EU security proposals are 'dangerously authoritarian'

[Teki187]

The European Union is stepping up efforts to build an enhanced pan-European system of security and surveillance which critics have described as “dangerously authoritarian”.

Civil liberties groups say the proposals would create an EU ID card register, internet surveillance systems, satellite surveillance, automated exit-entry border systems operated by machines reading biometrics and risk profiling systems.

Europe's justice ministers will hold talks on the "domestic security policy" and surveillance network proposals, known in Brussels circles as the "Stockholm programme", on July 15 with the aim of finishing work on the EU's first ever internal security policy by the end of 2009.

Jacques Barrot, the European justice and security commissioner, yesterday publicly declared that the aim was to "develop a domestic security strategy for the EU", once regarded as a strictly national "home affairs" area of policy.

"National frontiers should no longer restrict our activities," he said.
Mark Francois, Conservative spokesman on Europe, has demanded "immediate clarity on where the government stands on this".
"These are potentially dangerous proposals which could interfere in Britain's internal security," he said.

"The chaos and division in Gordon Brown's government is crippling Britain's ability to make its voice heard in Europe."

Source


So were is our referendum? New Labour, New Danger indeed.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Sounds like a good idea to me, what's the problem?

 

[Teki187]

Sounds like a good idea to me, what's the problem?

Because its for ordinary people. You want to go to one of the EU countries, they may and can use all of the above to track you and follow you. For no reason.

 

[scorza]

Because its for ordinary people. You want to go to one of the EU countries, they may and can use all of the above to track you and follow you. For no reason.

Why would they track you and follow you for no reason?

 

[a1ex2001]

Why would they track you and follow you for no reason?

Beacuase it is easier to track everyone and everything than be selective, same reason the government wants the crazy web access and phone call database. It offers us no additional protection and is a totally unnecessary invasion of privacy and a massive waste of money.

 

[LordSplodge]

People thought Homeland Security in the good ol' US of A was bad.

As for those rolling out the "If you have nothing to hide" diatribe have a bunch of roll eyes.



If you don't get why it is a bad idea then please go ahead and let the Government (and the EU) revoke all our essential liberties for temporary security. Sometimes it amazes me how much people don't get why these schemes are always a bad idea.

Guess the people who understand that any Government is answerable to its people will be the ones who make sure the message is heard - this is not acceptable.

 

[Sankari]

Can't see any civil liberties being infringed here. You'll still be able to do the things you do.

 

[LordSplodge]

Can't see any civil liberties being infringed here. You'll still be able to do the things you do.

So you missed the right to privacy then?

Why not enforce people to be tagged with RFID chips? After all they can still do the things you do.

 

[Sankari]

So you missed the right to privacy then?

If you look at the actual proposals (rather than the bizarre Big Brother scenario presented by the critics), they simply involve the sharing of information that we already provide to government agencies, with the aim of streamlining passport checks and border controls. This does not infringe the right to privacy.

Why not enforce people to be tagged with RFID chips? After all they can still do the things you do.

Because it's not necessary, and it would be an infringement of privacy. But having your identity checked when you enter a country is not an infringement of privacy.

 

[KPeh]

Because it's not necessary, and it would be an infringement of privacy. But having your identity checked when you enter a country is not an infringement of privacy.

So all this excess data about people isn't invasive -- but RFID chips are? They are both invasive. You just draw the line higher.

And we have identity checks on entering countries as it is. Passports.

 

[Sankari]

So all this excess data about people isn't an invasive.

What excess data? There's no excess data. They're simply organising it in a different way.

But RFID chips are? They are both invasive. You just draw the line higher.

RFID chips embedded into people are an infingement of privacy, yes - because they allow you to be tracked anywhere in the country, whereas passports only show if you've entered or left the country.

And we have identity checks on entering countries as it is. Passports.

Yes, and the proposals simply address the way these checks are conducted.

 

[KPeh]

What excess data? There's no excess data. They're simply organising it in a different way.

At the moment my passport has no biometric data.
At the moment all the websites I go to are not logged (well, perhaps if I weren't in China)*.
At the moment details of my health are not on a central NHS system (I opted out).
At the moment there is not a unified database with all this information on me, at a national or supra-national level.

In the past such a conglomeration of data has been unnecessary. We didn't have all this stuff not too long ago (and don't quite at the moment). So it's not just a case of reorganising what we have into a super database.

From my point of view it is considerably more than we've had before and is an invasive excess of data. Especially when collected into one supra-national database.

* I'm a little out of touch - were they just discussing the legislation, or has this actually been passed (at a European or national level?)

 

[Redmelo]

And we have identity checks on entering countries as it is. Passports.

Schengen Agreement, at least for most of the EU.

 

[KPeh]

Schengen Agreement, at least for most of the EU.

I realise - I've studied EU law in some detail. But, for the purpose of this argument passports (without this system's extra baggage) should suffice as an entry check if needed.

 

[jas72]

Source


So were is our referendum? New Labour, New Danger indeed.

One minute UK papers moan about not enough EU wide immigation and security policy now they are complaining about EU wide security and immigration policy.

Once again blame EU for UK failures.

 

[Meerkat]

This sounds awefully like the book 1984...

I really don't want this.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Because its for ordinary people. You want to go to one of the EU countries, they may and can use all of the above to track you and follow you. For no reason.

Its the ordinary people that suffer when security goes wrong, just like that air france disappearence. The ordinary people don't suffer due to security measures, being held up at an airport is no big deal. The state reading your emails is no big deal, the state lisening to your phone calls is no big deal, another nation wanting to know who and what you are when you enter their country is no big deal. Authoritarian? Not at all, if the EU was Authoritarian they would not need these measure. Do you know why? If they were the people that pos a risk would be made to disappear.

 

[LordSplodge]

Its the ordinary people that suffer when security goes wrong, just like that air france disappearence. The ordinary people don't suffer due to security measures, being held up at an airport is no big deal. The state reading your emails is no big deal, the state lisening to your phone calls is no big deal, another nation wanting to know who and what you are when you enter their country is no big deal.

I'll rather take the almost improbable risk of me or my family being involved in a Terrorist incident rather than have mine (and their) civil liberties eroded (and this is aimed at UK law not the one proposed by the EU but the point applies).

Civil liberties are more important than the illusion of protection from the Bogey Men.

As for your crazy ideas about the State reading my emails and listening to my phone calls and so on all I can say is are you on Mind Control drugs? None of that is acceptable. Not one iota.

I'll remind you that the purpose of Government is to serve the People and not to invade our daily lives to provide so called protection from a threat that although exists isn't probable. After all where are all the laws to protect us from a meteor strike?

I'll also point out that none of these laws prevented the London bombings.

 

[mmj_uk]

Its the ordinary people that suffer when security goes wrong, just like that air france disappearence.

Even in the most restrictive of totalitarian states security cannot be guaranteed, I would rather live freely with the risk of death than to live in a totalitarian state with the risk of death.

This article itself may not seem like a big deal but it's a taste of where things are heading.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

More people die from the flu and other illnesses than have done from terrorism.

 

[Dolph]

Even I'm struggling to see the issue here, the original article reads like an op ed piece, there's very little in the way of facts there.

Without those facts, proposals, costings etc it's hard to take a stance.