BETA

61 Amendments of Cornelia ERNST related to 2013/2188(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. Whereas intelligence agencies are historically rooted in State-to-State political scepticism and espionage, especially intensified during the Cold War. Intelligence agencies have been classically targeting foreign State activities which are a threat to the national security, somehow emphasizing the protection of the organizational character and national interests of the national State. National security, although a very vague and (too) flexible term in itself, seems to have been interpreted as linked with an intent to destabilize the state as an organization as such, which bears many parallels with the traditional notion of terrorism. In stark contrast, the current revelations on mass-scale interception of non- suspected domestic citizens seem to have departed strongly from this historically more limited task. Not only does it seem that the field of action has been increasingly shifted to more domestic surveillance, but also has it considerably loosened its close link with the notion of destabilizing the organization of the State apparatus, as the intelligence activities have been much more broadly interpreted towards any form of serious or organized crime. This is a reason for grave concern, since by widening its scope in this manner, it seems to overlap - or intrude - to a great extent into the scope of traditional policing, however without the accountability and stricter rule of law that applies in that field. This is a very worrying trend;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

~~B. whereas mutual trust and understanding are key factors in the transatlantic dialogue;~~deleted

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas ~~in September 2001 the world entered a new phase which resulted in~~following the events of September 2001, the fight against terrorism be~~ing listed among~~came one of the top priorities of most governments; whereas the revelations based on leaked documents from Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor, put democratically elected leaders under an obligation, both moral and political, to address the challenges of the increasing capabilities of intelligence agencies in surveillance activities and their implications for the rule of law in a democratic society;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital D – point 3

~~· the degree of trust between EU and US transatlantic partners;~~deleted

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital D – point 9

· the threats to privacy ~~in a digital era~~that arise from ubiquitous computing;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the unprecedented magnitude of the espionage revealed requires full investigation by the US authorities, the European Institutions and Members States’ governments ~~and~~, national parliaments and judicial authorities;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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 of EU Member States; whereas EU governments and parliaments too often remain silent and fail to launch adequate investigations;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas the report on the findings by the EU Co-Chairs of the ad hoc EU-US Working Group on data protection provides for an overview of the legal situation in the US but has ~~not helped sufficiently with~~failed to establish~~ing~~ the facts about US surveillance programmes; whereas no information has been made available about the so-called ‘second track’ Working Group, under which Member States discuss bilaterally with the US authorities matters related to national security;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)

Na. whereas there is no generally accepted definition of the concept of 'national security';

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AB

AB. whereas large-scale access by US intelligence agencies has seriously eroded ~~transatlantic trust and negatively impacted on the~~ trust for US organisations acting in the EU; whereas this is further exacerbated by the lack of judicial and administrative redress for EU citizens under US law, particularly in cases of surveillance activities for intelligence purposes;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ

AJ. whereas in its resolution of 23 October 2013 the European Parliament expressed serious concerns about the revelations concerning the NSA’s activities as regards direct access to financial payments messages and related data, which would constitute a clear breach of the TFTP Agreement, in particular Article 1 thereof;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AK

AK. whereas the European Parliament asked the Commission to suspend the Agreement and requested that all relevant information and documents be made available immediately for Parliament’s deliberations; whereas the Commission has done neither;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Recital AX

AX. whereas, although the European Council of 24/25 October 2013 called for the timely adoption of a strong EU General Data Protection framework in order to foster the trust of citizens and businesses in the digital economy, after two years of deliberations, the Council has still been unable to arrive at a general approach on the General Data Protection Regulation and the Directive34 ; __________________ 34 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/c ms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/139197.pdf

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Recital AY

~~AY. whereas the resolution of 10 December35 emphasises the economic potential of ‘cloud computing’ business for growth and employment; __________________ 35~~deleted AT-0353/2013 PE506.114V2.00.

