Understanding the Political PNR Debate in Europe: A Discourse Analytical Perspective

Huijboom, Noor; Bodea, Gabriela

doi:10.1080/23745118.2014.997593

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A review of securitization theory suggests that governments often inflate crises to shape desired policy outcomes, including the expansion of the surveillance state. The identification of some existential threat is used to promote the acceptance of security maximizing policies (Hundt 2014;Schneier 2003Schneier , 2008 and expand government power into new spheres (Fuchs 2013;Buzan, Waever, and deWilde 1998;Huijboom and Bodea 2015;Strauβ 2017). Mueller's 2009 book, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them, offers a substantive examination of this phenomenon in the United States.…”

Section: Discussion and Extension Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Dimensions of the Security-Liberty Trade-off in the United States

Krueger

Best²,

Johnson

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The trade-off between security and liberty has been a leading frame for understanding public opinion about domestic surveillance policies. Most of the empirical work explicitly examining whether individuals meet the trade-off framework's core attitudinal assumptions comes from European studies. This study uses a survey of US residents to assess the veracity of the assumptions embedded in the trade-off framework, namely whether domestic counterterrorism policies are simultaneously viewed as improving security and decreasing liberty. We find that the vast majority of US respondents do not meet the basic attitudinal assumptions of the trade-off frame. Next, we evaluate the source of these attitudes with a focus on whether attitudes toward surveillance policies merely relate to core political values or whether they also depend on the messages from political leaders. We find that both political values and opinion leadership shape these attitudes. Finally, because general attitudes towards surveillance and privacy often fail to have practical implications, we assess whether these attitudes matter for understanding the structure of policy support. Our results show that heightened terrorism threat positively associates with increased support for counterterrorism policies only when people believe these policies are effective security tools.Indeed, this systematic assessment of public opinion and the supposed trade-off has been undertaken in certain contexts. Several large and multifaceted European studies have sought to test whether the trade-off

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Extension Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Dimensions of the Security-Liberty Trade-off in the United States

Krueger

Best²,

Johnson

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another good example would be the so-called passenger name record (PNR) debacle in the early 2010s, which led to the enactment of the corresponding Directive (EU) 2016/681. During the policy-making of this directive, which overlapped with questions related to the SWIFT system and the so-called Safe Harbour agreement that was invalidated by the CJEU in 2015, the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament clashed many times, mainly due to the Parliament's critical stance on data protection violations (Huijboom and Bodea, 2015;Mistale, 2015;Servent, 2015). 1 In this case and generally during the 2010s, the green and left-wing (but not the social democratic) political groups in the Parliament mostly voted against legislative proposals they perceived as violating data protection laws and fundamental rights, the votes cast by the liberal group split in half, and the conservative and social democratic groups voted in favor (Servent, 2015).…”

Section: Data Protection Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Text Mining Analysis of Data Protection Politics: The Case of Plenary Sessions of the European Parliament

Ruohonen¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data protection laws and policies have been studied extensively in recent years, but little is known about the parliamentary politics of data protection. This limitation applies even to the European Union (EU) that has taken the global lead in data protection and privacy regulation. For patching this notable gap in existing research, this paper explores the data protection questions raised by the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the Parliament's plenary sessions and the answers given to these by the European Commission. Over a thousand of such questions and answers are covered in a period from 1995 to early 2023. Given computational analysis based on text mining, the results indicate that (a) data protection has been actively debated in the Parliament during the past twenty years. No noticeable longitudinal trends are present; the debates have been relatively constant. As could be expected, (b) the specific data protection laws in the EU have frequently been referenced in these debates, which (c) do not seem to align along conventional political dimensions such as the left-right axis. Furthermore, (d) numerous distinct data protection topics have been debated by the parliamentarians, indicating that data protection politics in the EU go well-beyond the recently enacted regulations.

show abstract

“…Part of the problem could be the term 'PNR data', which for many MEP's has become increasingly a metaphor for surveillance of EU citizens by foreign states 149 acquisition and exchange has assisted in making air travel safer, as terrorists planning to carry out an attack on an aircraft know they can be traced and prevented from carrying out that attack, this seems to be a logical step. If PNR data was extended to include international train travel on mainland Europe and the Eurostar service between the UK and Paris/Brussels as well as international ferry services in Europe, this would increase the ability of policing agencies investigating terrorist acts and serious crime to monitor the movement and activities of suspects.…”

Section: Assessing the 2016's Directive's Fitness For Purpose: Robustmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Union’s Passenger Name Record Data Directive 2016/681: Is it Fit for Purpose?

Lowe

2017

Int Crim Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2016 the European Union (eu) introduced a Passenger Name Record Data (pnr) Directive. There has been controversy in the eu over the acquisition and sharing of pnr data, related mainly to the lack of safeguards and protection of personal data protection. This article examines these issues related to earlier eu pnr agreements with third countries and why previous eu attempts to legislate in this area failed. By drawing a comparison with the 2011 pnr Directive proposal, the article argues that by meeting the strict eu law on data protection as well as being necessary to assist in preventing and detecting acts of terrorism and serious crime it is submitted the 2016 Directive is fit for purpose and able to withstand scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

show abstract

Understanding the Political PNR Debate in Europe: A Discourse Analytical Perspective

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Assessing Dimensions of the Security-Liberty Trade-off in the United States

Assessing Dimensions of the Security-Liberty Trade-off in the United States

A Text Mining Analysis of Data Protection Politics: The Case of Plenary Sessions of the European Parliament

The European Union’s Passenger Name Record Data Directive 2016/681: Is it Fit for Purpose?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About