.COMment: EU-US data sharing

The Washington Post editorial of November 3, 2010 entitled Europe’s dangerous refusal to share air travel data talks about tensions in the EU-US counterterrorism cooperation and how 'distressing' they are. As an academic who spent the past six years researching transatlantic homeland security – and the EU-US PNR agreements in particular – I would like to comment on some of their observations.

International partnerships and cooperation around the globe are indeed what makes the homeland security system more effective. The number of recent failed attempts suggests that Europe is doing its job extremely well. Over the past few years, the European Union has consistently demonstrated its commitment to fighting terrorism shoulder to shoulder with the United States. Unfortunately, good news never makes it to the papers. The case of aviation security is not an exception. In 2006 when British authorities detected a terrorist plot to blow up some 12 aircraft in mid-flight between Britain and America using liquid explosives, European and American authorities swiftly reached a consensus on regulating the carriage of liquids on board commercial flights.

The European Union did not halt its cooperation with the US, neither in 2003 when it was confronted with unilaterally imposed US security regulations, nor in 2007 in the face of revelations about the transfer of financial data (SWIFT). Instead, the EU engaged in dialogue to better understand the US data protection regulations. Furthermore, the EU has stretched its own data protection rules, for instance, by accepting a letter from then Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff as a guarantee of good US behaviour. European Union officials have consistently declared their willingness to share information provided US officials could explain in what way specific data items could help. The reasoning behind this was that the focus should be on the effective use of existing information rather than on collecting additional data.

It might be true that the European Parliament sometimes makes too much noise, like a child in a candy store. But it would be irresponsible to fully ignore its concerns, in particular ahead of new negotiations of a permanent data exchange deal. The American public and the newly elected Congress would be better advised to listen and try to understand. Especially, since the establishment of the European Parliament Liaison Office in Washington seems to be a pretty loud and significant scream.