Challenge Round table: Lack of accountability in security policies undermines EU legitimacy

Biometric controls and other e-security applications are being implemented across the European Union by its member states and border management agencies. Scholars gathered by the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence at the University of Leeds to discuss the balance between security and liberty in the age of global terrorism concluded that there is an urgent need to make governments accountable for the use (and potential misuse) of biometric technologies if trust in e-security is to be gained among the citizenry.

Leeds, January 17, 2007

The European Union faces the challenge of finding the right balance between security and liberty. Global terrorism and cross-border organised crime pose a threat for open societies, since the current governmental security zeal might undermine some of the basic liberties taken for granted in a democracy. A sense of over-surveillance and the risk of racial, religious and ethnic profiling enabled by the use of biometric identifiers in the new identity documents have spurred popular criticism across Europe. A group of scholars from the University of Leeds working for a European Commission project aimed at finding a sensible response to contemporary security threats gathered in a round table in Leeds on January 17 to discuss their research results. Their conclusion: The handling of biometric data from citizens must be guided by common ethical standards across the EU and should be the subject of some parliamentary control.

Professor Juliet Lodge, director of the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence, and author of a report on trends in biometrics for the European Parliament, suggested the need for code of international cooperation in security matters. The free circulation of people, goods and services around the world is supported by a «common, quasi universal understanding of what constitutes acceptable –ethical- international engagement.» However, the realm of security cooperation is still in need of a similar agreement, especially when biometric data of citizens is concerned. Prof Lodge said the ethical procedures that guide medical research, such as the confidentiality of data access and the principles of data minimisation, may have inspired the search for an international normative code on e-security but they are too limited.

The lack of parliamentary control of EU security policies is one of the most worrisome developments for Dr Katharine Sarikakis, director of the Centre for International Communications. Representative democracy is losing ground against over-empowered executives, who brand most security issues as exceptional to avoid political accountability and public scrutiny. This contributes to undermine the legitimacy of the European Union and to the «symbolic annihilation» of European citizens, who are not represented in the design and revision of EU security policies.

Annemarie Sprokkereef, research student at the Institute of Communications Studies and co-author of a report on the norms and standards behind the EU’s use of biometric identifiers, cautioned against the techno-euphoric discourse that presents these applications as a cure-all against the counterfeiting of identity documents. Biometric technologies are still vulnerable to attempts of falsification, and their encryption codes will be shared by many countries, increasing the risk of abuse or disclosure.

Bruno Fransen, a Challenge researcher at the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence, compared the transparency and openness of Finland and Austria when meeting the requests of public agencies and citizens to access information. Finland is much more open than Austria in this matter and enjoys a legal framework in which transparency is the general rule and secrecy the exception. Fransen attributes this difference to the organisational public culture of each country. Finland has a long tradition of local governance and citizen control, whereas in Austria the strong central command of the monarchy has left its mark in the law. The two countries that held the European presidency in 2006 are an example of how important it is to take culture into account when analysing the relationship between transparency and security. Fransen encouraged the EU to set a blueprint of transparency for its member states by being «as transparent as possible itself.»

Ms Terry Mayer, member of the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence, reported on the results of several interviews with ministers of the British Parliament about the transparency of Government’s decisions regarding security. According to Ms Mayer, the answers revealed «complacency, lack of knowledge and misunderstanding.» The British MPs voiced their powerlessness against a government whose security policies cannot be watched by the legislature.

This round table served as a preparation for the final discussion with the end-users of the research, the EU officials and border management agencies. Such debate will take place in London in the spring of 2007. The Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence at the University of Leeds is one of the 23 partners of the Challenge Consortium, a group of universities and research institutions studying the implications of new security policies for the European democratic system. The scholars at the University of Leeds have performed their research within one of the 14 research work packages, the Work Package 6, «Accountability, responsibility and transparency in an enlarged Europe.»

See also :

 Call for parpers
 The Commentary on the main discussion point

Report by Francisco Seone Perez

LS2 9JT UK