Activities of José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA related to 2013/2188(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights (debate)
US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights (debate)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 33 a (new)
Citation 33 a (new)
– having regard to the Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-28) on Signals Intelligence Activities, issued by US President Barack Obama on 17 January 2014,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 34
Citation 34
– having regard to legislative proposals currently under examination in the US Congress, in particularcluding the draft US Freedom Act, the draft Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act, and others,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 36
Citation 36
– having regard to the ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Klayman et al. v Obama et al., Civil Action No 13-0851 of 16 December 2013, and to the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ACLU et al. v James R. Clapper et al., XXX of 27 December 2013,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the ties between Europe and the United States of America are based on the spirit and principles of democracy, liberty, justice and solidarity; whereas cooperation between the United States and the European Union and its Member States in counter-terrorism remains vital for the security and safety of both partners;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the District Court for the District of Columbia, in its Decision of 16 December 2013, has ruled that the bulk collection of metadata by the NSA is in breach of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution25 ; whereas, however the District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in its Decision of 27 December 2013 that this collection was lawful; __________________ 25 Klayman et al. v Obama et al., Civil Action No 13-0851, 16 December 2013.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas in his Presidential Policy Directive on Signals Intelligence Activities of 17 January 2014 and the related speech, US President Barack Obama insisted that mass electronic surveillance continues to be necessary for the United States to protect its national security, citizens and the citizens of US allies and partners, as well as to advance its foreign policy interests; whereas this policy directive limits the authorisation for the bulk collection of signals intelligence and specifically excludes the gathering of any kind of signals intelligence for commercial purposes; whereas the policy directive mandates the development of safeguards for the personal information of all individuals, regardless of their nationality or residence, partly providing for treatment equivalent to that enjoyed by US citizens; whereas however President Obama did not announce any concrete proposals in terms of the introduction of administrative and judicial redress for non-US persons;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers it very doubtfulIs strongly convinced that mass data collection of such magnitude is only guided by the fight against terrorism, as it involves the collection of all possible data of all citizens; points thereforeand electronic surveillance must meet specific requirements related to national security and that its use for other purposes, such as political and economic espionage, must be credibly excluded; deplores that the magnitude of the mass surveillance disclosed leaves doubts as to the possible existence of other power motives such as political and economic espionagethan the fight against terrorism and that these need to be comprehensively dispelled;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Condemns in the strongest possible terms the vast, systemic, blanket collection of the personal data of innocent people, often comprising intimate personal information; emphasises that the systems of mass, indiscriminate surveillance by intelligence services constitute a serious interference with the fundamental rights of citizens; stresses that privacy is not a luxury right, but that it is the foundation stone of a free and democratic society; points out, furthermore, that mass surveillance has potentially severe effects on the freedom of the press, thought and speech, as well as a significant potential for abuse of the information gathered against political adversaries; emphasises that these mass surveillance activities appear also to entail illegal actions by intelligence services and raise questions regarding the extra-territoriality of national laws;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Welcomes in this regard the remarks made and the Presidential Policy Directive issued by US President Obama on 17 January 2014 as a step towards limiting the authorisation for the use of surveillance and data processing to national security purposes and towards equal treatment of all individuals' personal information, regardless of their nationality or residence, by the US intelligence community; however awaits in the context of the EU-US relationship further specific steps which will, most importantly, strengthen trust in transatlantic data transfers and provide for binding guarantees for enforceable privacy rights of EU citizens, as outlined in detail in this report;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls on the Commission to present by June 2014 a comprehensive assessment of the US privacy framework covering commercial, law enforcement and intelligence activities in response to the fact that the EU and the US legal systems for protecting personal data are drifting apart; encourages the Commission to engage with the US administration and the US Congress to enhance compatibility of EU and US privacy frameworks;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Strongly emphasises, given the importance of the digital economy in the relationship and in the cause of rebuilding EU-US trust, that the consent by the European Parliament to the final TTIP agreement is endangered without a prior adequate solution for data privacy rights of EU citizens, including administrative and judicial redress; underlines that the European Parliament will only consent to the final TTIP agreement provided the agreement fully respects fundamental rights recognised by the EU Charter, and that the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data must continue to be governed by Article XIV of the GATS;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Urges the Commission to present, by September 2014, a proposal for a legal basisInsists that a proper legal basis must be established for the EU to develop its own intelligence and data collection facility; urges the HR/VP to regularly account for the activities of the EU Intelligence Analysis Centrer (IntCen), as well as a proper oversight mechanism adapted to its activities, including regular reporting to the European Parliamentincluding full compliance with fundamental human rights and applicable EU data privacy rules; notes that the IntCen is part of the European External Action Service, and as such produces strategic analysis for EU decision makers based on information provided by the EU Member States and that it does not collect data itself; calls for regular reporting to the responsible bodies of the European Parliament and intends to improve the present oversight mechanism in this regard;