GERMAN OFFICIALS DISCUSS EU DATA PROTECTION AND

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BERLIN 000060

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/10/2017
TAGS: KHLS KJUS PTER PGOV EAIRGM EU GM
SUBJECT: GERMAN OFFICIALS DISCUSS EU DATA PROTECTION AND
DATA RETENTION INITIATIVES

REF: A. 06 BRUSSELS 3381


B. 06 STATE 184417

Classified By: Minister-Counselor for Economic Affairs Robert F. Cekuta
for Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary. German Ministry of Interior (MOI) DG for
Police and Counterterrorism Gunther Krause told a
DHS-DoJ-USEU delegation the EU draft framework decision on
sharing police and judicial information is unsatisfactory;
Germany plans to re-write it during its 2007 EU Presidency.
Concerning the German implementation of the EU Directive on
Data Retention, Krause and Justice Ministry (MOJ) Deputy DG
for Criminal Law Michael Grotz were more circumspect. The
two appeared to differ on what Germany's stance should be,
with MOI preferring longer retention, MOJ less. This was one
of several instances when Krause and Grotz left the
impression that the German MOJ and MOI did not fully concur
on what the German position with respect to these issues
should be. End Summary.


2. (SBU) U.S. delegation
DHS Acting Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Paul
Rosenzweig
DOJ Deputy Attorney General's Office Chief Privacy and Civil
Rights Officer Jane Horvath
DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz
USEU Senior Counselor Mark Richard
Embassy Global Affairs Officer (notetaker)

German delegation
Ministry of Interior (MOI) DG for Police and Counterterrorism
Gunther Krause
Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Deputy DG for Criminal Law Michael
Grotz
MOI Deputy DG for Police Affairs Hans-Juergen Foerster
MOI Attorney, Office of Aviation Security Holger Sperlich
MOI Staff Member, Office of Police Information Systems
Iris-Maria Marre

Draft Framework Decision on Law Enforcement Info Sharing
-------------- --------------


3. (C) Following up on refs A and B and to express U.S.
concerns about these EU proposals, Senior Counselor Richard
outlined U.S. views. Krause responded EU member states had
already placed 250 reservations in the text -- soon there
might be more. "We're on the wrong path," Krause said but
added "We have the same concerns as you." The 2007 German EU
Presidency would likely draft a new framework decision, he
stated. (Note: USEU learned that the idea to scrap the
current draft and begin anew originated with the Office of
Jonathan Faull, the Commission's DG for Justice, Freedom, and
Security. The UK Mission to the EU told USEU that
notwithstanding the 250 objections, the Committee would
likely continue working off the previous text. End Note.)
There were enough data protection control bodies already,
Krause continued; there were German federal and state level
laws regarding law enforcement and data privacy -- "Was more
regulation really needed at the EU level?" Krause asked. A
third pillar framework decision is needed, he said, but not
one that meddles in the domestic affairs of member states.


4. (C) Krause continued some Germans see the U.S as a data
privacy "no man's land." Horvath provided an outline of U.S.
data privacy law and described how important the issue is for
the U.S. as well. Krause retreated somewhat and elaborated
that it was "nonsense" that U.S. data privacy standards were
accepted in the context of the U.S.-EUROPOL and U.S.-EUROJUST
agreements, but not in other contexts.
No one in the EU, Krause said, opposed law enforcement data
exchange with the U.S. Krause called "imperialism" the
notion that EU data privacy officials would audit U.S. data
privacy provisions. At the same time, however, Krause
stressed some data protection provisions are needed in the
framework decision for it to be acceptable to the Bundestag,
other EU member states, and the European Parliament.

EU Directive on Data Retention
--------------


5. (C) Krause and Grotz spent less time discussing German
implementation plans for the EU Data Retention Directive.
They pointed out the lack of a comparable U.S. regulation.
Judging from how the two officials spoke, the U.S. delegation
concluded that the German government had not yet agreed on
its position, with the MOI seeing more value in longer
retention periods and the MOJ more concerned about data
privacy and preferring shorter data retention. Krause
indicted Germany might settle on a six month retention period.


6. (U) This cable was cleared by the delegation subsequent to
their return to Washington/Brussels.
TIMKEN JR