The War Against Terror and Transatlantic Information Sharing: Spillovers of Privacy or Spillovers of Security?

Maria Tzanou

doi:10.5334/ujiel.cq

Abstract

The EU-US Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement has been among the most controversial instruments in the fight against terrorism that the EU negotiated with the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The agreement has been heavily criticised for its implications regarding fundamental rights, in particular the rights to privacy and data protection. Nevertheless, the EU has put forward plans to develop its own PNR programme. The present article aims to examine the new dynamics concerning privacy that arise from the transatlantic fight against terrorism. It argues that, while attempts for the development of a transatlantic privacy protection framework have been made, ‘spillovers’ of security, taking the form of internalisation of external counter-terrorism measures, are prevalent in the era of the war against terror.

References

1 Argomaniz J, ‘When the EU Is the “Norm-Taker”: The Passenger Name Records Agreement and the EU’s Internalization of US Border Security Norms’ (2009) 31 Journal of European Integration 119
Back to article
2 Bignami F, ‘European versus American Liberty: A Comparative Privacy Analysis of Antiterrorism Data Mining’ (2007) 48 Boston College Law Review 609
Back to article
3 Brenner S, ‘Constitutional Rights and New Technologies in the United States’ in Ronald Leenes, Bert-Jaap Koops and Paul De Hert (eds), Constitutional rights and new technologies: a comparative study (TMC Asser Press; Distributed by Cambridge University Press 2008)
Back to article
4 Brouwer E, ‘The EU Passenger Name Record System and Human Rights: Transferring Passenger Data or Passenger Freedom?’ (2009) CEPS Working Document No 320
Back to article
5 Bygrave LA, Data Privacy Law: An International Perspective (First edition, Oxford University Press 2014) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199675555.001.0001
Back to article
6 Chaban N, Elgstrom O and Holland M, ‘The European Union as Others See It’ (2006) 11 European Foreign Affairs Review 245
Back to article
7 Hoofnagle C, ‘Big Brother’s Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for Law Enforcement’ (2004) 29 N.C.J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 595
Back to article
8 Koops B-J, ‘Law, Technology, and Shifting Power Relations’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 973
Back to article
9 Marx M, ‘The EP Committee Rejects the Proposal for an European Passenger Name Record System (PNR)’ <http://free-group.eu/2013/05/01/the-ep-committee-rejects-the-proposal-for-an-european-passanger-name-record-system-pnr/#_ftn5> accessed 4 November 2014
Back to article
10 Mendez F and Mendez M, ‘Comparing Privacy Regimes: Federal Theory and the Politics of Privacy Regulation in the European Union and the United States’ (2009) 40 Publius: The Journal of Federalism 617
Back to article
11 Papakonstantinou V and de Hert P, ‘The PNR Agreement and Transatlantic Anti-Terrorism Co-Operation: No Firm Human Rights Framework on Either Side of the Atlantic’ (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 885
Back to article
12 Pawlak P, ‘Made in the USA? The Influence of the US on the EU ’s Data Protection Regime’ (2009) CEPS
Back to article
13 Rasmussen R, ‘Is International Travel per Se Suspicion of Terrorism? The Dispute between the United States and European Union over Passenger Name Record Data Transfers’ (2009) 26 Wis. Int’l L.J. 551
Back to article
14 Ravich T, ‘Is Airline Passenger Profiling Necessary?’ (2007) 62 U. Miami L. Rev. 1
Back to article
15 Rettman A, ‘EU Should Create Own Spy Agency, Reding Says’ <http://euobserver.com/justice/121979> accessed 3 November 2014
Back to article
16 Rijpma JJ and Gilmore G, ‘Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, European Parliament v. Council and Commission, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 30 May 2006, [2006] ECR I-4721’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1081
Back to article
17 Rizer A, ‘Dog Fight: Did the International Battle over Airline Passenger Name Records Enable the Christmas-Day Bomber’ (2010) 60 Cath. U. L. Rev. 77
Back to article
18 Roos M, ‘Definition of the Problem: The Impossibility of Compliance with Both European Union and United States Law’ (2005) 14 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 1137
Back to article
19 Rosen J, The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America (1st Vintage Books ed, Vintage Books 2001)
Back to article
20 ———, ‘Continental Divide: Americans See Privacy as a Protection of Liberty, Europeans as a Protection of Dignity. Will One Conception Trump the Other—or Are Both Destined to Perish?’ [2004] Legal Affairs
Back to article
21 Salbu S, ‘The European Union Data Privacy Directive and International Relations’ (2002) 35 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 655
Back to article
22 Schwartz P, ‘Privacy and Participation: Personal Information and Public Sector Regulation in the United States’ (1995) 80 Iowa L. Rev. 553
Back to article
23 Shaffer GC, ‘Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International Rules in the Ratcheting up of U.S. Data Privacy Standards’ (2000) 25 Yale Journal of International Law 1
Back to article
24 ———, ‘Reconciling Trade and Regulatory Goals: The Prospects and Limits of New Approaches to Transatlantic Governance through Mutual Recognition and Safe Harbor Agreements’ (2002) 9 Colum. J. Eur. L. 29
Back to article
25 Shoenberger A, ‘Privacy Wars: EU Versus US: Scattered Skirmishes, Storm Clouds Ahead’ (2007) 17 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 375
Back to article
26 Slobogin C, Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment (University of Chicago Press 2007) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226762944.001.0001
Back to article
27 Slobogin C and Schumacher JE, ‘Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at Understandings Recognized and Permitted by Society’ (1993) 42 Duke L.J. 727
Back to article
28 Solove D, ‘Privacy and Power: Computer Databases and Metaphors for Information Privacy’ (2001) 53 Stan. L. Rev. 1393
Back to article
29 ———, ‘The Origins and Growth of Information Privacy Law’ (2003) 748 PLI/PAT 29
Back to article
30 ———, ‘A Brief History of Information Privacy Law’ [2006] PROSKAUER ON PRIVACY, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 215 1
Back to article
31 Solove D and Schwartz P, Information Privacy Law (3rd ed, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; Aspen Publishers 2009)
Back to article
32 Solove DJ, ‘Digital Dossiers and the Dissipation of Fourth Amendment Privacy’ (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1083
Back to article
33 Sun C, ‘The European Union Privacy Directive and Its Impact on the U.S. Privacy Protection Policy: A Year 2003 Perspective’ (2003) 2 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 99
Back to article
34 Tzanou M, ‘Data Protection in EU Law: An Analysis of the EU Legal Framework and the ECJ Jurisprudence’ in Christina Akrivopoulou and Athanasios Psygkas (eds), Personal data privacy and protection in a surveillance era: technologies and practices (Information Science Reference 2011)
Back to article
35 ———, ‘Data Protection as a Fundamental Right next to Privacy? “Reconstructing” a Not so New Right’ (2013) 3 International Data Privacy Law 88
Back to article
36 Whitman JQ, ‘Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty’ (2003) 113 Yale Law Journal 1151
Back to article

The War Against Terror and Transatlantic Information Sharing: Spillovers of Privacy or Spillovers of Security?

Abstract

Paradigm

My account