33 Amendments of Claude MORAES related to 2013/2188(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
Citation 15 a (new)
– having regard to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
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 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the US authorities have denied some of the information revealed but not contested the vast majority of it; whereas the public debate has developed on a large scale in the US and in a limited number ofcertain EU Member States; whereas EU governments too often remain silent and fail to launch adequate investigations;
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 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. Whereas, according to an open memorandum submitted to President Obama by Former NSA Senior Executives/Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on 7th January 2014 27 a the massive collection of data does not enhance its ability to prevent future terrorist attacks; whereas, they stress that mass surveillance conducted by the NSA has resulted in the prevention of zero attacks and that billions have been spent in programs which are less effective and hugely more intrusive on citizens' privacy than an in- house technology called THINTHREAD that was built in 2001; __________________ 27a http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/ nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/
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 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BF a (new)
Recital BF a (new)
BFa. whereas national oversight bodies often do not have full access to intelligence received from a foreign intelligence agency which can lead to gaps in which international information exchanges can take place without adequate review; whereas this problem is further aggravated by the so-called "third party rule" or the principle of "originator control", which has been designed to enable the originator to maintain control on the further dissemination of its sensitive information but is unfortunately often interpreted as applying also to the recipient services' oversight;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BF b (new)
Recital BF b (new)
BFb. Whereas private and public transparency reform initiatives are key to ensuring public trust in the activities of intelligence agencies; whereas legal systems should not prevent companies from disclosing to the public information about how they handle all types of government requests and court orders for access to user data, including the possibility of disclosing aggregate information on the number of requests and orders approved and rejected;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers it very doubtful that 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 therefore to the possible existence of other power motives such asurposes including political and economic espionage;
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 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Commends the current discussions, inquiries and reviews concerning the subject of this inquiry in several parts of the world; points to the Global Government Surveillance Reform signed up to by the world’s leading technology companies, which calls for sweeping changes to national surveillance laws, including an international ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public’s trust in the internet; notes with great interest the recommendations published recently by the US President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies; points to the call by 562 international authors, including five Nobel Prize laureates, for an end to mass surveillance by the NSA; strongly urges governments to take these calls and recommendations fully into account and to overhaul their national frameworks for the intelligence services in order to implement appropriate safeguards and oversight;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the US authorities and the EU Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and bulk processing of personal data; originated in particular from personal communications and commercial data; calls on EU Member States to promote an initiative in the UN for an international treaty prohibiting such activities and the tools involved including an agency for its oversight;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on all EU Member States, and in particular those participating in the so- called "9-eyes" and "14-eyes" programmes, to comprehensively evaluate and revise their national legislation and practices governing the activities of intelligence services – including their (strategic) surveillance powers, authorisation procedures and oversight mechanisms - so as to ensure that they are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and comply with their fundamental rights obligations as regards data protection, privacy, presumption of innocence, the necessity and proportionality of surveillance activities, as well as parliamentary and judicial oversight, as also set out in the UN compilations of good practices 38e and the recommendations of the Venice Commission 38f; __________________ 38e UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Combating Terrorism 2010, Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies, UN General Assembly, A/HRC/14/46, 17 May 2010. 38f European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Report on Democratic Oversight of the Security Services in Council of Europe States, Study 388/2006, June 2007 (update due in spring 2014).
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Calls on the UK to revise its national legislation and practices governing the activities of intelligence services so as to ensure that they are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and comply with their fundamental rights obligations as regards data protection, privacy and presumption of innocence; in particular, given the extensive media reports referring to mass surveillance in the UK, would emphasise that the current legal framework which is made up of a 'complex interaction' between three separate pieces of legislation – the Human Rights Act 1998, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – should be revised;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Calls on Germany to revise the law on the German foreign intelligence service (BND) and the G-10 Law by making them more specific, reinforcing the rights of all persons whose communications are intercepted, providing for more public information in particular as to the activities of the G10 Commission, reinforcing the technical capabilities and investigative powers of the parliamentary oversight bodies, and adjusting the laws to the developments regarding internet technology and use;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Calls on France to reinforce the system of checks and balances in the field of intelligence activities so as to ensure it is in line with the European Convention on Human Right's requirements, to strengthen its general oversights mechanisms, both as regards the ex ante authorisation procedures, the involvement of the Parliament in monitoring of intelligence activities and the reinforcement of technical capabilities and investigate powers of the latter. Moreover encourages the National Commission for the Control of Security Interceptions (CNIS), independent administrative authority to monitor more closely and effectively the processing of data collected by the various intelligence agencies. Urges France to clarify the situation on allegations regarding potential agreements between intelligence services and telecommunication companies as regard access to and exchange of personal data and access to communication facilities including Transatlantic cables. Takes notes of the adoption of the "Loi de programmation militaire 2014-2019" in December 2013 clarifying the framework according to which intelligence services may have access to communication data, with regards to fighting against terrorism;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 d (new)
Paragraph 19 d (new)