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BA

BA. whereas mass surveillance activities give intelligence agencies access to personal data stored or otherwise processed by EU individuals under cloud services agreements with major US cloud providers; whereas the US intelligence authorities have accessed personal data stored in servers located on EU soil by tapping into the internal networks of Yahoo and Google36 ; whereas such activities constitute a violation of international obligations; whereas it is not excluded that information stored in cloud services by Member States’ public authorities or undertakings and institutions has also been accessed by intelligence authorities; __________________ 36 The Washington Post , 31 October 2013. The Washington Post , 31 October 2013.

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BB

BB. whereas intelligence services ~~perform an important function in protecting democratic society against internal and external threats; whereas they are given special powers and capabilities to this end~~are given special powers and capabilities to protect the state against internal and external threats; whereas these powers are to be used within the rule of law, as otherwise they risk losing legitimacy and eroding the democratic nature of society;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BB

BB. whereas intelligence services perform an important function in protecting democratic society against internal and external threats; whereas they are given special powers and capabilities to this end; whereas these powers ~~are to~~must be used within the rule of law and their application strictly scrutinised, as otherwise they risk losing legitimacy and eroding the democratic nature of society, thereby defeating their cause;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BC

BC. whereas the high level of secrecy that is intrinsic to the intelligence services in order to avoid endangering ongoing operations, revealing modi operandi or putting at risk the lives of agents impedes ~~full~~ transparency, public scrutiny and normal democratic or judicial examination, all of which are cornerstones in a democratic society;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BD

BD. whereas technological developments have ~~led to~~allowed for increased international intelligence cooperation, ~~also involving the exchange of personal data, and often blurring the line between intelligence and law enforcement activities~~inter alia through the large scale exchange of personal data;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Recital BD a (new)

BDa. whereas legal developments in the EU, certain Member States and the US have blurred the line between intelligence and law enforcement activities;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BE

BE. whereas most of existing national oversight mechanisms and bodies were set up or revamped in the 1990s and have not necessarily been adapted to the rapid technological and legal developments over the last decade;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BF

BF. whereas democratic oversight of intelligence activities is still only conducted at national level, despite the increase in exchange of information between EU Member States and between Member States and third countries; whereas there is an increasing gap between the level of international cooperation on the one hand and oversight capacities limited to the national level on the other, which results in insufficient and ineffective democratic scrutiny;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. States that trust has been profoundly shaken: trust between ~~the two transatlantic partners, trust among EU Member States, trust between citizens and their governments, trust in the respect of the rule of law,~~citizens and their governments, trust in the functioning of democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, trust in the respect of the rule of law, trust in the moral integrity of political leaders and officials and trust in the security of IT services; believes that in order to rebuild trust in all these dimensions ~~a comprehensive plan is urgently needed~~, measures, the implementation of which can be publicly verified, are necessary;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several governments claim that these mass surveillance programmes are necessary to combat terrorism; ~~wholeheartedly supports the fight against~~strongly denounces terrorism, but strongly believes that ~~it can never in itself~~the fight against terrorism can never be a justification for untargeted, secret and sometimes even illegal mass surveillance programmes; expresses grave concerns, therefore, regarding the legality, necessity and proportionality of these programmes;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes the view that the necessity and proportionality of such programmes should be subject to both judicial and public verification; is concerned that their necessity and proportionality has not been demonstrated;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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 p~~ossi~~robable existence of other power motives such as political and economic espionage;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Regards it as a clear finding, as emphasised by the technology experts who testified before the inquiry, that at the current stage of technological developmen~~Notes that there is no guarantee, either for EU public institutions or for citizens, that their IT security or privacy can be protected from intrusion by well-equipped third countries or EU intelligence agencies (‘no 100% IT security’); notes that ~~this alarming situation can only be remedied if~~in order to achieve maximum IT security, Europeans arneed to be willing to dedicate sufficient resources, both human and financial, to preserving Europe’s independence and self-reliance in the field of IT;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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~~ir businesses; notes with great interest the recommendations published recently by the US President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies; 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;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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 regardless of the purpose; calls on the Commission to propose to repeal EU legislation providing for such measures, to withdraw any current proposal aiming to introduce such measures and to refrain from proposing legislation introducing such measures in the future; calls on the European Council to do the same when defining general political directions and priorities;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on certain EU Member States, including the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, to revise where necessary their 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, in particular 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;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Member States, including when represented by their intelligence agencies, to refrain from accepting data from third states which have been collected unlawfully and from allowing surveillance activities on their territory by third states’ governments or agencies which are unlawful under national law or do not meet the legal safeguards enshrined in international or EU instruments, including the protection of Human Rights under the TEU, the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Considers that large-scale access by US intelligence agencies to EU personal data processed by Safe Harbour does not ~~per se~~ meet the criteria for derogation under ‘national security’;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Takes the view that, as under the current circumstances the Safe Harbour principles do not provide adequate protection for EU citizens, these transfers should be carried out under other instruments~~, such as contractual clauses or BCR~~ only if these instruments set~~ting~~ out specific safeguards and protections whose implementation is guaranteed and that are not circumvented by other legal instruments;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Takes the view that the Commission has failed to act to remedy the well-known deficiencies of the current implementation of Safe Harbour;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Calls on the Member States to prohibit or suspend data flows to third countries based on the standard contractual clauses, contractual clauses or BCRs authorised by the national competent authorities where it is ~~established~~likely that the law to which the data importer is subject imposes upon him requirements which go beyond the restrictions necessary in a democratic society and which are likely to have a ~~substantial~~n adverse effect on the guarantees provided by the applicable data protection law and the standard contractual clauses, or because continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of ~~grave~~ harm to the data subjects;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Calls on the Article 29 Working Party to issue guidelines and recommendations on the safeguards and protections that contractual instruments for international transfers of EU personal data should contain in order to ensure, if at all possible, the protection of the privacy, fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, taking particular account of the third-country laws on intelligence and national security and the involvement of the companies receiving the data in a third country in mass surveillance activities by a third country’s intelligence agencies;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Cornelia ERNST, Martin EHRENHAUSER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Takes the view that ~~the information provided by the European Commission and the US Treasury does not clarify whether~~ US intelligence agencies have access to SWIFT financial messages in the EU by intercepting SWIFT networks or banks’ operating systems or communication networks, alone or in cooperation with EU national intelligence agencies and without having recourse to existing bilateral channels for mutual legal assistance and judicial cooperation;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)

