Activities of Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA GARCÍA CONSUEGRA related to 2010/2154(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners - Liquids (LAG) ban on aircrafts (debate)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that any counterterrorism measure should therefore be in full accordance with the fundamental rights and obligations of the European Union, which are necessary in a democratic society and must be proportionate, prescribed by law and thus delimited within the specific aim it wishes to achieveRecalls that the sole objective of any counterterrorism measure is to guarantee citizens' safety, based on criteria of proportionality and respect for fundamental rights and civil liberties;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 27 #
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that the decision to install security scanners at airports falls within the sphere of competence of the Member States, and in this context they must meet the minimum common standards and requirements set by the European Union, without prejudice to the right of the Member States to apply more stringent measures;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for every bodsecurity scanner to meet a minimum set of technical requirements before it can be placed on a permissible screening methods list; these requirements should inter alia ensure the prevention of any possible health risk, including long- term risks;, calls in this regard for any form of x-ray technology to be explicitly excluded from the permissible scomply with European and national legislation in relation to the ALARA principle, pay particular attention to groups considered vulnerable and prevening methods listt the use of imaging technology based on X-ray transmission;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Insists furthermore that body scanners should only be equipped with technology that does not enable any possibility of rendering full body images but merely standardised gender-neutral ‘stick figure’ images that are fully anonymised, and that no data processing or data storage should be possiblePoints out that protection scanners will have to be equipped with technology that guarantees protection for human dignity, privacy and intimacy, and it is desirable to use a standard figure or gender-neutral ‘stick figure’ images and for images to be destroyed immediately after screening has been carried out without incident;
Amendment 43 #
5a. Points out that the obtaining of images will have to comply with the requirements laid down in Community legislation on the protection of personal data;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out that the operating rules must ensure that the selection of people for security scanning cannot be based on criteria relating to sex, race, colour, ethnicity, genetic features, language, religion or belief;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for people who are willing to be submitted to a body scan to be fully, properly and comprehensibly informed about the body scanner, including their right to refuse to be submitted to a body scan and their right to complain and seek redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or their refusal to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security checksecurity checks by means of the protection scanner, including their right to refuse such screening;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recognises the right of passengers to complain about any irregularity that might arise from security checks carried out using both security scanners and other alternative means, in cases where passengers did not wish to submit to a security scan;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screeninguse of protection scanners as a control method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter alia the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners and the possible health risks, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and dthe possible health risks and risks relating to the degree of protection for fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data, for which purpose account must be taken of the recommendations made by the European Data pProtection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering TerrorismSupervisor, the Article 29 Working Party and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 85 #
Paragraph 10