Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Case of the 2008 German–US Agreement on Data Exchange: An Opportunity to Reshape Power Relations?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Data Protection in a Profiled World

Abstract

A growing number of security policies are based on access to, processing and exchange of personal data. Given their nature, most of these measures have an international scope, and they are rooted in international agreements. These agreements usually seek to extend abroad a range of specific, internal security measures. This chapter aims at studying the position of relevant actors and their capacity to increase their power or to quell resistance during the process of extra-territorialisation. The chapter assumes as a hypothesis that the set-up of security policies is readable as a ‘plateau’, a transversal field in which actors’ ability to shape new configurations of actors and fields is a key asset for enhancing their relevance. The research investigates this hypothesis further by taking as a case study the conclusion, in March 2008, of a transatlantic agreement on DNA, fingerprints and personal data exchange between Germany and the US.

This chapter includes parts of a previously published working paper: Bellanova, R. 2009. Prüm: A model ‘Prêt-à-Exporter’? The 2008 German–US agreement on data exchange. CEPS Challenge Paper No. 13.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a definition of “liquid” modernity, cf. Bauman (2002, pp. v–xxii).

  2. 2.

    Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the United States of America On Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Serious Crime, Washington, 11 March 2008. Hereinafter: Transatlantic Agreement or US–DE agreement.

  3. 3.

    This hypothesis is partially inspired by the reflection of Beck (2002) on the reinforcement of Interior Ministries’ powers through international cooperation among them. It is also based on the notion of “champ” of Bourdieu (1992, pp. 66–83) and the “two-level game” theory of Putnam (1988). Notwithstanding the fact that the notion of “plateau” as expressed in this paper presents several differences with Deleuze and Guattari’s concept, there is also a common point in the conception of a “plateau” as a sort of transversal field, including, overlapping and linking several different fields: “(w)e define ‘plateau’ as any multiplicity which can be bonded to others through superficial subterranean roots, in a way to form and expand a rhizome” (Deleuze and Guattari 1980; p. 33). Finally, the definition of power relations has to be understood with the words of Foucault: “(a) power relationship (…) can only be articulated on the basis of two elements that are indispensable if it is really to be a power relationship: that ‘the other’ (the one over whom power is exercised) is recognised and maintained to the very end as a subject who acts; and that, faced with a relationship of power, a whole field of responses, reactions, results, and possible inventions may open up” (Foucault 2003, pp. 137–138).

  4. 4.

    Paragraph 4.

  5. 5.

    Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Austria on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration, May 2005. Hereinafter: Prüm Treaty, Convention, Treaty.

  6. 6.

    Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, Official Journal L210/1, 6.8.2008.

  7. 7.

    Italy has been the first non-Prüm country to sign a declaration of intent to join the group (Repubblica Italiana 2006). It was followed by three other countries before the end of 2006: Slovenia, Portugal and Finland. During the first months of 2007, at least three additional Member States asked to join: Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. Among them, Hungary and Finland had already signed the agreement by the end of 2007. Data about the process of signature and ratification have still to be researched.

  8. 8.

    Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement), Official Journal L 204, 4.8.2007. For SWIFT, cf. Council (2007b).

  9. 9.

    At the writing of this paper, at least six other Eastern EU Member States signed a similar agreement: Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

  10. 10.

    The 4th paragraph of the Prüm Preamble states: “(s)eeking to have the provisions of this Convention brought within the legal framework of the European Union”, and then, Article 1(4) further defines the guidelines of the process of transposition: “(w)ithin three years at most following entry into force of this Convention, on the basis of an assessment of experience of its implementation, an initiative shall be submitted, in consultation with or on a proposal from the European Commission, in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, with the aim of incorporating the provisions of this Convention into the legal framework of the European Union”.

  11. 11.

    Joint Declaration of The Kingdom of Belgium, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Kingdom of Spain, The French Republic, The Italian Republic, The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, The Republic of Austria, The Portuguese Republic, The Republic of Slovenia, The Republic of Finland, on the occasion of the Meeting of Ministers on 5 December 2006 in Brussels, within the framework of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Austria on the increased cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration (Treaty of Prüm), Brussels, (5 December 2006).

  12. 12.

    Legislative initiatives under Title VI of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), “Provisions on Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters”, have to undergo a process of decision making that leaves to the European Parliament a mere power of consultation. In fact, the adoption of instruments such as framework decisions (Article 34(2)(b) TEU), Council decisions (Article 34(2)(c)) and conventions (Article 34(2)(d)) imply only the consultation of the European Parliament (Article 39(1)). For an insightful analysis of the modifications to such a scenario under the Lisbon Treaty, cf. Carrera and Geyer (2008).

