By Simon Davies
There’s something of the Neville Chamberlain in EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding’s assurances that concessions are being won from the US over PRISM. Truth be told the result of the current stand-off will never be “peace for our time”. On the basis of recent history the US simply cannot be trusted to honour any commitment to reform the arenas of privacy or security.
On the basis of recent history the US simply cannot be trusted to honour any commitment to reform the arenas of privacy or security.
The UK’s special relationship with the US means that the Brits have a seat at almost every table in the negotiations. The Americans insist on that. As James Bamford noted in his groundbreaking analysis of the NSA “The Puzzle Palace“, US and UK operatives in the security field work so closely together that their roles become indistinguishable from each other.
Even though Reding has carved out some media space for her own views, the back-room machinations will always involve UK reps who will ensure that there will never be European unity against US spying. Without unity the US can portray the current dissent as fragmented and unstable.
Of course the UK never needed help from America to corrode privacy. It has been at the forefront of almost every devastation of privacy since the 1980’s, from data retention and air passenger surveillance to the data protection regulation. With Britain institutionally engrained in the negotiation process it will be impossible for the Commission or member states to achieve traction.
Unfortunately Europe has a viper in its nest – and that viper is the UK.
Even without Britain’s assistance, Europe is at a fatal disadvantage in claiming the moral high ground. Under the international signals intelligence agreement (known as UK-USA or Quadripartite) several EU states including Norway, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Greece and Austria have cooperated for decades as “third parties” with the US on spying activities (the US is “first party”, the UK is described as “second party” while third party countries are less trusted).
Setting aside for a moment the mass of often one-sided bilateral and multilateral mutual assistance agreements that Europe allowed the US to bully its way into existence (one thinks of the hopelessly unfair extradition agreements) the nature of US commitments is at best shaky and at worst a downright deception.
None of the US administrations from Clinton onward have delivered on commitments to reform the arenas of privacy and surveillance.
None of the US administrations from Clinton onward have delivered on commitments to reform the arenas of privacy and surveillance. Safe Harbor, for example, was a device used to ensure that the data trade could continue between Europe and the US after the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive was passed. It was a minimalist solution that was supposed to evolve into something stronger but it transpired that the US never intended to follow through on commitments to strengthen it. Europe – cheered on by the UK – sat by complacently and allowed it to continue as a transparent sham.
Europe can bluff and bluster all it wants about the evils of PRISM. The reality is that the EU is neck-deep in the surveillance game and it can’t easily extricate itself from the mire that it helped create. Campaigners need to understand that this particular river runs very deep and so their strategies need to be merciless and ingenious.