, zu respektieren. Auch der Staat muss diese Grenzen ernst nehmen. Deswegen sind die Berichte aus den Vereinigten Staaten besorgniserregend. Es ist gut, dass wir eine Debatte führen, es ist gut, dass auch in den Vereinigten Staaten jetzt eine Debatte zur Sensibilität in Bezug auf den richtigen Umgang mit persönlichen Daten neu beginnt. Es ist inakzeptabel – und das möchte ich auch für die EVP-Fraktion zum Ausdruck bringen –, dass in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika unterschiedliche Datenschutzstandards zwischen Ausländern und US-Bürgern bestehen. Für uns in Europa ist das inakzeptabel. Das müssen auch unsere amerikanischen Freunde wissen.

Wir haben den Sachverhalt jetzt vorliegen und müssen jetzt unsere Ziele definieren. Erstens: Wir brauchen Transparenz. Wir müssen wissen, was passiert. Deswegen hat die Kommission, speziell Vizepräsidentin Reding, die volle Rückendeckung des Europäischen Parlaments, wenn sie in Dublin für Klarheit sorgen will, wenn sie antworten will auf die Praxis, auf die Rechtslage und auf die Durchführung der bestehenden Maßnahmen.

Zweitens: Wir wollen Transparenz von den Firmen. Wenn Google, Facebook und andere viel Geld in der Europäischen Union verdienen, dann haben die Bürger und damit auch die Kunden dieser Firmen das Recht auf Klarheit. Gibt es einen automatischen Zugriff auf die Daten? Ja oder Nein?

Drittens: Wir wollen die Rolle Großbritanniens klären. Es gibt Berichte, dass Großbritanniens Geheimdienste über die US-Datenbestände Zugriff auf die Daten der Bürger Europas haben. Da brauchen wir Klarheit der britischen Regierung.

Viertens: Internet ist global. Deswegen brauchen wir gemeinsame Standards. Die Kommission arbeitet zur Zeit an einem Rahmenabkommen im polizeilichen und justiziellen Bereich. Das ist gut und richtig. Vielleicht sollten wir auch darüber nachdenken, nicht nur ein Rahmenabkommen im polizeilichen Bereich, sondern auch für private Daten anzustreben und globale Standards mit den Amerikanern zu vereinbaren. Vielleicht sollten wir uns an so ein Rahmenabkommen heranwagen.

Fünftens: Wir brauchen die europäische Cloud. Wenn europäische Daten in der Cloud gespeichert werden, dann ist es gut, wenn sie in Europa gespeichert werden. Weil wir dann unseren Bürgern und unseren Firmen garantieren können, dass diese Daten mit mehr Sorgfalt und auch gemäß europäischen Standards gesichert sind.

Sechstens: Wir brauchen ein modernes EU-Datenschutzrecht. Wir können nur dann glaubwürdig unsere amerikanischen Freunde ermahnen, wenn wir selbst in Europa hohe moderne Datenschutzstandards umsetzen. Ich möchte zum Ausdruck bringen, dass mir manche Entwicklung in diesem Bereich Sorge macht, wenn man sieht, welche Datenmengen aufgebaut werden. Wenn man auf der andern Seite sieht, wie die Datenauswertungstechnik Fortschritte macht, dann müssen wir heute den Mut haben, dieser Entwicklung auch klare Grenzen mit Standards zu setzen, die die Kommission vorgeschlagen hat. Ich würde uns als Parlament ermahnen, dass wir am 9. Juli festhalten und im Ausschuss abstimmen. Wir dürfen uns nicht den Vorwurf machen lassen, dass wir verzögern. Ich würde den Rat ermahnen, dass er aufhört mit den Details, dem Klein-Klein, sondern die großen Herausforderungen der heutigen Zeit sieht und auch zu Ergebnissen kommt.