  13. 13.

    The 4th paragraph of the Preamble states: “Following the example of the Treaty of Prüm”.

  14. 14.

    Surely, a deeper analysis is needed to detect and assess others discrepancies. For example, apart the lack of provisions on vehicle registration, data that is obviously linked by geographical evidence, another issue warranting deeper analysis concerns the differences and the future implementation of DNA-related provisions (Articles 7–9). At present, Article 24 on “Entry into force”, explicitly excludes the exchange of DNA data lest the implementing agreement(s) has entered into force. Given the extreme sensitiveness of such data, a true assessment of such provisions can be done only on the basis of implementing measures. Here, it should be noted that no automated comparison of DNA and no collection of cellular material and supply of DNA profiles (Articles 4 and 7) is provided for in the text of the Transatlantic Agreement.

  15. 15.

    Article 10(6) US–DE agreement.

  16. 16.

    Prüm Treaty, Chap. 7, in particular Articles 37–39 as well as the provisions on the automated search system for DNA and fingerprints in Chap. 2.

  17. 17.

    Article 17(2) states: “Such information may be denied in accordance with the respective laws of the Parties, including if providing this information may jeopardize: (a) the purposes of the processing; (b) investigations or prosecutions conducted by the competent authorities in the United States or by the competent authorities in Germany; or (c) the rights and freedoms of third parties”.

  18. 18.

    Interview with Mrs. Maja Pfister, Legislative Assistant to Mrs. Gisela Piltz (MP), Speaker for Policy of the Interior in the Parliamentary Group of the FDP in the Deutsche Bundestag, 29 October 2008.

  19. 19.

    Interview with Alexander Dix, Berliner Beauftragter für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit, 29 October 2008.

  20. 20.

    Cf. http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/253/1/lang,de/.

  21. 21.

    Cf. http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/253/1/lang,en/.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Interview with Mr. Patrick Breyer, jurist and member of the Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung, 3 November 2009.

References

Primary sources

  • Agreement between the European Union. 2007. Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement). Official Jouranl L204 (4.8.2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic. 2008. Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the United States of America on enhancing cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime. Washington (11 March 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Council Decision. 2008. Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. Official Journal L210/1 (6.8.2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agencia Española de Protección de Datos—AEPD. 2005. Informe del Gabinete Juridico, N. ref. 37530/2005. Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit—BFDI. 2008. Peter Schaar: Insufficient data protection in the agreement on data exchange with the USA. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities—Commission. 2005. Proposal for a council framework decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability, COM(2005) 490 final. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés—CNIL. 2006. Note de Synthèse: Traité de Prüm & annexe technique et administrative pour sa mise en application. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union—Council. 2005. Prüm convention. doc.10900/05 CRIMORG 65 ENFOPOL 85. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union—Council. 2007a. Draft council decision 2007/…/JHA of … on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, doc.6566/1/07 REV1 CRIMORG 33 ENFOPOL 18. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union—Council. 2007b. Processing of EU originated Personal Data by United States Treasury Department for Counter Terrorism Purposes—“SWIFT”, doc.10741/2/07 REV 2 JAI 319 ECOFIN 270. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union—Council. 2008. EU US Summit, 12 June 2008—final report by the EU–US High Level Contact Group on information sharing and privacy and personal data protection, doc.9831/08, JAI 275 DATAPROTECT 31 USA 26. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Homeland Security—DHS. 2008a. Memorandum of understanding between the ministry of the interior of the Czech Republic and the Department of Homeland Security of the United States of America regarding the United States Visa Waiver Program and related Enhanced Security Measures. Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Homeland Security—DHS. 2008b. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Screening Information concerning Known or Suspected Terrorists. Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag. 2006. Kleine Anfrage (…)Prümer Vertrag und die europäische Integration, Drucksache 16/3871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag. 2008. Antrag der Abgeordneten Gisela Piltz, Christian Ahrendt, Ernst Burgbacher, (…) und der Fraktion der FDP, Abkommen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über die Vertiefung der Zusammenarbeit bei der Verhinderung und Bekämpfung schwerwiegender Kriminalität neu verhandeln. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Data Protection Supervisor—EDPS. 2006. Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (COM (2005) 490 final). Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Data Protection Supervisor—EDPS. 2007. Opinion of the European data protection supervisor on the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, (…) and the Kingdom of Sweden, with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament—EP. 2007. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (2007), Report on the initiative by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, (…) and the Kingdom of Sweden on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, doc. A6-0207/2007. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Secretariat of the Council. 2007a. Draft Council Decision 2007/…/JHA of … on improving cooperation on request, working document. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Secretariat of the Council. 2007b. Draft Council Decision 2007/…/JHA of … on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation…, working document. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection. 2005. Annual Report 2003/2004 of the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords—HoL. 2006a. Behind closed doors: The meeting of the G6 Interior Ministers at Heiligendamm. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords—HoL. 2006b. Corrected Oral Evidence given by: Dr. Wolfgang von Pommer Esche, Head of Unit, Police Intelligence Service, Federal Data Protection Office, Inquiry into the development of the second generation Schengen Information System. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Declaration of The Kingdom of Belgium. 2006. Joint Declaration of The Kingdom of Belgium, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Kingdom of Spain, (…) on the occasion of the Meeting of Ministers on 5th December 2006 in Brussels, within the framework of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Austria on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration (Treaty of Prüm). Brussels (5 December 2006).

