投稿者 とりあへず 日時 2001 年 9 月 06 日 11:15:52:
回答先: 通信傍受システム・エシュロンの自粛求め決議 欧州議会 投稿者 asahi 日時 2001 年 9 月 06 日 09:03:14:
Echelon spy system
Gerhard SCHMID (PES, D)
Report on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications
(ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))
Doc.: A5-0264/2001
Procedure: Own-initiative report
Debate: 05.09.2001
Vote: 05.09.2001
Speaking on behalf of the Special Committee of Enquiry set up to investigate the Echelon Interception
System, Gerhard SCHMID (PES, D) said the most fundamental conclusion of the committee was that such a
system did indeed exist. It was, he said, controlled by the US and involved the UK which was also used for
economic espionage. There was no evidence, he said, that such a system intercepted every single
communication but it did have the capability to track faxes, telephone calls and e-mails. And, he continued, it
was global in the sense that cooperation from countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand enabled
it to operate on a world-wide basis. It was particularly effective in tracking communications in Africa and the
Middle East. At the same time it was important to recognise that other countries operated similar intelligence
gathering services but he had no objection against the aim of using such information to fight international
crime, drug smuggling, the arms trade and terrorism. The problem was that it could violate privacy and
indeed the European Convention on Human Rights. The question was how to balance the two and here he felt
economic espionage clearly violated ECHR case law. The US, he said, countered that EU companies indulged
in bribery to obtain contracts. Nevertheless, this response could not be justified, he felt, questioning why
there was no US legislation to outlaw such activities. There was, he said, a clear need for an international
agreement to protect privacy.
For Council, Annemie NEYTS-UYTTEBROECK recognised the work of the committee, the investigation and the
problems it posed for respect of human rights and privacy. Council had already organised one meeting to
discuss the EU's role here and another one was planned for December. Using intelligence gathering systems
for commercial advantage could not be justified, she felt, especially when it involved the abuse of privacy.
The aim now was to promote dialogue and indeed update existing legislation relating to data protection.
Parliament's role was to ensure democratic scrutiny and this she strongly supported.
For the EPP-ED, Christian Ulrik von BOETTICHER (D) underlined the problem facing the committee in its
investigations in the sense that people were reluctant to give evidence. Nevertheless, progress had been
made and while those suffering under Echelon had been persuaded to talk to the committee, they were not in
fact prepared to go to court, thus it proved impossible to put together a cast iron legal case. Espionage
seemed to have been justified in the national interest, he added but the US had used commercial data for
other purposes, in other words to help US companies obtain contracts.
For the PES, Jan Marinus WIERSMA (NL) endorsed the findings of the committee, adding that similar systems
were in existence in other countries. He was not however sure that there was indeed large scale industrial
espionage. The choice for the UK, he said, was quite simply whether it wanted now to cooperate with its
European partners in intelligence gathering exercises or maintain its transatlantic links. He did not think it
was possible to do both.
Colette FLESCH (L), for the Liberals, too was worried about the economic espionage angle and the implication
for citizens' rights. She too urged compliance with ECHR provisions relating to privacy.
Patricia McKENNA (Greens/EFA, Dublin) while too welcoming the report and its conclusions, establishing that
Echelon does in fact exist, felt that the committee had drawn back or failed to take the necessary political
conclusions. To make matters worse, the EU now wanted to set-up its own system, she said. For Mrs McKenna
it was the civil liberties rather than the industrial espionage issue that was the most worrying. As she put it,
police forces were cooperating in establishing surveillance systems to monitor such groups as anti-capitalist
protestors who had the right to demonstrate peacefully. Freedom should be respected, she felt.
For Giuseppe DI LELLO FINUOLI (EUL/NGL, I), the question was how to establish a proper response for
safeguarding privacy and human rights' interests in the face of such a system. The UK should respect its
obligation under the EU Treaty, he added.
Jean-Charles MARCHIANI (UEN, F) was another speaker to be concerned about violations of the EU
Convention on Human Rights and he added companies such as Siemens, Airbus and Phillips had suffered as
a result of industrial espionage. He took up the issue of what he felt was the 'Anglo Saxon majority' in the
European Parliament. There was no answer to the question of what sanctions should be imposed on the UK
for its complicity, he said.
Maurizio TURCO (TGI, I) was too concerned about what he felt was a lack of follow-up in pursuing countries
such as the UK and Germany for their involvement in the system. To suggest that commercial documents
should be properly encrypted was hardly an effective response, he felt.
Bastiaan BELDER (EDD, NL), on the other hand, felt that the committee had not revealed proof of a
large-scale operation involving industrial espionage. More international cooperation was needed to define the
limits of security interests.
Alain KRIVINE (EUL/NGL, F) complained about his treatment on Parliament's Delegation to the USA where he
said he was virtually considered as a terrorist. It was no answer to say that Member States such as France
also operated such systems. What was needed was an overall global approach.
Robert EVANS (PES, London), however, took the view that the report showed that many of the early
allegations in the press were wildly exaggerated and 'fanciful' but very few had been substantiated by the
report, he said. As to the UK's role, he pointed out that all states operated national security systems and
indeed, he cited the case of the US helping Spain to counter terrorism as a recent example of international
cooperation here. The UK fully complied with ECHR commitments in this area and such activities were subject
to UK Law.
Replying to the debate, Commissioner Erkki LIIKANEN, while explaining that intelligence gathering did not
come within the Commission's remit of responsibilities, did say that he had no reason to question the
findings of the Committee. He underlined the Commission's concern for respect of human rights and privacy
and that the kind of activities related in the report almost certain made individual EU citizens feel 'uneasy'.
The question now was to find a proper and proportionate response. In this sense, he emphasised the
Commission's support for including the EU Charter in the full body of EU Treaties. As to Echelon itself, he
emphasised that national intelligence gathering was a responsibility for individual Member States' national
governments but any reference to commercial espionage would be affected by EU data protection provisions.
Furthermore, he said the increased provision of fibreoptic cables offered increased possibilities for
interception systems. The Commissioner then dwelt at some length on technical progress being made under
EU research programmes for dealing with the protection of communication systems. In this sense, he
underlined the importance of providing information for individual citizens and small firms and the
Commission's move to combat cybercrime. There was a need to raise awareness here, he emphasised. The
Commission's aim was to develop a European Information Security Policy. The trust of EU businesses was
crucial, he said.
| このページの感想 |
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。