Privacy fears surround prospect of Canada-EU passenger data share

The fight against terrorism has now seen Canada and the EU agree to share data of airline passengers flying between Canada and the EU. However, this move is being challenged in an EU court on the grounds of breaches in passenger privacy.
The intention to share passenger name records (PNRs) has seen the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union witness six hours of debate both for and against the agreement. According to D. Fennelly, a lawyer representing Ireland “we… know that these crimes do not respect borders. The European Union cannot and should not act in splendid isolation.”
Ireland, France, Britain, Spain and Estonia made their position clear by stating that PNRs do not allow investigators to create a detailed picture of a passenger’s private life. Privacy advocates and the European Parliament have taken a different view on the matter, casting doubt over the claim.
Anna Buchta, acting as an agent for the European Data Protection Supervisor, made their position clear: “Practically all of the PNR data transferred by air carriers is systematically analyzed in order to make assumptions about who is or who is not a dangerous traveller,” while government lawyers made it clear that it was not possible for investigators to establish in advance which PNR data may prove useful.
In referring to a stalled proposal to share passenger data among EU security services, Dominique Maidani, a lawyer for the European Commission, stated that “If an agreement such as the envisaged agreement, which respects fundamental rights, is unable to be concluded, it will have a major impact on the conclusion of other agreements with other countries, including the European PNR.”
The lead judge in the proceedings, Thomas von Danwitz, was not convinced of the level of security safeguards to protect the data that would be put in place. “No one tells me that these data are transferred to Canada and no one tells me why they are transferred to Canada,” he said.
An adviser to the court is expected to produce a non-binding opinion by June, with a final ruling from the court to follow later in 2016.