    Google Scholar 

Secondary sources

  • Amoore, L. 2008. Governing by identity. In Playing the identity card. Surveillance, security and identification in global perspective, eds. C.J. Bennett and D. Lyon, 21–36. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apap, J., and E. Vasiliu. 2006. ‘Variable geometry’: A solution for closer co-operation in criminal matters in an enlarged EU? The implications of the Prüm treaty in relation to EU developments. Brussels: DG Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T. 2006a. The treaty of Prüm and the principle of loyalty (Art.10 TEC). Brussels: DG Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T. 2006b. From a Prüm of 7 to a Prüm of 8+: What are the implications? Brussels: DG Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T. et al. 2006. Security and the two-level game: The treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. 2002. Modernità liquida. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. 2002. The terrorist threat, world risk society revisited. Theory, Culture & Society 19 (4): 39-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellanova, R. 2008. The ‘Prüm process’: The way forward for police cooperation and data exchange? In Security vs. justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union, eds. E. Guild and F. Geyer, 203–221. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C.J. 2008. The privacy advocates: Resisting the spread of surveillance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1992. Risposte: Per una antropologia riflessiva. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrera, S., and F. Geyer. 2008. The reform treaty and justice and home affairs: Implications for the common area of freedom, security and justice. In Security vs. justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union, eds. E. Guild and F. Geyer, 289–307. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceyhan, A. 2005. La biométrie: une technologie pour gérer les incertitudes de la modernité contemporaine. Les Cahiers de la sécurité 56: 61–89. 1er trimestre.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P., and R. Bellanova. 2008. Data protection from a transatlantic perspective: The EU and US move towards an International Data Protection Agreement? Brussels: DG Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert, P., and De B. Schutter. 2008. International transfers of data in the field of JHA: The lessons of Europol, PNR and swift. In Justice, liberty, security, new challenges for EU external relations, eds. B. Martenczuk and Van S. Thiel, 303–339.Brussels: Brussels Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehousse, F. et al. 2004. Integrating Europe, multiple speeds: One direction? Brussels: EPC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehousse, F., and D. Sifflet. 2006. Les nouvelles perspectives de la coopération de Schengen: le Traité de Prüm. Brussels: IRRI-KIIB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1980. Mille plateaux, Capitalisme et schizophrénie 2. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 2003. The subject and power. In The essential Foucault, selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984, eds. P. Rabinow and N. Rose, 126–144. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E. 2007. Merging security from the two level game: Inserting the treaty of Prüm into EU law? Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E., and F. Geyer. 2008. Introduction: The search for EU criminal law: Where is it headed? In Security vs. justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union, eds. E. Guild and F. Geyer, 1–12. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis/CReSPo, Vrije Universiteit Brussel/LSTS, Brussel, Belgium

    Rocco Bellanova

Authors
  1. Rocco Bellanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rocco Bellanova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology & Society, (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, Bruxelles, 1050, Belgium

    Serge Gutwirth

  2. Research Centre for Information, Technology & Law, University of Namur, Rempart de la Vierge 5, Namur, 5000, Belgium

    Yves Poullet

  3. Center for Law, Science, Technology, and Society Studies (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Belgium

    Paul De Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bellanova, R. (2010). The Case of the 2008 German–US Agreement on Data Exchange: An Opportunity to Reshape Power Relations?. In: Gutwirth, S., Poullet, Y., De Hert, P. (eds) Data Protection in a Profiled World. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8865-9_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation