MEPs warn ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the 11 September atrocities must not restrict civil liberties

Date: 14/02/02

By Peter Chapman

WHEN 11 September changed the world, few dared question the knee-jerk reaction that the war on terror might require some restrictions on civil freedoms.

It's now a few short months on, however, and a growing number of liberals are lifting their heads above the parapet to utter the unthinkable: data privacy is a fundamental human right - don't mess with it.

'A lot of people who had an agenda before September 11 are now taking advantage,' says Dutch Green MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg.

'The way they are looking at data protection is as though it is a nuisance and that it's not good to hang on to because we won't end terrorism. But we have to be careful, because there are good reasons to keep it.'

Surprisingly, at EU level, that message appears to have got through.

Firstly, in discussions on a new directive launched in 2000 by telecoms chief Erkki Liikanen, civil libertarians have managed to ward off the threat of wholesale retention of months or years of e-mail and phone data.

The proposal was designed to ensure that IT and telecoms and direct-marketing industries abide by data protection principles. For example, customer data would normally have to be destroyed after customers and firms sort out billing disputes.

But there was a danger post 11 September that extra burdens - such as mandatory data retention - would have made the directive more of a spy's handbook than a privacy law.

Member states eventually retreated from that kind of attack on civil liberties, stipulating that steps such as data retention taken on national security grounds should not be automatic and, when they do take place, must be in line with principles of community law.

MEPs in the Parliament's civil liberties committee will restart deliberations on the directive later this month, with the full Parliament due to give it a second reading soon after.

But although rapporteur Marco Cappato indicated before Christmas that the governments' deal still failed to offer cast-iron legal protection, it could have been far worse - not only for citizens but also for firms which would have had to stump up the cost of collecting all their data.

Meanwhile, the EU's Hague-based law enforcement agency Europol and its US counterparts are under intense pressure to play by the rules when they begin exchanging data on criminals and terrorists as part of a new transatlantic cooperation agreement.

The EU and US agreed in December to share information and swap best practice.

But remarkably, they missed out the crucial issue of transfers of personal data, simply because the legal technicalities were so fraught - thanks to the big difference in approach between Europe and the US.

Both sides are now working out how to ensure they can meet different legal obligations, and hope to agree on a common method 'during the Spanish Presidency'.

Buitenweg has written to Commission justice and home affairs chief António Vitorino demanding reassurances that civil rights will be upheld.

Europol insiders say there will be no danger of unchecked big brother-style snooping and swapping of information.

The agency is already governed by strict rules on privacy - and is overseen by a data privacy watchdog based in Brussels. But it will be under close surveillance by the likes of Buitenweg and Cappato.

Article discusses how the US terrorist attacks has influenced restrictions on civil liberties and specifically data privacy.