PRISM: MEPs fall short of calling halt to trade talks
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 05 July 2013
The European Parliament yesterday voted on a Resolution regarding PRISM - the spy system used by United States government agencies to look at the emails and web browsing habits of EU citizens. The Resolution calls condemns the electronic surveillance of European citizens by the United States and by the UK governments, but it falls a long way short of the expectations of citizens who feel that their privacy could have been put at risk. In particular, it fails to take advantage of the EU-US trade talks (TTIP) as a political weapon that could have been wielded to advantage.
The European Parliament resolution on the US National Security Agency surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens'privacy is non-legislative, meaning that it's not a law but it does express a position on behalf of the European Parliament. It has been agreed between the different Party Groups, including the EPP and the Socialists.
The timid - or one might say - diplomatic - wording suggests an EPP influence, unwilling to court controversy, even though, in the current situation, any stand againt the US would not be particularly controversial. There was an alternative, stronger Resolution proposed by the Green group. It was tabled, but it did not get the support it would have needed to gain a majority and was dropped.
No-where does the Resolution flex any political muscle on the part of the European Parliament. For example, it does not call for the TTIP talks to halt until the US has at least provided an explanation of what surveillance it is undertaking.
Instead, the Resolution incorporates a list of strong condemnations. For example, it Expresses serious concern at the revelations relating to the alleged surveillance programmes . Such words are not much more than a slapping of the NSA's wrists and will have about as much effect.
Apart from that it has two main points. Firstly, the Resolution instructs the Civil Liberties committee to work with the European Commission on an investigation into the surveillance activities of the United States and European governments.
Such an investigation may have some effect as long as the issue remains under the political spotlight. But when Edward Snowden has gone to whatever fate awaits him and the issue falls away from the mainstream news, then this review may also quietly fall out of the EU agenda.
Secondly, the Resolution
"Calls on the Commission to ensure that EU data protection standards, and the negotiations on the current EU data protection package, are not undermined as a result of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US"
In other words, the whole issue of data protection will be kept out of the TTIP talks.
This may make sense. I'm not sure it's appropriate to put data protection policy into trade talks. The risk would be that EU law would be decided within the boundaries of the trade negotiators' meeting room, and in those circumstances, the United States could try to impose its will - and the will of its large industrial corporations - onto the EU.
On the other hand, the PRISM controversy does give the EU some political power to recover an advantage over the US. Following the Article 42 fiasco (the removal by the European Commission of an Article that would enable EU countries to reject NSA PRISM requests), the European Parliament's lack of courage and failure to use this advantage would seem to indicate a political timidity on the part of the EU that does not bode well. In particular, we should manage our expectations for the TTIP negotiations, which will commence next week, as planned.
This is an original article from Iptegrity.com and reflects research that I have carried out. If you refer to it or to its content, please cite my name as the author, and provide a link back to iptegrity.com. Media and Academics - please cite as Monica Horten, 2013, PRISM: MEPs fall short of calling halt to trade talks, 4 July 2013. Commercial users - please contact me.
- Article Views: 25886
IPtegrity politics
- Why would the UK take on Apple?
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?