![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
This article discusses the interoperability of police databases in the EU with reference to the 24 November 2005 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on improved effectiveness, enhanced interoperability and synergies among European databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The different levels of interoperability are identified. Straightforward interoperability within the EU is distinguished from four more controversial levels of interoperability, such as interoperability with atypical systems and interoperability with systems outside the EU. On the basis of this analysis the question of the desirability and suitability interoperability is addressed, followed by a discussion of the necessary guarantees to be included. Contrary to what is often suggested, interoperability is a highly sensitive political issue. The attempt of the Commission's 2005 Communication, to make it look like a mere technical issue does not create the right context for a serious and in-depth discussion.
Notes
1. The first author is member of the Tilburg Institute for Law and Technology. Both authors are researchers in the ‘Law, Science, Technology & Society’ Research Group at the VUB (http://www.vub.ac.be/LSTS/, last accessed 6 June 2006), and participate to the EC funded Network of Excellence, The Future of Identity of Information Society (see http://www.fidis.net, last accessed 6 June 2006). The authors would like to thank James Backhouse for his comments on the text.
2. L Bergman, E Lichtblau, S Shane and D Van Natta Jr ‘Spy agency data after Sept. 11 led F.B.I. to dead ends’ New York Times 17 January 2006.
3. Ibid.
4. M Kant ‘Nothing doing? Taking stock of data trawling operations in Germany after 11 September 2001’ Statewatch Bulletin, Vol 15, No 3/4, pp 19–22, 2005.
5. Ibid, p 20.
6. ‘The “deterrent effect” and the “investigation pressure” has led to “insecurity” in fundamentalist groups and this is seen as an achievement’ (Kant, ibid, p 21 with reference to P v Prondzinsky ‘Rasterfahndung’ Deutsches Polizeiblatt Issue 6, pp 15–18, 2002, see p 18).
7. Kant, op cit, Ref 4, p 21).
8. Bundesgesetzblatt I 2004, No 41, p 1950.
9. M Pelzer ‘Germany: return to an aliens police law? Anti-terrorist legislation in Germany's new Immigration Act’ Statewatch Bulletin Vol 15, No 3/4, pp 22–23, 2005.
10. Henceforth referred to as ‘the 2005 Communication’. See Commission of the European Communities Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on improved effectiveness, enhanced interoperability and synergies among European databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, COM (2005) 597 final, Brussels, 24 November 2005.
11. J Backhouse ‘Executive summary’ in J Backhouse (ed) Structured Account of Approaches on Interoperability, Report D4.1. Future of Identity in the Information Society (FIDIS), 6th Framework Programme, European Commission, 2005, pp 1–8. Available via http://www.fidis.net/487.0.html#820, see p 8 (last accessed 6 June 2006).
12. H Kubicek and R Cimander ‘Interoperability in Goverment. A survey on information needs of different EU stakeholders’ European Review of Politcal Technologies, No 3, pp 1–17, December 2005. Available via http://www.politech-institute.org/review.asp?rev = 7&vol_id = 3, see pp 9–10 (last accessed 6 June 2006).
13. A Wallwork and J Baptista ‘Understanding interoperability’ in J Backhouse (ed) Structured Account of Approaches on Interoperability, ch 4, Report D4.1. Future of Identity in the Information Society (FIDIS), 6th Framework Programme, European Commission, 2005, pp 19–24, see p 20. Available via http://www.fidis.net/487.0.html#820
14. EDPS—European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (COM (2005) 490 final), Brussels, 28 February 2006, 5 pp. Available at http://www.edps.eu.int/legislation/Opinions_A/06-02-28_Opinion_availability_EN.pdf, p 2 (last accessed 6 June 2006).
15. B Latour ‘Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern’ Critical Inquiry, Vol 30, No 2, pp 225–248, 2004; B Latour ‘From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik. How to make things public?’ in B Latour and P Weibel (eds) Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy ZKM—Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie/The MIT Press, Karlsruhe/Cambridge, MA, 2005, pp 14–41.