46a. Calls for the termination of the PNR agreement with the United States;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 b (new)

46b. Calls on the Commission, Council and the Member States to stop all efforts to establish systems collecting and processing PNR information, both on national and European level;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

~~47. Considers that a satisfactory solution under the ‘Umbrella agreement’ is a pre- condition for the full restoration of trust between the transatlantic partners;~~deleted

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Martin EHRENHAUSER, Cornelia ERNST

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Considers that a satisfactory solution under the ‘Umbrella agreement’ is ~~a pre- condition for the full restoration of trust between the transatlantic partner~~possible only if effective judicial review measures are also guaranteed beforehand for non- US citizens, so that they can take legal action against violations of their rights;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56 a (new)

56a. Calls on all public bodies in Europe not to use cloud services where non-EU laws might apply;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Martin EHRENHAUSER, Cornelia ERNST

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58

58. Recognises that the EU and the US are pursuing negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, ~~which is of major strategic importance for creating further economic growth and for the ability of both the EU and the US to set future global regulatory standards~~but recommends suspending the negotiations owing to the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 8 until comprehensive spying on industry, business and society is credibly, reliably and demonstrably refrained from or brought to an end;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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, including the right to conduct on-site visits, to be able to effectively control intelligence services;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 a (new)

71a. Considers that within this debate on accountability, there are limits to what legal changes can achieve as it seems intrinsic to the culture of intelligence agencies to push the boundaries of legality, and to justify any infringement of human rights with the blanked reference to security; considers that the issue is essentially one of political morality. Will governments continue to boost a political culture where public authorities erode citizen's basic human rights, often in a cloud of secrecy and public denial? Will governments continue to deliberately sketch and exploit a false dichotomy between security and freedom? Will governments continue to refuse political accountability of intelligence agencies gone out of control, and continue to uphold a culture of impunity?

