Suchergebnisse

When it comes to anticipating terrorism, do recent technological advancements fundamentally change the modus operandi of intelligence services? Recent scholarship has focused on the new modes of reasoning brought about by 'hi-tech' forms analysis such as data mining, graph visualization and the algorithmic treatment of big data. While this article recognizes the increasing influence of these techniques, it argues they should not overshadow much more low-tech modalities through which a large part of counterterrorism work takes place. Low-tech counter-terrorism, based on qualitative methods and conjectural reasoning, still matters. Drawing on the case of French domestic intelligence services and based on qualitative interviews, observations and declassified documents, this article shows that the practices of security professionals, rooted in traditional institutional habituses developed over time, are largely in continuity with previous 'low-tech' forms of police work. In a context in which the uses of digital security technologies have generated discussions about politics and ethics, this article suggests that traditional techniques of intelligence gathering and processing therefore still merit a great amount of attention.

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillanceprogrammes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillancepractices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France,Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillancepractices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligencegathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillanceprogrammes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between dataprotection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collectivefreedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member statesselected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scaleinterception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels anddiscrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. Thestudy argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside therealm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i)an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law frameworkwhere fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute keystandards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as awhole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potentialspillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The study thenpresents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

In the wake of the disclosures surrounding PRISM and other US surveillanceprogrammes, this study makes an assessment of the large-scale surveillancepractices by a selection of EU member states: the UK, Sweden, France,Germany and the Netherlands. Given the large-scale nature of surveillancepractices at stake, which represent a reconfiguration of traditional intelligencegathering, the study contends that an analysis of European surveillanceprogrammes cannot be reduced to a question of balance between dataprotection versus national security, but has to be framed in terms of collectivefreedoms and democracy. It finds that four of the five EU member statesselected for in-depth examination are engaging in some form of large-scaleinterception and surveillance of communication data, and identifies parallels anddiscrepancies between these programmes and the NSA-run operations. Thestudy argues that these surveillance programmes do not stand outside therealm of EU intervention but can be engaged from an EU law perspective via (i)an understanding of national security in a democratic rule of law frameworkwhere fundamental human rights standards and judicial oversight constitute keystandards; (ii) the risks presented to the internal security of the Union as awhole as well as the privacy of EU citizens as data owners, and (iii) the potentialspillover into the activities and responsibilities of EU agencies. The study thenpresents a set of policy recommendations to the European Parliament.

This paper examines the EU's counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a re-think of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU's counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating 'what has worked' and 'what has not' when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. 'More data' without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by re-directing EU agencies' competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of 'evidence' in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU's founding constitutional principles, such as the free movement of persons and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all.

This paper examines the EU's counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a re-think of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU's counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating 'what has worked' and 'what has not' when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. 'More data' without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by re-directing EU agencies' competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of 'evidence' in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU's founding constitutional principles, such as the free movement of persons and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all.

This paper examines the EU's counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a re-think of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU's counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating 'what has worked' and 'what has not' when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. 'More data' without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by re-directing EU agencies' competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of 'evidence' in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU's founding constitutional principles, such as the free movement of persons and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all.