“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 1
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/sep/the-shape-of-things-to-come-conclusions.pdf
Statewatch
The Shape of Things to Come1
- EU Future report
“Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost
everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record. This will generate a
wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge
opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts."
(EU Council Presidency paper)
Embargoed until 00.01 hours, 11 September 2008
Tony Bunyan
Conclusions
This analysis looks at the ideology in the Future group report, Freedom, Security and
Privacy - the area of European Home Affairs, which is befitting of any emerging state
including the unquestioned adoption of the EU surveillance society and a proposed Euro-
Atlantic area of cooperation with the USA.2
The Council of the European Union's "Future Group" presented its final report at the
Justice and Home Affairs Council's July 2008 meeting. This will lead to a new justice and
home affairs programme for 2010-2014, following the "Tampere" programme (1999-2004)
and the "Hague" programme 2005-2009. The final programme will be proposed by the
European Commission, then amended and adopted by the Council. It will set out a
detailed programme for both new measures and practices for the five-year period.
The new programme, scheduled to be the "Stockholm" programme, will be adopted by
the European Council - a meeting of all the Prime Ministers from the 27 member states –
and will "set in stone" the priorities for home affairs in the EU for the following five
years.
1 With due acknowledgement to H G Wells. “The Shape of Things to Come” was written by Wells in 1933
and he wrote the screenplay for the film “Things to Come” (1936). Among other things he predicted a
“technological revolution” which would be used by the state in a highly authoritarian way. However, he
was trying to see what the world would look like in 2106 – not 2008. The full Analysis: The Shape of
Things to Come is on: http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/the-shape-of-things-to-come.pdf
2 Future group report: Freedom, Security and Privacy - the area of European Home Affairs:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jul/eu-futures-jha-report.pdf
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 2
The “convergence principle” and “state-building”3
The introduction of the “convergence principle” is another step in the building of the EU
state. This is described in the background papers for the Future group as: “the pooling of
sovereignty”. It builds on the "principle of availability" (Hague programme) of all data,
information and intelligence held all agencies across the EU to all other agencies and
outside and the "interoperability" of EU information systems must be compatible so that
all agencies can access each others data
“Convergence” means too shifting from harmonising laws at national level to
standardising training, equipment and information technology across all the law
enforcement agencies in the EU. This ensures “interoperability” and efficiency, and is
much cheaper if EU-wide standards are set and then licences are negotiated with the
multinationals. Agencies will still work at the national level but their environment will be
determined (harmonised) by EU standards and more and more roles will be undertaken at
the EU level.
“Convergence” also requires further legal harmonisation so that “obstacles” (eg: judicial
authorisation) to gathering, accessing and transferring data and intelligence are
removed.
In the Lisbon Treaty "state-building" is evident in both the creation of bodies and agencies
to act on an EU-wide basis and the creation of administrative and operational
cooperation centrally organised by the EU. “Cooperation" will cover all "criminal
offences" and embrace all agencies. This will include the establishment of measures for
the: "collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information" and
for "investigative techniques" (which means telephone-tapping, bugging, informants,
agent provocateurs etc). 4
Overseeing operational activities will be the new Standing Committee on Internal
Security (COSI) which is planned to oversee and direct all operational matters – with
national and European parliaments only to be “informed” about its activities.5
This analysis only deals with certain aspects of EU state-building, those concerning
justice and home affairs and internal security. Another aspect is the proposed European
External Action Service envisaged under the Lisbon Treaty which would turn the current
European Commission 180 plus missions around the world into EU embassies with powers
of intelligence-gathering.
Yet another example is the EU Security Research Agenda. This is described, in what
should be viewed as a complementary study to this one, in Arming Big Brother as:
3 That a European state is under construction is not a question – it is matter of whether you want to see it
or not. Most of academia cannot see it, those at the sharp end – refugees, migrants and protestors – know
it exists. In March 1991 – the same month Statewatch was launched - I wrote an article for Race & Class,
“Towards an authoritarian European state”, nothing has happened since to change my view.
