Tracing Terrorists: The EU-Canada Agreement in PNR Matters
Revised version 17.11.2008
Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1704.pdf | 412.89 KB | 1006 | 6 days 7 hours ago |
Revised version 17.11.2008
Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument.
978-92-9079-809-5-en-1531
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => df1e7fca84064d7cb69ddd1c4d56b63a [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [path] => book/tracing-terrorists-eu-canada-agreement-pnr-matters [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 978-92-9079-809-5 [safe] => 978-92-9079-809-5 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Peter Hobbing [safe] => Peter Hobbing ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1704 [safe] => 1704 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 75 [view] => 75 ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-09-11T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 11 September 2008 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [safe] => Array ( ) [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [tags] => Array ( ) [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [taxonomy_term_23] => Array ( [title] => Justice and Home Affairs [href] => taxonomy/term/23 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => ) ) [taxonomy_term_88] => Array ( [title] => CEPS Special Reports [href] => catalog/88 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => Disseminate a wide range of CEPS studies that do not fall into any of the other formal series. ) ) ) [files] => Array ( [1606] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 1606 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1704.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1704.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 422804 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-09 15:56:47 [nid] => 1531 [vid] => 1531 [description] => 1704.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => [last_name] => [company] => CEPS [phone] => +32 2 2293951 [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 ) [usps] => Array ( [vid] => 1531 [nid] => 1531 [container] => ) [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] =>Revised version 17.11.2008
Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1704.pdf | 412.89 KB | 1006 | 6 days 7 hours ago |
Revised version 17.11.2008
Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument.
978-92-9079-809-5-en-1531
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => df1e7fca84064d7cb69ddd1c4d56b63a [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [path] => book/tracing-terrorists-eu-canada-agreement-pnr-matters [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 978-92-9079-809-5 [safe] => 978-92-9079-809-5 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Peter Hobbing [safe] => Peter Hobbing ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1704 [safe] => 1704 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 75 [view] => 75 ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-09-11T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 11 September 2008 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [safe] => Array ( ) [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [tags] => Array ( ) [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [23] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 23 [vid] => 3 [name] => Justice and Home Affairs [description] => [weight] => 7 ) [88] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 88 [vid] => 4 [name] => CEPS Special Reports [description] => Disseminate a wide range of CEPS studies that do not fall into any of the other formal series. [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( [1606] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 1606 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1704.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1704.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 422804 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-09 15:56:47 [nid] => 1531 [vid] => 1531 [description] => 1704.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => [last_name] => [company] => CEPS [phone] => +32 2 2293951 [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 ) [usps] => Array ( [vid] => 1531 [nid] => 1531 [container] => ) [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [print_links] => Array ( [#weight] => -101 [#suffix] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [display_price] => Array ( [#weight] => -10 [#access] => 1 [#value] =>BOOK
[#delta] => 0 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => [#children] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 1 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [2] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 2 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 2 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#single] => 1 [#attributes] => Array ( ) [#required] => [#parents] => Array ( ) [#tree] => [#context] => full [#page] => 1 [#field_name] => field_type [#title] => type [#access] => 1 [#label_display] => inline [#teaser] => [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type] => content_field [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1704.pdf | 412.89 KB |
Revised version 17.11.2008
Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1704.pdf | 412.89 KB |
Revised version 17.11.2008
Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU–Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU–US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU–Canada instrument.
Related Publications
- Quantum Surveillance and ‘Shared Secrets’
- Fundamental Rights and EU Citizenship after the Treaty of Lisbon
- Towards a Common European Border Service?
- Profiling in the European Union: A high-risk practice
- The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme
- Huber, Marper and Others: Throwing new light on the shadows of suspicion
- Whose Citizenship to Empower in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? The Act of Mobility and Litigation in the Enactment of European Citizenship
- Global Data Transfers: The Human Rights Implications
- EU Counter-Terrorism Action: A fault line between law and politics?
- The promotion of human security in EU security policies
Editor's choice
-
Financial Markets
-
Politics and Institutions
-
Justice and Home Affairs
-
Economic Policy
-
EU Neighbourhood Policy
-
Economic Policy
Related Entries
- Justice and Home Affairs
- The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Priorities and Challenges
- Tiptoeing towards a Common Criminal Law? Reflections on the EU Constitution
- Management of border controls in Europe: Towards a Common European-Border guard?
- Asylum and Resettlement in the EU, does the Canadian Resettlement Program provide a model?