Brussels, 24/02/2000 (Agence Europe) - The hearing organised by the European Parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday on the protection of personal data has allowed stock to be taken of the state of legislation in Europe and in the United States and on the espionage network, Echelon (see also EUROPE of 23 February, p.8, and yesterday, p.11). Several MEPs called for there to be greater protection of citizens' personal data and of information on the activities of European companies. Italian national Elena Paciotti (PES, DS) and Danish Pernille Frahm (GUE) invited the European Commission to present new initiatives to strengthen data protection. Scottish regionalist Neil MacCormick hoped for a provision on the protection of privacy in the future EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, Italian Communist, asked whether it might not be appropriate to place a strict ban on the use of certain data of a very confidential kind and which could be put to wrongful use. He mainly cited medical information and information on disabilities as well as sexual orientation.
Answering briefly before leaving the meeting, Commissioner Frits Bolkestein felt that there should be three stages to: (1) make the effort required for effective implementation of the 1995 directive (EUROPE recalls that procedures are in progress against six Member States which do not apply it correctly: Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands); (2) come to an agreement with the United States; and (3) develop binding international rules. Speaking of Echelon, he said these are only rumours. He went on to add: "I don't deal in rumours, only in facts. The American government does not deny it exists although others insist to the contrary. This is an activity which is perhaps proper to the work of secret services but which I do not know about. This does not fall within my field of competence". EUROPE recalls that recently declassified documents in the United States confirm the existence of this espionage network.
The hearing then allowed the gap which separates Europe and its legal framework for data protection from the United States, which prefers to leave it up to economic circles to define the level of protection even if there are several regulatory elements. The representatives of the US Congress, Robert Goodlatte and Rick Boucher, urged for the system of self-regulation which, they believe, works well, and for an agreement with the European Union on the basis of the American concept of "safe harbour" (Ed.: companies selected for their level of data protection and which could therefore carry out exchange of information with EU companies). Mr Boucher affirmed that, through self-regulation, 95% of the 100 main sites in the United States guarantee a high level of protection while only 40% of the European sites meet the requirements of the Community directive. He also made it clear that there is no consensus in Congress for the adoption of legislative provisions and that, in his view, such provisions will be a long time coming. The representative for American consumers, Marc Rotenberg (Electronic Privacy Information Center), affirmed on the other hand that self-regulation entails "downward levelling" for protection. Saying that "it is in the general interest of consumers worldwide to protect their freedoms and their rights", he felt the concept of "safe harbour" was dangerous and considered that the European directive is a "road to the future" and that American consumers need to exert their influence on the US Administration to obtain a higher level of protection.
Data protection under "third pillar" of the EU Treaty
On Wednesday morning, the hearing tackled the aspects of data protection relating to police and judicial cooperation. French Green member Alima Boumediene-Thiery urged for the creation of a committee for controlling respect of privacy during the indexing operations linked to Europol activities and the Schengen Information System (SIS), after the French model of the "Commission nationale informatique et libertés" (CNIL). She recalled that the EP plenary last week adopted an amendment along these lines that it had presented on the resolution concerning the area of freedom, security and justice. Speaking on behalf of the Council Presidency, Joachim de Seabra Lopes said that "sooner or later it will be necessary to create a common control body". The European Commission representative acknowledged there was a need for a control authority. The president of the Schengen control authorities, Bart De Schutter recalled that, at the present time, when the control body receives a complaint, it verifies that data in the system has been gathered legitimately but that the complainant does not have access to the information concerning him/her. He felt there should be a three-stage procedure to improve citizen protection to: (1) make the effort necessary for bringing existing national authorities closer; (2) define common principles; and (3) create a common authority. Greek MEP Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/SYN) called for more information on the number of files currently appearing in the Schengen and Europol computerised systems and on the criteria that have led to this recording of information. German Social Democrat Gerhard Schmidt called for the protection of privacy to be guaranteed by the future Charter of Fundamental Rights. Europol Representative Mr Felgenhauer answered Mr Alavanos by saying that recording information on the population is done in compliance with the criteria set by the Community regulations and that only acts subject of criminal proceedings are retained. Mr De Schutter insisted on the need for parliamentary control. Recalling that the Schengen control authority forwards an annual report to the EP and to the national parliaments, he said: "We are hoping for transparency and dialogue". The Commission's representative said that the protection of private life must appear in the future Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Convention, which is being drawn up, should also examine what means should be implemented in order to guarantee effective implementation.
Echelon: Mr Campbell describes how the network works. Questions remain unanswered
Presenting his report on the interception of communications and the Echelon espionage network, British journalist Duncan Campbell recalled that this large-scale espionage network was set up in the year 1947/48 and has developed progressively since then. He stressed, however, that the interception of communications is not an activity that is unique to the English-speaking world. It is practised in a large number of third countries including Russia, Vietnam and Cuba but also by other Member States such as France, which has a tapping system that covers all of its territory and also works in liaison with other intelligence networks, mainly German. Of course, the Anglo-American system is exceptional in its size which covers telephone, fax and Internet communications. In all, there are said to be at least 140 bugging stations in the world. According to Mr Campbell, although Commissioner Bangemann was still able to request proof, two years ago, "it is now beyond a shadow of a doubt today that this system exists". Two techniques are used for listening in on telephone conversations: targets (phone numbers) and filtering, which works on the basis of key words. In all, bugging capacity is said to be by way of 2 billion messages per hour, with, at the end, four messages retained through filtering.
"You would think you were in a James Bond film", said Charlotte Cederschiöld (EPP-ED, Sweden), who asked how Commissioner Bolkestein had been able to speak of "rumours". She added: "Is the Commission trying to cover up this system?" Trade motives are far more obvious motives than the use that could be made of such data for combating organised crime, said Belgian Green member Patsy Sörensen, who called for a committee of inquiry to be set up. Mr Campbell stressed that we today have official confirmation from the United States. Regarding the economic use of the system, the Americans justify the bugging carried out towards France by the fact that French companies pay bribes, and the Australians put forward the excuse of cartels for listening in on Japanese communications. The interception of communications for reasons of security or to combat crime seems justified, in Mr Campbell's opinion, but it must be within a legal framework. Noting that the two examples of industrial espionage cited by Mr Campbell are not of any great magnitude, the Dutch Liberal, Jan Wiebenga, called for complementary information on the real gravity of this practice. Italian national Elena Paciotti (PES/DS) said she was "scandalised" by Mr Bolkestein's attitude, who also gave Dutch Green member Kathalijne Buitenweg the impression of dealing with this subject "in an offhand manner". Austrian Conservative Hubert Pirker and Ms Paciotti asked to what extent the communications of Community institutions were affected and how the EU could defend itself. Mr Campbell replied that the transmission of data by optical fibres is preserved and that the majority of EU internal communications are safe. In response to a question from Mr Alavanos, he specified that the bugging system installed in Cyprus is on a British base. Speaking of the letter from a Swiss company, which reproaches Mr Campbell with being content to cite press releases rather than carrying out his own investigation, British Liberal Graham Watson insisted on the need to have additional proof of the reality of industrial espionage. German Social Democrat Martin schulz said he still had doubts. "If what you say is true, is there further proof that you could let us have in camera?" he asked, before questioning Mr Campbell on a statement made to a German paper in which he reportedly said that the STOA unit of the EP is an "obscure body". Mr Campbell said he could possibly provide complementary information during another meeting.
See page 10 of this same bulletin, fo the statement by European Parliament President Nicole Fontaine and remarks made in Brussels by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, and some reactions in France.