4 Cementing the European state - new emphasis on internal security and operational cooperation at EU
level: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/feb/07lisbon-european-state.htm
5 The practice of “informing” parliaments is no substitute for proper accountability. In the EU this usually
means a bland annual report and an uninformed debate.
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 3
“the development of the security-industrial complex in Europe and in
particular the development of the EU Security Research Programme (ESRP).
Spawned by the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex
has developed as the traditional boundaries between external security
(military) and internal security (security services) and law enforcement
(policing) have eroded.” 6
The “digital tsunami and the EU surveillance state”
The coded language in the main Future group report hides the broader intent which is
revealed in other documents especially the one from the Portuguese Council Presidency.
The assumption is that the “digital tsunami” means:
“Every object the individual uses, every transaction they make and almost
everywhere they go will create a detailed digital record. This will generate a
wealth of information for public security organisations, and create huge
opportunities for more effective and productive public security efforts."
The implications of this statement are breath-taking.
Across the EU – following the 2004 EU Directive - governments have, or are, adopting
national laws for the mandatory retention of everyone’s communications data – all forms
of communication (phone-calls, faxes, mobile calls including locations) which will be
extended to keeping a record of all internet usage from 2009 – even though few are
aware this is happening.7 This allows law enforcement and security agencies to get access
to all traffic data – in the UK access is already automated. Access to the content should,
under national law, be authorised – though state agencies have had the technological
capability to access content for years.
When traffic data including internet usage is combined with other data held by the state
or gathered from non-state sources (tax, employment, bank details, credit card usage,
biometrics, criminal record, health record, use of e-government services, travel history
etc) a frightening detailed picture of each individual’s everyday life and habits can be
accessed at the click of a button.
The harnessing of the “digital tsunami” by public security organisations, as set out in the
Portuguese Council Presidency’s paper, means that expected behaviour can be assessed
by “machines” on the basis of which directions are given to state officials on the spot.
To this must be added the fact that state agencies can access any home or work
computer and look at its contents - and, if they can look at its content they could add
or alter it too. It was a proposal by the German government in June 2008 which
confirmed the ability of the agencies to do this, by seeking the power to authorise
online computer searches in private homes through:
“remote searches of computer hard drives”.8
6 Arming Big Brother by Ben Hayes (TNI/Statewatch):
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/bigbrother.pdf
7 Statewatch Observatory: The surveillance of telecommunications in the EU:
http://www.statewatch.org/eu-data-retention.htm
8 German government press release:
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 4
Taking these extensive powers of surveillance in the round it is not too hard to see, for
example, why lawyers, journalists and civil society groups might be concerned. The
monitoring of a lawyer’s communications and correspondence could reveal the defence’s
case and counter-evidence gathered – especially in cases which are politically sensitive. A
journalist’s contacts and communications could be watched in order to pre-empt a story
or to prepare a plausible denial in advance. While a group organising a protest could find
its preparatory work undermined and disrupted and its organisers targeted for detention
or arrest – with their demonstrations surveilled by spying “drones”.9
“Ordinary” people who “have nothing to hide” are under the illusion that this sweeping
surveillance system has nothing to do with them – which is why they will never realise
they did not get a job interview because the employer had accessed to a criminal record
based on a “spent” conviction or why their application for an insurance policy failed
because the company had access to their health record.
The European Data Protection Supervisor put it politely when he said of the police and,
by implication, all state agencies:
"It is not sufficient to start from the assumption that the police under all
circumstances and in all cases operate within the legal limits of their legal
obligations".