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75

75. Considers that the detention of Mr Miranda and the seizure of the material in his possession under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (and also the request to The Guardian to destroy or hand over the material) constitutes an interference with the right of freedom of expression as recognised by Article 10 of the ECHR and Article 11 of the EU Charter; considers both cases as examples how legislation to fight terrorism can be and is abused by governments;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79

79. Is highly concerned by indications that foreign intelligence services sought to lower IT security standards and to install backdoors in a broad range of IT systems; recommends, as a result, the use of open source software in all environments where IT security is a concern;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80

80. Calls on all the Members States, the Commission, the Council and the European Council to address the EU’s dangerous lack of autonomy in terms of IT tools, companies and providers (hardware, software, services and network), and encryption and cryptographic capabilities, including through funding in the field of research and development;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81

81. Calls on the Commission, standardisation bodies and ENISA to develop, by September 2014, minimum security and privacy standards and guidelines for IT systems, networks and services, including cloud computing services, in order to better protect EU citizens’ personal data and the integrity of all IT systems; believes that such standards should be set in an open and democratic process, not driven by a single country, entity or multinational company; takes the view that, while legitimate law enforcement ~~and intelligence~~ concerns need to be taken into account ~~in order to support the fight against terrorism~~, they should not lead to a general undermining of the dependability of all IT systems;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85

85. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the next Work Programme of the Horizon 2020 Programme, to ~~assess whether~~direct more resources ~~should be directed~~ towards boosting European research, development, innovation and training in the field of IT technologies, in particular privacy-enhancing technologies and infrastructures, cryptology, secure computing, open-source security solutions and the Information Society;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86

86. Asks the Commission to map out current responsibilities and to review, by June 2014 at the latest, the need for a broader mandate, better coordination and/or additional resources and technical capabilities for ~~Europol’s CyberCrime Centre,~~ ENISA, CERT-EU and the EDPS in order to enable them to be more effective in investigating major IT breaches in the EU and in performing (or assisting Member States and EU bodies to perform) on-site technical investigations regarding major IT breaches;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87

87. Deems it necessary for the EU to be supported by an EU IT Academy that brings together the best European experts in all related fields, tasked with providing all relevant EU Institutions and bodies with scientific advice on IT technologies, including security-related strategies; as a first step asks the Commission to set up, in close cooperation with the European Parliament and civil society organisations, an independent scientific expert panel;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94

94. Calls on the Member States, in cooperation with ENISA, ~~Europol’s CyberCrime Centre,~~ CERTs and national data protection authorities and cybercrime units, to start an education and awareness- raising campaign in order to enable citizens to make a more informed choice regarding what personal data to put on line and how better to protect them, including through ‘digital hygiene’, encryption and safe cloud computing, making full use of the public interest information platform provided for in the Universal Service Directive;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97 – indent 3

– respect for the rule of law and the credibility of democratic safeguards ~~in a digital societ~~today;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102

102. Insists that necessary reforms be undertaken and effective guarantees given to Europeans to ensure that the use of surveillance and data processing for foreign intelligence purposes is limited by clearly specified conditions and related to a limited number of persons under reasonable suspicion ~~or probable cause~~ of terrorist or criminal activity; stresses that this purpose must be subject to transparent judicial oversight;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106

106. Calls on the EU institutions to explore the possibilities for establishing with the US a code of conduct which would guarantee that no US espionage is pursued against EU institutions and facilities;deleted

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107

107. Also believes that that the involvement and activities of EU Members States has led to a loss of trust; is of the opinion that only full clarity as to purposes and means of surveillance, public debate and, ultimately, revision of legislation, including limitations on the powers of intelligence agencies as well as a strengthening of the system of judicial and parliamentary oversight, will be able to re- establish the trust lost;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109 a (new)

109a. Notes that such agreements will not restore trust of citizens in democratic institutions and political leaders if they do not contain far-reaching provisions on transparency;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113 a (new)

113a. Intends to re-examine the issues under investigation in the upcoming parliamentary term by establishing a specialised committee or subcommittee to LIBE.

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 5

Action 5: Protect the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threats to the freedom of the press, the right of the public to receive impartial information and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relations) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers;

2014/01/24
Committee: LIBE