Parliamentarians and human rights activists raised the alarm when the US authorities decided to go beyond the original agreement signed by Europeans in the face of a real threat of expulsion of foreign airlines from US airports. Public opposition intensified after the United States government published details of a new data collection system, the Automated targeting system (ATS). This system assesses the 'level of threat to national security' posed by each person entering the US.
In reality, the layer of information accumulated in ATS may be much broader than the 34-point form suggests - including names, residential addresses, phone numbers and bank card numbers of passengers. All this information airlines undertook to provide to the authorities as a mandatory condition for landing their aircraft in the United States.
Formally, the system is designed to assess the 'level of threat to US security'. However, according to the text of the agreement published by the US Department of Homeland Security, personal data 'may be transferred' to other intelligence agencies and 'for other reasons'. Namely, to assist in civil and criminal proceedings, to check a passenger's reliability, and even to help the governments of the US and other countries accurately assess the employment situation.
Among other grounds for providing information are assisting courts in civil cases or helping the governments of the US and other countries combat factors threatening public health. In addition, passengers’ personal data may be used by various 'competent authorities' if, in the opinion of the US authorities, 'there is a risk of damage to economic interests or property rights'.
Lawyers' opinions on the current status of the agreement vary. Some believe it has already entered into force. Others call it so far just an 'item on the shopping list' that Washington intends to make at the next round of negotiations. 'We believe this agreement is already working,' said Bruce Schneier, an American security expert. 'But the reality is that we know nothing, because our government does not act openly.'
The first to protest was the group Privacy International. It filed a complaint with several European organizations for the protection of personal information. The deputy British information commissioner, Jonathan Bamford, said he intends to consider Privacy International's request and check whether the October agreement is indeed being violated.
As his German colleague, data protection commissioner Peter Schaar, suggested, grounds for challenging the overly broad US demands will be found. The European Parliament may also mount a political challenge to US actions - in the person of Dutch MEP Sophie in 't Veld. 'This has nothing to do with terrorism,' she said. 'We are not saying that information cannot be used to catch 'bad guys', but everything must be in moderation.' Sophie in 't Veld is now rallying members of the European Parliament to raise the issue at a meeting in the coming weeks.
Concern is also growing among consumer groups in the UK. 'We fully understand that security considerations are paramount, and airline passengers have many times demonstrated their willingness to accept new rules and regulations,' said a representative of the International Association of Airline Passengers. 'However, the latest agreement needs more clarity. Who exactly is allowed access to passenger information, for what reasons, and under what safeguards? This agreement may make air travel safer. But the veil of secrecy over it inevitably raises suspicions about the guarantees and limits. We need explanations, and the sooner the better.'
David MILLWARD.
Translated by Gzt.ru