There is an assumption, on this and wider issues in the EU, is that if it is technologically
possible why should it not be introduced. This bring to mind the discussion in the EU over
the age at which children should be subjected to finger-printed for passports, visas or ID
cards. The discussion in the working parties of the Council of the European Union (the
governments) have been based not on moral questions but rather at what age is it
technologically possible to collect accurate fingerprints – most want this to be from six
years old and upwards, some even want to collect them at birth.10
At the heart of this issue is the “ownership” of personal data. Is it our personal data,
which we “own” and which we may consent to be used for a specific, stated purpose? Or
is it “owned” by the collector and holder of the data (internet service provider, airline,
bank or credit card companies or state agencies)? For example, the European Parliament
is currently discussing a proposal from the Commission on users’ rights relating to
electronic communications networks. The European Data Protection Supervisor has raised
the question of whether Internet Protocol addresses ("IP") are personal data as the Data
Protection Directive and the Privacy Directive apply whenever personal data are
processed but:
"If IP addresses are not deemed personal data, they can be collected and further
processed without the need to fulfil any legal obligation arising from the two
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jun/germany-surveillance-powers-proposal-prel.pdf
9 See: Policing protests in Switzerland, Italy and Germany:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/apr/02policing-protests.htm
and: Proposal to create EU-wide "troublemakers" database:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/apr/04eu-troublemakers.htm
10 Fingerprinting of children:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/aug/02eu-fingerprinting-children.htm
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 5
above mentioned Directives. For example, such an outcome would enable a
search engine to store for an indefinite period, IP addresses assigned to accounts
from which, for example, materials related to specific health conditions (eg:
AIDS) have been searched."11
It will be remembered that under the EU Directive on mandatory data retention all ISPs
are obliged, from 2009, to store records of all internet usage by everyone in Europe.
What if searches for “specific health conditions” are captured and stored by ISPs then
accessed by state agencies and further processed by them – who “owns” this data, the
individual or the state?
The security-industrial nexus
In the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001 the EU, and national governments,
adopted measures said to be necessary as “exceptional” because of the “war on
terrorism” and that they were not permanent but time limited. Seven years on the
“exceptional” has become the norm.
What is much clearer now is that 11 September 2001 was used to accelerate a process
that was already underway. Globalisation and its “technological revolution” – nurtured by
Western states and developed by multinationals – was ready to break out of the
constraints imposed by liberal democratic values. Notions of privacy and data protection
espoused as basic values stood in the way of progress. The welfare state, where a
benevolent state protected and cared for the people, has been replaced by the market
state requiring the social control of market forces, unhindered by rights and regulations.
In place of serving the people the state now serves the interests of international capital.
Moreover, the “war on terrorism” presented a massive opportunity not just to use its
monopoly of information technology but to apply it to new, highly lucrative, areas: The
surveillance of travel and communications, new systems for data-sharing, data-mining,
interpreting behaviour, the collection of biometrics and readers to check them. The
construction of EU-US standards to record, check and hold people’s travel records is
intended to set standards which will be laundered to set global standards too – and new
markets for the West’s multinationals to pursue and profit from.
EU-USA
Internationally, the prospects are little better. It is often forgotten that 21 of the 27
member states of the EU are also in NATO, which is why the majority are supplying
"peace-making" or "peace-keeping" troops in Afghanistan.
Through NATO and other fora the influence of the USA on the EU has grown enormously
since 2001. The most significant, largely unseen, influence has been through the
numerous high-level meetings between the EU and the USA on justice and home affairs
issues. All the evidence shows that this is an unequal relationship with nearly all the
demands coming from the US side.
Top EU officials are fond of saving the EU and the USA share "common values", but do we?
What they mean is that the political elites (governments and officials) share the same
values.
11 Comments by the EDPS: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/sep/ep-eprivacy-edps-opinion.pdf
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 6
Now the Future group is proposing that the EU finally "make up its mind" (ie: it has
already been discussed) by 2014 on the creation of a:
"Euro-Atlantic area of cooperation with the USA in the field of Freedom,
Security and Justice".
This goes way beyond the existing mechanisms for cooperation. Since 2001 six
agreements have been reached with the USA - all of them controversial. High-level
officials have been meeting regularly though these meetings concern specific issues not
every aspect of justice and home affairs.
The Future group's “area of cooperation” would cover all aspects of justice and home
affairs: policing and terrorism, immigration, asylum and border controls, laws and rights
of suspects, databases and data-sharing, privacy and data protection. The USA would be
sitting at the table with a very powerful voice with its demands and influence hidden
from public view.12
The politics of EU values
One of the myths that the EU seeks to perpetuate is the idea that it is based on "common
values". Amongst these are "freedom", "justice", "fundamental rights" and in this context
"privacy" (and data protection). In practice these values have changing meanings
according to the general political climate. For example, the "values" of the EU are not
the same as they were in 2000 when Austria's membership of the EU was suspended under
the Treaty because of the inclusion in its government of a fascist and racist party. If the
EU still has the same "values" then the membership of the Italian government could have
been suspended this summer over its policies of targeting, detaining and deporting on
Roma with overt racist statements.
In reality we have an EU in which national governments predominantly come from the
centre-right and far-right, 21 out of 27 governments. This, in turn, means that the
discussions in the Council of the European Union and all its working parties are dominated
by representatives (officers and officials) from the very same centre-right and far-right
perspectives.
Thus European Summit (dominated by the centre and far-right) will lay down the new
justice and home affairs programme and the Council of the European Union through the
Justice and Home Affairs Council (dominated by the centre and far-right) will, as it
always does, have the final say on the content of each and every measure.
In the European Parliament the centre-right and its far-right allies can put together the
largest parliamentary block which can only be defeated if all the other groups (PSE,
socialist, ALDE, Liberal, Green and GUE, united left) vote together – which happens
occasionally. With the European Parliament elections in June 2009 there is a possibility
that the centre-right and far-right will have a permanent majority.
EU "values" are not "shared" or "common" but those of the ruling elite who assume they
can define and propagate as a "consensus" where there is none.
12 Official EU documents recording EU-US meetings are censored so that all the views expressed by the US
are deleted: See: “Partially accessible” document:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/sep/eu-usa-partial-access-9223-06.pdf and full-text doc:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/aug/eu-usa-9223-06.pdf
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 7
Tony Bunyan: Final comment
“There is now only a slim chance that the political elites in Council of the European
Union, the European Commission, national governments, the law enforcement agencies
and the multinationals will change course – they have already invested too much to
allow a meaningful public debate to take place.
This is because they actually believe that technology, not values and morality, should
drive change. They believe they have balanced freedom and security when all with eyes
and ears to see and hear know that liberties and freedoms have been made subservient
to the demands of security.
The national and European states require unfettered powers to access and gather
masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone in order so that we can all be
safe and secure from perceived “threats”. But how are we to be safe from the state
itself, from its uses and abuses of the data they hold on us?
The outrageous proposal that the EU should tie itself in with the USA across the whole
justice and home affairs field will place our privacy and civil liberties in great danger.
If we do not have an open and meaningful debate now we never will, because by then it
will be too late.”
Tony Bunyan
September 2008
The full Analysis: The Shape of Things to Come is on:
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/the-shape-of-things-to-come.pdf
Thanks the Network for Social Change for their financial support in preparing this
publication: http://thenetworkforsocialchange.org.uk/
Tony Bunyan is a writer and journalist and has been Director of Statewatch since 1991.
He is the author of The Political Police in Britain (1977), Secrecy and openness in the EU
(1999) and has edited numerous Statewatch publications including The War on freedom
and democracy – Essays in civil liberties in Europe (2006). He has taken eight successful
complaints against the Council of the European Union to the European Ombudsman on
access to documents on behalf of Statewatch as well as two successful complaints against
the European Commission. In 2001 and 2004 he was selected by the European Voice
newspaper as one of the 50 most influential people in Europe.
Documentation
1. All the links in this pdf file are “live”, click to go to the source document.
2. All the documents (and any future documents) are available on:
Statewatch: Observatory on “The Shape of Things to Come” – the EU Future group:
http://www.statewatch.org/future-group.htm
“The shape of things to come” by Tony Bunyan: 8
Contact information
Statewatch office: 00 44 0208 802 1882
e-mail: office@statewatch.org
Postal address: Statewatch, PO Box 1516, London N16 0EW, UK
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome
links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds
an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in
the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.
Posts
