Asa Hutchinson, under-secretary for border & transport security, US Department of Homeland Security

Question: Are the concerns expressed by MEPs on the European Parliament’s justice committee reasonable in your view?

Asa Hutchinson: I believe that the parliament should give the highest consideration to the experts that negotiated this agreement and ‘adequacy’ finding. This process took over eight months, addressed every concern, and the data protection requirements were met. So I hope that has the highest value for the European Parliament’s perspective.

We view the PNR agreement as an extraordinary opportunity to provide greater security. We are very anxious for this security step to be taken and this agreement to be concluded.

Question: Is it the case, in terms of PNR, and some other Trans-Atlantic security issues, that there is a tendency on the European side to view the US through “a fog of prejudice”?

Asa Hutchinson: No, I wouldn’t characterise it in that fashion. I think that there are some cultural differences that we have to sort through. And there is probably a lack of understanding about our strict privacy rules in the US. I think there is some misunderstanding about the high value we place on privacy protection in this country.

But this, as always, is something we work through and I think our understanding has been enhanced over the last eight months and the arrangement we have negotiated reflects this.

And I think our focal point has to be that we are both striving to enhance the safety and security of all air passengers.

Question: What about the key issue of the use to which this data is put – i.e. not just for terrorism but for fighting “serious crime”?

Asa Hutchinson: Through the negotiations we really adopted the European position and limited the use of the data for serious trans-national crime.

These are the crimes that lay the foundation for terrorism in many instances.

So I think the agreement has included serious limitations on the use of the data which reflect the European concerns.

Question: What about redress or those seeking correction of mistaken records?

Asa Hutchinson: It is important to have a remedy for mistakes that are made.

That is an important part of the whole process, whether it is a US citizen or an international individual, if there are errors in the system then they have opportunities to get those corrected.

Questions: So if or when grievances arise the US authorities will be listening?

Asa Hutchinson: Absolutely.

First of all there is a review process, that the agreement is ‘sunsetted’ after a period of time, three and half years, so it can be evaluated.  There is a joint review group that will look at this every year.

And part of the review will be how well the redress procedures are working, including the adequacy of the individual’s ability to correct inaccurate information.

Question: The accuracy of PNR is something that has been queried, the data is coming from non-government agencies; travel agents, from forms filled out over the internet, etc, is accuracy a concern at your end?

Asa Hutchinson: Well we believe that there are sufficient controls in place to make sure the information is handled properly. Accuracy is important but there are enough redress provisions and checks and balances available to make sure that if there is inaccurate information, the errors are not acted upon and they are corrected wherever possible.

Question: Europe is about to move toward its own passenger data scheme – are there any contacts between authorities here and the Department of Homeland Security on interoperability or sharing experience?

Asa Hutchinson: There is ongoing contact and dialogue. I think this certainly reflects both the European and the US view that passenger data is essential for us to make the right decisions on safety and security as well as data privacy.

We’re encouraged by that and we believe that will help us to work toward the adoption of the commission ‘adequacy’ finding.

Question: Would the US contribute technical expertise to EU efforts to move to an air passenger scheme quickly, if asked?

Asa Hutchinson: We would be happy to share best practices and to help adopt proper technical solutions to privacy issues.

Question: After last week’s EU summit focused on terrorism, do you get the impression that the Madrid tragedy has altered the tone of Trans-Atlantic contacts on this and other anti-terror issues?

Asa Hutchinson: I think it has probably accelerated the necessity of cooperation and it is a reminder that we can not do this alone.

We have been very encouraged by the appointment of a counter-terrorism coordinator for the EU and the interest in the appropriate use of passenger data for security purposes. These are very good, encouraging signs to us.

Question: Looking to the future in this field, what is the new CAPPS II timetable?

Asa Hutchinson: There is not a timetable other than we hope to test the system this summer or at the latest this fall. Our first responsibility is to test it, to evaluate it and make whatever adjustments are necessary. The CAPPS II timetable will depend on the completion of testing.

The CAPPS II negotiations with Europe are really in abeyance until we have the system tested, further discussions will be required and obviously to have the final adoption of the current PNR ‘adequacy’ finding.

Question: CAPPS II has sparked many similar fears to European concerns over PNR but within the US. How will you overcome those domestic concerns?

Asa Hutchinson: Well in many respects the same way as with Europe. To provide more information, to give assurances that there will be a redress opportunity and to make sure privacy protections are in place.

One important fact is that we have a broken system now that we want to fix. Right now we have lengthy secondary security inspections for 14 per cent of our passengers. Under CAPPS II it would be reduced to four per cent, so this would give us greater security but also greater convenience.

Question: Civil liberties concerns over similar European systems are dismissed by the EU presidency as “wholly naïve” in the contemporary world and the war on terror. Is that a fair comment?

Asa Hutchinson: The concerns are not naïve but the failure to resolve those concerns and implement a security system is perhaps naïve, but most certainly unwise.

Question: The EU’s visa waiver programme is set to end in October 2004 – biometric data on Europe’s travel documents is not expected until 2006, what is going to happen?

Asa Hutchinson: The administration has made a formal request to Congress to extend the deadline by two years from the current deadline of October 24. We are hopeful that Congress will agree to the request.

We have to utilise the time of the extension to get our international standards more defined and to move as rapidly as we can to the completion of these biometric standards.

Question: Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.  How far can security be put first and what is the limit in terms of privacy and civil liberties?

Asa Hutchinson: We should not give up essential liberty but we should be willing to give up some level of convenience in order to achieve greater security.

Question: In terms of something concrete, such as mandatory fingerprinting for biometric ID documents, is that something that is a matter of convenience?

Asa Hutchinson: That specific example is reasonable inconvenience, or intrusion, in order to tremendously enhance the security of our travellers. So I think it is a reasonable step to confirming the identity of international travellers.

• Previous article
• Next article