Partito Pirata: trattamento dei dati in polizia eccessivo

Strasbourg, 08/02/2024 – Today, MEPs approved the trilogue outcome of the regulation for automated data exchange for police cooperation (“Prüm II”). Pirate Party Members of the European Parliament voted against Prüm II, because this unprecedented rise in personal data sharing among EU police forces lacks sufficient safeguards for affected individuals. Extending the existing system to soon include facial images and police records further accelerates this trend.

Marcel Kolaja, Member and Quaestor of the European Parliament for the Czech Pirate Party, comments:

“Even the current system under which the police databases of individual Member States are linked has a number of flaws because it does not sufficiently protect civil liberties. It deserves a reform. But not one that turns a few partial problems into a single large one. I cannot therefore at this time support a stronger interconnection of the national databases. Moreover, the rules we have voted on today extend the scope of the system to include police records. This includes those that have been created on the basis of a mistaken assumption or hearsay. The review of the rules should focus on making the system more secure and enable sharing relevant data in order to make law enforcement more effective – not on including irrelevant information.“

Patrick Breyer, Member of the European Parliament for the German Pirate Party, comments:

“While police cooperation in Europe is of vital importance, it needs to respect the rule of law. But Europe-wide networked facial databases enable biometric mass surveillance in public spaces, which is an error-prone technology that regularly misidentifies citizens. The lack of safeguards for this data sharing monster called “Prüm II” is deeply worrying and opens the door for misuse of police power. No amount of mass surveillance can make up for authorities repeatedly having failed to watch terrorists-to-be known to the police long before they carried out an attack. In countering crimes and terrorism there is no deficit in surveillance, there is a deficit in targeted enforcement.”