Real differences in values about data protection, individual rights and attitudes towards terrorism have resurfaced in the talks on the air passenger data agreement between the European Union and the United States.
Negotiators will try again to reach agreement on Friday after talks collapsed over the weekend in Washington. Both sides caution against dire warnings of air traffic chaos if they fail to agree; but the resulting legal vacuum could see a recourse to individual court cases, separate national agreements and an end to landing rights for airlines that do not comply with US regulations.
The original agreement was reached in 2004 between the US government and the European Commission. It provided that 34 pieces of information could be forwarded to the US authorities by participating airlines and included specific safeguards about their retention and distribution to other agencies. The European Parliament immediately objected that the agreement did not tally with existing data protection rights in the EU and appealed it to the European Court of Justice. In May the court found the agreement void, not for this reason but because the wrong legal basis was used, treating it as a commercial issue rather than a national security one. The deadline to renew it ran out on Saturday.
The US wants greater freedom to use the information provided and share it with other agencies, which cuts right across existing EU legislation. The EU side says such substantive changes must wait until a new agreement next year. It may be possible to reach a compromise permitting continuation of existing arrangements until then; but this will not resolve the deeper transatlantic disagreements about data protection, nor those between the commission and the European Parliament, and national governments and parliaments.
The public salience of the passenger names record issue has been boosted following a parallel argument about the release of financial transaction details using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications based in Belgium (SWIFT). The system organises financial transactions between 7,800 banks around the world. Much to President Bush's anger, it was revealed three months ago by the New York Times that the CIA has had access to this information in its anti-terrorist work.
Basic disagreements about how to tackle terrorism and whether national security trumps individual rights to data protection are revealed in these US-EU disputes. They deserve sustained public attention and debate.