Als Letztes ist uns als EVP auch wichtig, dass wir zum Ausdruck bringen, dass die Vereinigten Staaten unsere Partner sind. Bei PNR, bei SWIFT waren wir als Europäer nicht in der Lage, Standards aufzubauen, um im Kampf gegen die organisierte Kriminalität und vor allem gegen den internationalen Terrorismus mithalten zu können. Aber europäische Behörden haben von dieser Auswertung profitiert. In Deutschland wurde ein Bombenterroranschlag verhindert, weil wir von den Amerikanern gewarnt worden sind. Außerdem wurde dadurch ein Anschlag auf Madrid verhindert. Deswegen möchte ich zum Ausdruck bringen, dass die Vereinigten Staaten unsere Partner sind. Besonders bei SWIFT warten wir händeringend auf den Vorschlag der EU-Kommission, mit dem ein eigenes Auswertesystem für Finanztransaktionen in Europa mit unseren Standards etabliert werden soll. Der US-Weg ist nicht der unsere, aber wir arbeiten partnerschaftlich zusammen, um gemeinsam unsere Aufgaben zu erledigen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, the events of the last few days, and the information published by the Guardian last week with regard to the top-secret US surveillance system ‘PRISM’ enacted by the National Security Agency (NSA), allegedly in cooperation with world IT giants like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Skype, YouTube and AOL – trusted major companies – have caused shock to our European citizens.

The S&D Group is very clear that, while security is important, this has caused a major breach of trust for our citizens. We in the S&D Group regard it as vitally important that, at the ministerial meeting on 13 and 14 June, the Parliament and all the political groups give the Commissioner support in holding Eric Holder and the United States to account for what they have done in allegedly transferring bulk information belonging to our citizens. Such transfers may be completely unnecessary in the fight against terrorism and in the fight for security of our citizens, and represent a breach of trust in the way that data is secured and in the fight against terrorism and to maintain security. It is vital to maintain the right balance between security and the need to protect data.

The reports in the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times seem to show that these companies, required by the NSA to share information for anti-terrorism purposes under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and upon secret FISA court orders, agreed to do so and provided US intelligence agencies with access to their servers, and possibly enabled the US intelligence community to send queries directly to company-managed secure online rooms.

We are particularly concerned that generalised access to, and mass processing of, EU citizens’ data for law enforcement or other purposes may have taken place under the responsibility of the above-mentioned companies in the framework of this programme in a way that is non-compliant with the EU data protection legislation in force. We are also worried by the absence of an overall transatlantic legal framework ensuring the protection of personal data, especially considering that negotiations on an umbrella data protection agreement between the EU and the US have been ongoing since 2011 but seem currently to be stalled.

For all of these reasons, we wish to ensure that the Commissioner holds the US to account and ensures that when the US public authorities process US citizens’ data, they do so within our standards. Secondly we wish to reaffirm our commitment to a high-level agreement on the proposed data protection reform package, along the lines originally defined in our proposals and reinforced by amendments tabled by the EP rapporteurs and shadows on improving protection requirements.

In this context, we deem it quite clear that an EU legal framework for data protection, law enforcement and security purposes by public and private actors remains extremely relevant and cannot in any way be delayed.

Finally, we believe that special attention must be paid to issues related to data protection and data flows in negotiations on the important EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement, in order to ensure that primary EU legislation in this field is maintained. We are well aware of the Commission’s commitment to hold the US to account in relation to data flows, but it is extremely important, in the light of the PRISM and NSA issue, that EU citizens are given assurances as to what can happen.

In my own Member State, the United Kingdom, there is serious concern about what has happened. Trust has clearly been breached. It is now up to the EU to play its role in ensuring that we hold the United States to account for what it has done in this case, that our standards are maintained and that EU citizens are assured that the right standards are maintained.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. − Colleagues, let me remind you that according to the decision of the political groups, there is no catch-the-eye or blue card procedure in this debate; that is in order to secure more time for the speakers of the political groups.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, 500 million European citizens were very shocked last week to find that a foreign nation has unlimited access to every intimate detail of their private lives.

This is a very, very big issue. In the United States this is considered to be Chefsache, as the Germans say: it was the President himself who came and answered questions in Congress and to the media. So what do we see in Europe? First of all, with all due respect to the Commissioner, we get the Commissioner for Public Health to deal with this issue, but no President Barroso, who should have got in his helicopter and flown to Strasbourg to answer to 500 million citizens. Do we have at least the responsible Commissioner for counter-terrorism in the House? Where is that responsible Commissioner? Why are not the prime political leaders of Europe here?

We also need to look at ourselves, colleagues. Look around you at the empty hemicycle. Just over a decade ago, when faced with a similar situation – something called Echelon – this House decided to set up a heavy parliamentary inquiry. Today, we get a handful of dedicated MEPs to address 500 million citizens. We are failing the European citizens at a time when trust in the European Union is at an all-time low. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Then to the subject matter itself. First of all, we cannot have been very surprised to find that the Americans are spying on us because we knew about it. We have been asking questions again, again and again, but asking questions to the Commission is like talking to a wall. I have a long list of unanswered questions to my questions about Pfizer, about the Patriot Act, about the extra-territorial application of US law. We get no answers from the European Commission.

As for the Member States – because there is national debate about the same issue everywhere now – Ms Merkel will ask the Americans for an explanation, but in all our Member States, including the UK, Mr Moraes, and in my Member State, we are doing the same thing. The Member States are using doublespeak to their citizens. Are we surprised that they are losing trust? Actually you can say that the citizens do not trust their governments anymore, but the governments seem to trust their citizens even less.

We are also loosing moral authority here. How can we tell the governments of, say, Egypt or Iran – or any other country – that they should not spy on their citizens because that has no place in a democracy, if we are doing the same to our citizens? We are losing credibility here.

On the special relationship, I have heard nearly all colleagues here refer to the special relationship with our best friends and closest ally, the United States. Well I do not know if Members listened to the statement by President Obama when he was addressing the American audience who were worried. He said: do not worry, we are not spying on you as citizens, we are only spying on foreigners! Foreigners, so that is us; that is European citizens! So what kind of a special relationship is that?

Over the last twelve years, Europe has bent over backwards to be the closest ally of the Americans in the fight against terrorism and I am sure we will continue to be their ally. But then we need to see eye to eye, and we expect the Commission – and with all due respect, and I am grateful you are here Commissioner Borg – to make this Chefsache, as this is a matter for political leadership. We need political leadership in Europe to defend the rights of our citizens, and the time is now.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I completely share the concerns which have been raised by all the political groups here. I would like to say that it is not only a matter of data protection or of a small technical issue; this is about the rule of law and democracy, both of which are incompatible with mass surveillance. They cannot be compatible with the mass surveillance of people all around the world

We need to stand up here to say clearly: mass surveillance is not what we want, and we need strong data protection rules. We need them as a precondition for democracy, for the rule of law, and also for security and trust in the digital market, or in the market as a whole. Therefore, it is a very good opportunity for us to react as Europeans by creating our own standards on data protection, safeguarding the rights of our citizens, and deciding as quickly as possible on the proposed regulation on data protection containing firm rules on third state transfers. This is about companies processing personal data – masses of our personal data – and then giving third state authorities the opportunity to access them.

If we really want to have a safe European cloud, we need to make sure that we have strict and strong EU data protection rules which are enforceable and which create clear rules on third state transfers. Only that will help. As a rapporteur for the Framework Agreement on Data Protection with the USA, I would like to work on this issue and reach an agreement on standards with the United States. However, we also need movement on the other side of the Atlantic. We need some legislation. We need some legislative changes, because without legislative changes we will not reach any common ground.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, the debate here today is about increasing the trust and faith of citizens in holding to account governments and agencies that serve and protect them. Those companies already named and shamed have so far denied acting outside the law. Governments and the European Commission have expressed concern, we have heard this morning, but rightly acknowledge that it is currently too early to draw final conclusions. Yet here we are, already pointing the finger, with some of you already expressing strong anti-American or anti-Commission rhetoric which is all too familiar, as is the opportunism and grandstanding without pausing to gather facts or proof.

This plenary is no stranger to the practice of convicting a defendant before the trial. This Parliament is currently working hard on reforming its data protection rules and is still pursuing agreement on data exchange with the United States, something which I and my Group support. Key to the success of being able to protect our citizens beyond our own borders is our relationship with other countries. Yet I would caution that often the way in which some Members of this House articulate themselves does little to bring us together on values but instead pushes us further apart.

Protecting citizens from modern threats is a balancing act. Intelligence agencies are often lambasted for not acting soon enough and then equally condemned for going too far. Their successes are celebrated in private but their failings are only too public. Increasingly, as we know, terrorists and organised criminal groups use information and technology against innocent citizens. Therefore there must be an expectation that the same technology will be used in our response. But that information must be used and respected within the confines of democratic principles and legal oversight.

We must understand that we do not gain more freedoms by taking others away and that our greatest asset will always be the rule of law. That is why sometimes it is necessary for us politicians to remind those with less visible power that ensuring freedom and the safety of our citizens must not come at the ultimate price of sacrificing democracy. But it might also be worth some people in this room remembering who the real enemy is and where it is, and that when we deal with allies and when we want answers and the truth, friends listen most when you talk and not when you shout.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška, za skupinu EFD. – Priznám sa, že ma znechutili uniknuté informácie o tajnom programe PRISM Národnej bezpečnostnej agentúry Spojených štátov amerických, ktorá od roku 2007 zbiera a vyhodnocuje elektronickú komunikáciu a informácie o našich občanoch, ktorá prechádza cez zariadenia amerických firiem. Tento postup americkej administratívy je exemplárnou ukážkou porušovania práva európskych občanov na ochranu ich osobných údajov.

Preto dnes musíme rozhodne zareagovať na zneužívanie nových technológií americkými úradmi, na špicľovanie osobného života našich občanov. Nezákonné sledovanie súkromnej komunikácie občanov je trestné v Európe aj v Spojených štátoch amerických. Preto sa americké spoločnosti, ktoré umožnili prístup k súkromnej komunikácii našich občanov americkej bezpečnostnej agentúre, dopustili porušenia práva Európskej únie a je našou povinnosťou vyšetriť rozsah tohto zásahu do súkromia našich občanov a prijať voči týmto spoločnostiam rovnaké opatrenia a sankcie, aké prijímame voči daňovým podvodníkom či iným porušovateľom práva Únie zo zahraničia. Paranoidné správanie sa našich amerických partnerov v tomto období je naozaj odsúdeniahodné.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, en vous entendant, Monsieur le Commissaire, j'ai envie de vous dire: vous moquez-vous de nous? Je sais que vous ne connaissez rien au dossier, c'est Mme Reding qui devrait être là. Mais j'ai envie de dire: "rien de nouveau sous le soleil transatlantique".

Les révélations de la presse britannique sur le programme PRISM ne font que confirmer ce qu'effectivement seule une poignée d'entre nous dénonce en permanence, dès lors qu'il s'agit de la protection des données vue par les États-Unis.

J'entends encore le vice-président des États-Unis, Joe Biden, ici même, en mai 2010, nous dire combien la vie privée des citoyens américains était protégée par la Constitution américaine. Le nombre de ceux qui doutent a augmenté ces derniers jours. Grâce à Edward Snowden, nous savons que la NSA accède directement au serveur d'au moins neuf sociétés internet et non des moindres. Passons sur le fait que ces géants du net ont des défenses pour le moins variées, allant du "on ne savait pas" à "nous examinons toutes les requêtes avec soin". Le plus inquiétant pour nous, Européens, est sorti directement en effet de la bouche du président Obama. Et ce n'est pas un aveu puisqu'il a dit froidement qu'en droit, la surveillance de l'internet ne s'applique pas aux citoyens des États-Unis, ni aux personnes vivant sur leur sol. Un juge doit autoriser l'espionnage d'un citoyen de ces pays. La loi des États-Unis a visiblement été violée. Passons. Mais en arrière-plan, il y a l'aveu que tous les autres peuvent être espionnés en toute liberté.

C'est exactement ce que nous disons depuis des mois: les citoyens européens n'ont pas les mêmes droits que ceux des États-Unis. Des milliers de données sont recueillies massivement, sans discernement, en vrac et sans qu'aucun acte répréhensible ne puisse être reproché. Les autorités de contrôle d'Europol ne cessent de nous le dire. Alors nous vous disons: ça suffit! Nous n'en pouvons plus, à chaque cycle des négociations du TFTP, de voir vos mandataires revenir sans avoir obtenu la moindre concession.

Nous avions su rejeter SWIFT dans un premier temps. Nous avons rejeté ACTA car nous voulons que les citoyens européens aient droit à la protection des données. Cela a trop duré. Assez d'hypocrisie. Nous n'avons que trop de preuves de la réalité des faits. Il faut que nous exigions des États-Unis la protection des données des citoyens européens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). - Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Was würden Sie sagen, wenn ein US-Geheimdienst-Mitarbeiter Sie täglich 24 Stunden lang verfolgt, Ihre Tätigkeiten notiert, speichert und analysiert? Sie wären sicherlich nicht einverstanden damit! Aber genau das passiert im digitalen Raum täglich, 24 Stunden am Tag bei Millionen von Menschen.

Wir, dieses Haus hier, sind verantwortlich dafür, dass die Grundrechte geschützt werden. Dieses Programm verletzt Grundrechte. Doch was machen wir? Wir lassen uns doch permanent – sei es bei SWIFT-Daten, sei es bei PNR-Daten – von den amerikanischen Behörden über den Tisch ziehen! Das kann doch nicht sein! Es ist Zeit, dass wir endlich das Zepter in die Hand nehmen, dass wir endlich Verantwortung übernehmen und dass wir Druck aufbauen, damit dieses Programm beendet wird! Wir sollten eine Untersuchung einleiten, damit wir sehen, welche rechtlichen Implikationen dieses Programm hat, welche europäischen Geheimdienste von diesen Daten profitieren. Profitiert etwa Europol davon? Außerdem sollten wir endlich amerikanische Vertreter in dieses Haus einladen, damit sie uns endlich Rechenschaft abliefern. Dieser Weg, den wir derzeit gehen, führt schnurstracks aus der freien Demokratie hinaus!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, the Commission shares the European Parliament’s concerns on this PRISM scandal, and I shall inform Vice-President Reding of our discussion today. I must also state that Ms Reding will address the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on 19 June, which means that she will not only discuss with the LIBE Committee and refer to it the developments which take place until then but will also refer to the committee her negotiations and her meetings in Dublin next Friday. She will raise our shared concerns at the ministerial meeting next Friday in Dublin and will also request clarification from United States Attorney-General Holder.

This was a good debate (even though it was short), and of course there were two trains of thought which are not contradictory to each other. One of them is that we should clarify things with the United States and make it clear that, whenever a European citizen’s information is concerned, European rules should apply, and that we are not happy with the level of protection of data information from the United States in particular. Indeed, if you read the Guardian, as Mr Moraes said, there is a reference by the whistleblower to the facility with which information could be accessed by the very person who leaked this information. Referring to the US government, he said ‘the government had granted itself power it was not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is that people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed’. So we are entitled to ask questions in the next ministerial summit on whether this has been done as regards European citizens.

At the same time, I appreciate Mr Kirkhope’s remarks that we should not forget who the enemy is. As a former Minister of the Interior for 10 years, I would ask: what would the fight against organised crime and terrorism be without the collection of proper intelligence? Yet the frustration (it should not be a frustration but it is considered to be so) of any law enforcement agency is that, while terrorists and organised crime have no rules to go by, law enforcement agencies, in a democratic country ruled by the rule of law, cannot use anything but the gloves of law in order to fight terrorism.

This is why I appreciate the comments of those, including Mr Weber and others, who have said that we have a special relationship with our US partners and we have solved important investigations regarding the prevention of terrorism through shared information with our special partnership, but that no one should use this special relationship not to abide by the law and not to abide by international standards.

This is the fine balancing act of retaining this partnership – but because there is a partnership, it entails not only rights but deeper obligations, because if the relationship is special then the obligations should be special as well, and no one should be taken for granted. I also appreciate Ms in ’t Veld’s comments on these issues, bearing in mind also what Mr Kirkhope said about who the real enemy is.

I would also like to recall that, in the context of the proposal for a reform of data protection in Europe (and I appreciate the positive comments that have been made by different members as to the importance of adopting this new package proposed by Ms Reding), the Commission has made it clear that the extra-territorial application of laws by third countries may be in breach of international law, and the reform establishes the legal channels that should be used.

