Once again we have a whistle-blower to thank for making us aware of the sort of monitoring and surveillance we are subject to, bringing to light evidence of something that has so far only been guessed at.
United States officials have been shamed into acknowledging the existence of PRISM, an in-depth surveillance programme snooping on live communications and stored information held by many of the worlds largest internet companies - including data that belongs to European citizens and organizations.
America has claimed that this surveillance programme exists to fight terrorism; the US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claims it is a defence against national security threats. This raises some interesting questions. Exactly what does the US feel threatened by? What is a legitimate target for a country that routinely monitors its own domestic political dissidents? What about those that protest the actions of American companies abroad? How about those of us who want to change copyright and patent laws against the best interests of US media companies?
And beyond the political and ideological, PRISM certainly could be used to give its manufacturers and exporters a leg up compared to overseas rivals. It has also become clear that the US has already shared some of the product of this programme with global partners. The United Kingdom intelligence services appear to have been able to access data that has been denied through national legislation. Essentially it seems that for one European country at least, this system has provided a way to circumvent the democratic process.
That the UK is embroiled in this is not that surprising. After all, Britain has been looking to build a surveillance dragnet for some time, one to be used by the police and security services as well as the intelligence agencies. It seems that the now defunct Intercept Modernisation Programme at least partly became a reality when Government Communication Headquarters gained access to PRISM. The IMP proposals never made it into law but resurface repeatedly as similar programmes. This year its latest incarnation, the Communications Data Bill, dubbed the 'Snoopers' Charter', has been rejected.
Every time there is an incident it reappears - the Home Office seems to want it come hell or high water and citizens be damned. Where does that leave Europe? The US remains the largest single player on the world stage and China seems uninterested in protecting privacy or freedom. That makes Europe the only possible leader in balancing privacy and security. It is not as though pervasive surveillance and espionage are new to Europe. The memory of what happens when countries feel that they need to know every detail about their citizens is all too fresh for our Eastern European partners.
We have rejected that totalitarian approach and embodied opposition to it in the core values of our union. It is obvious that European countries have a duty to protect their citizens but that obligation has to be balanced. When protecting people from external threats, we must protect their right to privacy. If we do not, then the potential for abuse becomes a greater threat than any terrorist or foreign country could be. So, it is time to stop bowing to the US and complying with ever increasing requests to share data. It is time to take a stand and start working to re-balance that relationship.
Hannes Swoboda MEP is right that data privacy rules should be a priority in any European Union-US trade deal. More than that, they should be central to the EU's ongoing dealings with America. Importantly, the EU needs to take into account that the US has been happy to fly in the face of international norms when working toward its perceived interests. These breaches have come in the form of rendition programmes, use of torture and indefinite detention. What is a little high-tech espionage compared to that?
The revelations about PRISM fatally undermine the EU-US Safe Harbour Privacy Principles. Frankly there is no way we can be certain they have not been breached, even if the companies themselves are not aware. We must not ignore the dangers programmes like PRISM represent and we must make it clear what is and is not acceptable. In Europe, we can take a different approach. We must show respect for privacy and acknowledge that there is no such thing as absolute safety. The alleged benefits offered by programmes like PRISM are eclipsed by the pitfalls and dwarfed by the damage they do to society.
Read more: The European response to PRISM must be protecting privacy - Public Service Europe
No comments:
Post a Comment