16. H Herold ‘Informationsverbund zwischen Polizei und Justiz’ Kriminalistik Vol 1, pp 1–13, 1977 [Translated in Dutch: ‘Informatieverbod tussen politie en justitie’ Justitiële Verkenningen, No 6, 48–55, 1978. We use the Dutch version].
17. R Lion ‘Technology landscape. Eye on the chain’ Keesing Journal of Documents and Identity, 2005, pp 4–8, see p 4.
18. J Batelle The Search. How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed our Culture Nicolas Brealey, London, 2005.
19. Batelle quoted in M Ward ‘Google data request fuels fears’, 20 January 2006, BBC News website, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/4631924.stm (last accessed 6 June 2006).
20. Ward, op cit, Ref 19.
21. Herold, op cit, Ref 16, pp 48–49.
22. EDPS, op cit, Ref 14.
23. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data on the free movement of such data, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 281, pp 31–50, 23 November 1995; Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data, Council of Europe, 28 January 1981, European Treaty Series, No 108; International Legal Materials, 1981, I, 422, Recommendation No R(87) 15 regulating the use of personal data in the police sector (17 September 1987), in particular principles 5.4 and 5.5.
24. In the Hague Programme of October 2005 the Commission proposed to substitute the principle that data belong to state authorities (subject of the law to protect the data subject) and can only be transmitted to another Member State on the conditions established by the state that holds the information with the ‘principle of availability’. Under the latter principle, the authorities of any Member State would have the same right of access to information held by any other authority in the EU as applies to state authorities within the state where the data are held. According to the Hague Programme, on 12 October 2005 the Commission made a proposal: see Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability, COM (2005) 490 final (available via http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0490en01.pdf, last accessed 6 June 2006). This proposal is discussed in EDPS, op cit, Ref 14.
25. E Brouwer and K Alfenaar ‘Identificatie en registratie aan de grens. Kanttekeningen bij enkele Europese voorstellen’ Nederlands Juristenblad Vol 79, No 26, pp 1304–1305, 2004.
26. Commission of the European Communities Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters COM (2005) 475 final, Brussels, 4 October 2005.
27. EDPS—European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (COM (2005) 475 final), 19 December 2005. Available via http://www.edps.eu.int/legislation/Opinions_A/05-12-19_Opinion_DP_Third_pillar_EN.pdf (last accessed 6 June 2006).
28. Brouwer and Alfenaar, op cit, Ref 25.
29. This article only discusses data protection. In a broader perspective the question of the relationship between interoperability and the legal framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters should be asked. In brief one can say that this framework based on the legitimate idea of judicial control of all transborder transfers of law enforcement data, has lost much of its importance owing to two reasons. First, the framework does not consider transfer of ‘non-criminal’ police data, viz. data gathered by the police for other than law enforcement tasks, in particular public order related data (e.g. hooliganism). The judicial overview imposed by the said framework is therefore limited. Second, recent treaty making (Schengen, Prüm, etc.) shows a willingness of Member States to replace a priori judicial checking on transfers of ‘law enforcement’ police data by a posteriori judicial checking only in cases where the use of these data leads to criminal proceedings (P De Hert and J Vandenborght Informatieve politiesamenwerking over de grenzen heen [Cross-border exchange of police data], Uitgeverij Politeia, Brussels, 1996). Third, courts in general have been unwilling to exclude use of evidence obtained with disrespect of the said framework. From a data protection perspective, these elements, especially the second and third factor, have watered down safeguards outside the regular data protection framework that could have been nevertheless of great significance.
30. EDPS, op cit, Ref 27, paras 103–104.
31. ‘The fact that the Treaty of Prüm, signed by seven Member States on 27 May 2005, will introduce an exchange of fingerprint and DNA data on a bilateral basis, pending the adoption of such an instrument at the European level, highlights this gap’ (2005 Communication, op cit, Ref 10, para 4.9). This treaty, concluded without the EU framework, is named after the German city in which it was signed. It has not been published in an official journal.
