Słowa kluczowe
passenger
profiling
mass surveillance
pre-determined criteria
risk assessment
Jak cytować
Liczba wyświetleń: 491
Liczba pobrań: 328
Abstrakt
The paper analyses the PNR Directive as pre-emptive data surveillance practice. The 2016/681 Directive regulates the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data in the EU for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. It obliges airlines to hand national authorities passengers’ data for all flights from third countries to the EU and vice versa, but Member States can also extend it to ‘intra-EU’ ones (i.e. from an EU country to one or more other EU countries), provided that they notify the EU Commission. Thus, PNR Directive affects all passengers who arrive in the territory of one Member State originating from a third country, or who depart from a Member State’s territory to a non-EU country, including any transfer or transit flights. Using PNR data, the individual is profiled and encoded in terms of degrees of risk.
Bibliografia
Bush, G.W. (2002). Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point, United States Military Academy West Point, New York, June 1, 2002. <https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html> [accessed: 1 March 2020].
Casagran, C.B. (2015). The future EU PNR System: will passenger data be protected? European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 3: 241–257.
De Goede, M. (2008). Beyond risk: premediation and the post-9/11 security imagination. Security Dialogue Special Issue on Security, Technologies of Risk, and the Political 39(2–3): 155–176.
De Hert, P., De Schutter, B. (2008). International transfer of data in the field of JHA: the lessons of Europol, PNR and Swift, [in:] B. Martenczuck, S. Thiel (eds.), Justice, Liberty and Security: New Challenges for EU External relations. Brussels: VUB Press/Brussels University Press: 303–340.
De Hert, P., Bellanova, R. (2011). Transatlantic Cooperation on Travelers’ Data Processing: From Sorting Countries to Sorting Individuals. Migration Policy Institute: 1–27. <https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/dataprocessing-2011.pdf> [accessed: 10 April 2020].
De Hert, P., Papakonstantinou, V. (2010a). The EU PNR framework decision proposal: towards completion of the PNR processing scene in Europe. Computer Law & Security Review 26(4): 368–376.
De Hert, P., Papakonstantinou, V. (2015b). Repeating the mistakes of the past will do little good for air passengers in the EU: the comeback of the EU PNR Directive and a lawyer’s duty to regulate profiling. New Journal of European Criminal Law 6(2): 160–165.
Dempsey, J., Flint, L. (2004). Commercial data and national security. The George Washington Law Review 72: 149–1502.
Dummer, S.W. (2006). Secure flight and dataveillance, new type of civil liberties erosion: Stripping your rights when you don’t even know it. Mississippi Law Journal 75(2): 583–618.
Kaunert, C., Leonard, S., McKenzie, A. (2012). The social construction of an EU interest in counter-terrorism: US influence and internal struggles in the cases of PNR and SWIFT. European Security 21(4): 474–496.
Leese, M. (2014). The new profiling: algorithms, black boxes, and the failure of anti-discriminatory safeguards in the European Union Security Dialogue 45(5): 494 –511.
Lowe, D. (2017). The European Union’s passenger name record data Directive 2016/681: is it fit for purpose? International Criminal Law Review 17(1): 78–106.
Mitsilegas, V. (2016). Surveillance and digital privacy in the transatlantic ‘war on terror’: the case for a global privacy regime. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 47(3): 1–77.
Mitsilegas, V., Vavoula, N. (2017). The normalization of surveillance movement in an era of reinforcing privacy standards, [in:] P. Bourbeau (ed.), Handbook on Migration and Security. Edward Elgar Publishing: 232–251.
Rasmussen, D. (2008). Is international travel per se suspicion of terrorism – the dispute between the United States and European Union over passenger name record data transfers. Wisconsin International Law Journal 26(2): 551–590.
Rizer, A. (2010). Dog fight: did the international battle over airline passenger name records enable the Christmas-day bomber? Catholic University Law Review 60(1): 77–105.
Rubinstein, I.S., Ronald, L.D., Schwartz, P. (2008). Data mining and internet profiling: emerging regulatory and technological approaches. The University of Chicago Law Review 75(1): 261–285.
Taipale, K.A. (2003–2004). Data mining and domestic security: connecting the dots to make sense of data. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 5(1): 1–83.
Tzanou, M. (2017a). The Fundamental Right to Data Protection: Normative Value in the Context of Counter-Terrorism Surveillance. Hart Publishing.
Tzanou, M. (2015b). The war against terror and transatlantic information sharing: spillovers of privacy or spillovers of security? Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 31(80): 87–103.
Van Brakel, R. (2016). The rise of preemptive surveillance of children in England: unintended social and ethical consequences, [in:] E. Taylor, T. Rooney (eds.), Surveillance Futures: Social and Ethical Implications of New Technologies on Children and Young People. Routledge: 190–203.
Van Brakel, R., De Hert, P. (2011). Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: understanding the consequences of technology based strategies. Journal of Police Studies 20(3): 163–192.
Vavoula, V. (2017). EU immigration databases under scrutiny: towards the normalisation of surveillance of movement in an era of “privacy spring”? [in:] G. Vermeulen, E. Lievens, Data Protection and Privacy under Pressure. Transatlantic Tensions, EU Surveillance, and Big Data. Maklu: 215–251.
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2021 WPiA UAM
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.