19d. Calls on Sweden to revise the internet laws which authorised the National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) to monitor communications traffic into and out of Sweden, cable bound as well as in the ether (radio and satellite), including emails, text messages and telephone calls and Act on signals intelligence which allows for the bulk transfer of data to other states if authorised by the Government, in order to specify the means and the scope of the surveillance and to improve the foreseeability of law which would enable an individual to foresee whether their communication or data about their communication is collected by FRA; recommends further to reinforce the system of checks and balances in oversight of the signals intelligence by including at the composition of the Inspection for Defence Intelligence Operations the parliamentarians in office;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 e (new)
Paragraph 19 e (new)
19e. Takes note of the review of the Dutch Intelligence and Security Act 2002 (report by the "Dessens Commission" of 2 December 2013); supports those recommendations of the review commission which aim to strengthen the transparency of and the control and oversight on the Dutch intelligence services; calls on the Netherlands to refrain from extending the powers of the intelligence services so that untargeted and large-scale surveillance could also be performed on cable-bound communications of innocent citizens, especially given the fact that one of the biggest Internet Exchange Points in the world is located in Amsterdam (AMS-IX); calls for caution in defining the mandate and capabilities of the new Joint Sigint Cyber Unit, as well as for the presence and operation by US intelligence personnel on Dutch territory;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 f (new)
Paragraph 19 f (new)
19f. Calls on Poland to revise data protection legislation in particular as far as their access by different (law enforcement or intelligence) authorities to citizens' personal data from various sources is concerned) and introduce an independent supervisory mechanism over their activity, notably in the area of intelligence and general crime prevention; strongly recommends that Poland properly applies freedom of information laws with respect to national security issues ; recommends further that any freedom of information requests shall be duly and adequately treated, notably when relevant for explaining government involvement in programs of mass surveillance and for thereby holding decision-makers accountable;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the US to revise its legislation without delay in order to bring it into line with international law, to recognise the privacy and other rights of EU citizens, to provide for judicial redress for EU citizens and to sign the AddiOptional Protocol allowing for complaints by individuals under the ICCPR;
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 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Strongly opposes any conclusion of an additional protocol or guidance toesses its serious concerns about the work within the Council of Europe's Cybercrime Convention Committee on the interpretation of Article 32 of the Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2001 (Budapest Convention) on trans-border access to stored computer data whicith could provide for a legitimisation of intelligence services’ access to data stored in another jurisdiction without its authorisation and without the use of existing mutual legal assistance instruments, since this could result in unfettered remote access by law enforcement authorities to servers and computers located in other jurisdictions and would be in conflict withnsent or where publicly available and opposes any conclusion of an additional protocol or guidance intending to broaden the scope of this provision beyond the current regime established by this Convention, which already is a major exception to the principle of territoriality because it could result in unfettered remote access by law enforcement authorities to servers and computers located in other jurisdictions without recourse to MLA agreements and other instruments of judicial cooperation put in place to guarantee the fundamental rights of the individual, including data protection and due process, namely Council of Europe Convention 108;
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 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Notes that trust in US cloud computing and cloud providers has been negatively affected by the abovementioned practices; emphasises, therefore, the development of European clouds as an essential element for growth and employment and trust in cloud computing services and providers and for ensuring a high level of personal data protection; emphasises in addition the potential for growth and employment and the overall economic value of EU cloud with reported forecasts that the cloud market will be worth 207 billion US$ a year by 2016, which amounts to double the value in 201240a; __________________ 40a http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default /files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf
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 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Invites, as it has done in the case of Echelon, all national parliaments which have not yet done so to install meaningful oversight of intelligence activities by parliamentarians or expert bodies with legal powers to investigate; calls on national parliaments to ensure that such oversight committees/bodies have sufficient resources, technical expertise and legal means to be able to effectively control intelligence services; calls on Member States to revise their legislative framework to ensure that their oversight bodies are not considered as a third party under the "third party rule" or the principle of "originator control", thereby allowing for adequate scrutiny and accountability of intelligence from foreign countries;
Amendment 434 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95
Paragraph 95
95. Calls on the Commission, by September 2014, to evaluate the possibilities of encouraging software and hardware manufacturers to introduce more security and privacy through default features in their products, including the possibility of introducing legal liability on the part of manufacturers for unpatched known vulnerabilities or the installation of secret backdoors, and disincentives for the undue and disproportionate collection of mass personal data, and if appropriate to come forward with legislative proposals; in this respect, calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of setting up a certification or validation scheme for IT hardware including testing procedures on EU level to ensure the integrity and security of the products;
Amendment 477 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111
Paragraph 111
111. Calls on the Member States to follow the call of the 35th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners ‘to advocate the adoption of an additional protocol to Article17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which should be based on the standards that have been developed and endorsed by the International Conference and the provisions in the Human Rights Committee General Comment No 16 to the Covenant in order to create globally applicable standards for data protection and the protection of privacy in accordance with the rule of law’; calls on the Member States to include in this exercise to advocate for an international UN agency in charge of in particular monitoring the emergence of surveillance tools and of regulating and investigating their uses; asks the High Representative/Vice- President of the Commission and the External Action Service to take a proactive stance;
Amendment 479 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
Paragraph 112
112. Calls on the Member States to develop a coherent and strong strategy within the United Nations, supporting in particular the resolution on ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ initiated by Brazil and Germany, as adopted by the third Committee of the UN General Assembly Committee (Human Rights Committee) on 27 November 2013;