The Commission is ready to consider any improvements the European Parliament would consider necessary in this respect. That is why we need to work together for a swift adoption of the package, which some in the Member States would like to see delayed. It is in our common interest to work hand in hand in that direction, all the more so in view of these recent developments.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Πρόεδρος. - Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE), schriftelijk. – De Amerikaanse digitale spionage dringt diep door in de intieme levenssfeer van alle Europese burgers. Uiteraard moeten de Europese autoriteiten nu om opheldering vragen bij de Amerikaanse tegenhangers. Maar wij moeten, als Europa, ook lessen trekken. Want dit kan dienen als een concurrentievoordeel voor het Europese bedrijfsleven, met name voor zgn. cloud-diensten, maar ook andere diensten, zoals zoekmachines of sociale mediaplatformen. De lopende hervorming van de Europese wetgeving moet streven naar de hoogst mogelijke normen van bescherming. Want, collega's, deze onverkwikkelijke PRISM-zaak toont duidelijk aan dat de Europese wetgeving op dit moment te veel gaten kent die dringend dichtgespijkerd moeten worden. Desnoods moeten wij de hervorming afwijzen bij gebrek aan harde garanties ter bescherming van de grondrechten van EU-burgers, net zoals het halfrond dat al eerder heeft gedaan in het SWIFT-dossier en bij de onderhandelingen met de VS over de uitwisseling van passagiersgegevens van vliegtuigmaatschappijen. Europese bedrijven, die helaas vaak zijn meegesleurd in het lobbyen voor zwakkere voorschriften door hun Amerikaanse tegenhangers, moeten meer hun eigen rol op de wereldmarkt gaan verdedigen. Een verzwakking van de gegevensbeschermingsregels in Europa zal immers alleen tot voordeel strekken van die bedrijven die onder de ontoereikende regels in de Verenigde Staten of elders werken.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), par écrit. – Au nom de la lutte anti-terroriste, les Etats-Unis et leurs complices Britanniques nous ont habitués à un irrespect de plus en plus grave du droit à la vie privée. Le programme PRISM n’est qu’une étape de plus dans le fichage généralisé de la population par les services d’information américains. Il s’agit aujourd’hui d’un véritable programme d’espionnage permettant la collecte de données privées d’utilisateurs de plateformes de grandes entreprises informatiques. Ces utilisateurs peuvent être des citoyens ordinaires, des industriels, des politiques, et l’espionnage de leurs communications viole tout autant le droit fondamental à la vie privée que les exigences de nos sécurités nationales. En 2012, 70% des Européens se disaient préoccupés par le fait que leurs données personnelles possédées par les sociétés privées puissent être utilisées à des fins inconnues. Il semble aujourd’hui que leurs inquiétudes étaient fondées. La quasi-absence de réaction de M. Barroso ou de Mme Ashton est navrante. Les agissements des autorités américaines, avec la complicité de grandes compagnies de ce pays, méritent une condamnation ferme de la part de la Commission, et une réaction immédiate visant à garantir aux Européens la protection de leurs données personnelles, ainsi d’ailleurs que la mise en œuvre d’un droit à l’oubli, et ce malgré les pressions des lobbyistes stipendiés.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pavel Poc (S&D), písemně. – Evropská unie je postavena na principech svobody a respektování občanských práv, proto nikdy nesmí dovolit, aby byla tato práva jakkoliv narušena. Při projednávání dohod ACTA a SWIFT jsme dali jasně najevo, co pro nás znamenají občanská práva, ale jak nám ukazuje současná aféra PRISM, ještě zdaleka není tato otázka dořešena. Evropský parlament musí velmi důrazně trvat na tom, že jakékoliv hromadné a záměrné shromažďování osobních údajů o evropských občanech je nepřípustné. Deklarované tažení proti terorismu nemůže být omluvou pro provozování sledovacích systémů, jakým je PRISM. USA si musí být vědomy, že Evropská unie má určité meze, za které nemůže zajít. Takovou mezí musí být i ochrana práva obyvatel EU na soukromí. Ani při vědomí všech spojeneckých vazeb a nutnosti boje proti terorismu toto nesmíme připustit. Evropská komise musí od této chvíle použít všechny dostupné prostředky v rámci jednání o obchodní dohodě mezi USA a EU, aby zesílila tlak na orgány USA a bylo dosaženo odpovídající datové bezpečnosti občanů EU. Pokud se v Evropě některá vláda, agentura nebo společnost na sledování podílela, musí za to nést veškeré důsledky.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), schriftlich. – Es ist begrüßenswert, dass sich das Europäische Parlament mit dem vorige Woche bekanntgewordenen PRISM-Skandal auseinandersetzt. Die Vorgänge, die offensichtlich außerhalb des rechtlichen Rahmens und unter Verletzung internationaler Abkommen passierten, stellen einen groben Vertrauensbruch dar und diskriminieren auch europäische Bürgerinnen und Bürger gegenüber denen der USA. Es ist frappant, dass in diesen Skandal die gleichen Akteure verwickelt sind, die gegenwärtig mit großem Informationsaufwand versuchen, die auf europäischer Ebene diskutierte Datenschutzreform zu verwässern. Der PRISM-Skandal zeigt vor allem, dass wir eine starke Datenschutzverordnung brauchen. Wer Daten von europäischen Bürgern verarbeitet, hat sich an europäisches Datenschutzrecht zu halten. Es muss der Grundsatz gelten, dass in der EU tätige Unternehmen nur dann Daten an Drittstaaten übermitteln dürfen, wenn der Datenaustausch ausdrücklich durch internationale Abkommen oder bilaterale Rechtshilfeersuchen geregelt ist. In jedem Fall sind auch die zuständigen Datenschutzbehörden zu befassen. Edward Snowden, der die Öffentlichkeit von diesen ungeheuerlichen Vorgängen informiert hat, verdient unseren Respekt und unsere Hochachtung.

 
  
  

PRESIDE: MIGUEL ÁNGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vicepresidente

 
Juridische mededeling - Privacybeleid