32. T Balzacq, D Bigo, S Carrera and E Guild ‘Security and the two-level game: the Treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats’ CEPS Working Paper No 234, 2006, 28 pp. Available via www.ceps.be (see p 15) (last accessed 6 June 2006).
33. X (2004) ‘European Commissioner highlights benefits of biometric passports’ 4 March 2004, via http://europa.eu.int/ida/en/document/2221/330 (last accessed 6 June 2006).
34. B Steinhardt ‘Does privacy have a future after 9/11’ Paper presented at the Rathenau Institute Conference ‘Debating Privacy and ICT—Before and After September 11’, 17 January 2002, Amsterdam (see pp 4–5).
35. See on the risks created by unique identifiers and on the legal situation in different Member States: Committee of Experts on Data Protection (CJ-PD) The Introduction and Use of Personal Identification Numbers: The Data Protection Issues, Study prepared by the under the authority of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), Strasbourg 1991, ch II, via http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-cperation/data_protection/documents/publications/ (last accessed 6 June 2006).
36. G Hosein Threatening the Open Society: Comparing Anti-terror Policies and Strategies in the US and Europe 13 December 2005, 53 pp, via privacy.org (see p 46).
37. EDPS, op cit, Ref 27, para 80.
38. P De Hert ‘Biometrics: legal issues and implications’ Background paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, DG JRC—Seville, European Commission, January 2005, 39 pp, via http://cybersecurity.jrc.es/pages/ProjectlibestudyBiometrics.htm (last accessed 6 June 2006).
39. H Singer-Dekker ‘Misbruik te goeder trouw van persoonsgegevens’ [Abuse in good faith of personal data], Justitiële Verkenningen No. 6, pp 65–73, 1978 (see p 66).
40. S Gutwirth Privacy and the Information Age Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, pp 96–98.
41. Balzacq et al, op cit, Ref 32, p 15.
42. Singer-Dekker, op cit, Ref 39, p 69.
43. cf. 2005 Communication, op cit, Ref 10, para 6.
44. EDPS, op cit, Ref 27, para 114.
45. EDPS, op cit, Ref 27, para 119.
46. J Sheptycki ‘Organizational pathologies in police intelligence systems’ European Journal of Criminology, pp 308–333, 2004; P Gill Rounding Up the Usual Suspects Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 2000.
47. P De Hert and T Vis ‘Intelligence Led Policing in de Nederlanden. Terminologische, grondrechtelijke en organisatorische bedenkingen’ in T Van Den Broeck, E Enhus, F Goegebuer, L Valkenborg and A Vanlandschoot (eds) Intelligence Led Policing Politieia Uitgeverij, Brussels, 2005, pp 57–72; P De Hert, W Huisman and T Vis ‘Intelligence led policing ontleed’ [Intelligence led policing critically examined] Tijdschrift voor Criminologie Vol 47, No 4, pp 365–376, 2005.
48. X (2005) ‘EU: Schengen Information System II—fait accompli?’ Statewatch Bulletin Vol 15, No 1, pp 17–20, 2005.
49. Balzacq et al, op cit, Ref 32, p 15.
50. P De Hert ‘Balancing security and liberty within the European human rights framework. A critical reading of the Court's case law in the light of surveillance and criminal law enforcement strategies after 9/11’ Utrecht Law Review Vol 1, No 1, pp 68–96, 2005. Available via http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/ (last accessed 6 June 2006).
51. Brouwer and Alfenaar, op cit, Ref 25.
52. EDPS, op cit, Ref 27, para 89.
53. M Hildebrandt, S Gutwirth and P De Hert Implications of Profiling on Democracy and the Rule of Law Deliverable 7.4, FIDIS-Network of Excellence (EU 6th Framework Programme) edited by M Hildebrandt and S Gutwirth, September 2005. Available via http://www.fidis.net/fidis_del.0.html#532 (last accessed 6 June 2006).
54. See COM (2005) 475 final, op cit, Ref 26, art 4.1 (d).
55. 2005 Communication, op cit, Ref 10, p 3.
56. Wallwork and Baptista, op cit, Ref 13, p 19.
57. Backhouse, op cit, Ref 11, p 1.