Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10RIGA85
2010-02-18 10:37:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Riga
Cable title:
GOL SPLIT ON SUPPORT FOR DATA PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH US
how-toVZCZCXRO6574 RR RUEHAG RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR DE RUEHRA #0085 0491037 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 181037Z FEB 10 FM AMEMBASSY RIGA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0003 INFO EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC RHMFISS/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
C O N F I D E N T I A L RIGA 000085
SIPDIS
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL LEIPZIG
AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/18
TAGS: PREL PTER KTFN LG
SUBJECT: GOL SPLIT ON SUPPORT FOR DATA PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH US
REF: STATE 8403; RIGA 66
CLASSIFIED BY: Brian Phipps, POL/ECON Counselor; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)
C O N F I D E N T I A L RIGA 000085
SIPDIS
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL LEIPZIG
AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/18
TAGS: PREL PTER KTFN LG
SUBJECT: GOL SPLIT ON SUPPORT FOR DATA PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH US
REF: STATE 8403; RIGA 66
CLASSIFIED BY: Brian Phipps, POL/ECON Counselor; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)
1. (U) Summary: The Ministry of Interior (MOI),which is
responsible for law enforcement, enthusiastically supports an
over-arching agreement resolving the data privacy issues between
the US and the EU in order to facilitate smooth information
sharing. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the State Data
Inspectorate (SDI) are skeptical of US data protection laws and
non-committal about seeking an over-arching agreement. The MOJ has
the lead on internal EU negotiations regarding this issue for the
GOL. GOL concerns with US data protection laws mirror the concerns
in other EU countries. End Summary
2. (C) We delivered reftel A demarche to Tija Rinmane, the
MOI's Director of European Affairs and International Cooperation,
Kristine Pommere, Director of the MOJ's European Affairs
Coordination Department, and Aiga Balode, Deputy Director of the
SDI. We also discussed the issue with several Latvian members of
the European Parliament in advance of the vote on the Terrorist
Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) (Reftel B). All of the above
contacts and the members of the Latvian Parliament's European
Affairs Committee (listed on this website
http://www.saeima.lv/Elkom/par_mums_struktura .html) are appropriate
contacts on this issue in the future. We also contacted the MFA
regarding this demarche, but they referred us to the MOJ as the
competent Ministry.
3. (SBU) The MOI completely supports working through data
protection issues and continuing the exchange of terrorism and law
enforcement information between the US and the EU. Rinmane said
that the MOI will express support "at every level" for an
over-arching agreement on data protection generally and for the
TFTP and the Passenger Name Record agreements specifically. She
said that the MOI is looking for appropriate ways to express its
support to members of both the Latvian and European parliaments.
Rinmane acknowledged that many in the GOL and the Latvian public do
not trust US data protection laws, but she said that those concerns
stem from misunderstandings.
4. (SBU) The MOJ is more skeptical of US data protection law.
Pommere refused to commit to supporting an over-arching agreement
on data protection issues. The MOJ will take the lead for the GOL
during EU discussions about this issue. Pommere deflected
questions about Latvia's position on this issue and repeated
multiple times that Latvia will follow the EU consensus and closely
examine any proposals that develop during internal EU discussions
or during discussions with the US. She said that the European
Commission will seek a mandate to negotiate a data privacy
protection agreement with the US in February. She supported
granting the mandate and believed it will be granted soon.
5. (U) The SDI, the GOL's lead data privacy agency, is not
confident that US data privacy protection laws are adequate.
Balode said that the GOL's concerns mirror those of other EU member
states. She specifically listed the Privacy Act's allegedly weak
protection of foreigners' personal information, the absence of a
single US agency responsible for data privacy, and concerns about
how personal data is shared between different US agencies as some
of Latvia's concerns.
6. (U) Comment: Kelly Busby, BusbyKH@State.gov, has the lead
on this issue for Embassy Riga.
GARBER
SIPDIS
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF
AMEMBASSY BERLIN PASS TO AMCONSUL LEIPZIG
AMEMBASSY ATHENS PASS TO AMCONSUL THESSALONIKI
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/18
TAGS: PREL PTER KTFN LG
SUBJECT: GOL SPLIT ON SUPPORT FOR DATA PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH US
REF: STATE 8403; RIGA 66
CLASSIFIED BY: Brian Phipps, POL/ECON Counselor; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)
1. (U) Summary: The Ministry of Interior (MOI),which is
responsible for law enforcement, enthusiastically supports an
over-arching agreement resolving the data privacy issues between
the US and the EU in order to facilitate smooth information
sharing. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the State Data
Inspectorate (SDI) are skeptical of US data protection laws and
non-committal about seeking an over-arching agreement. The MOJ has
the lead on internal EU negotiations regarding this issue for the
GOL. GOL concerns with US data protection laws mirror the concerns
in other EU countries. End Summary
2. (C) We delivered reftel A demarche to Tija Rinmane, the
MOI's Director of European Affairs and International Cooperation,
Kristine Pommere, Director of the MOJ's European Affairs
Coordination Department, and Aiga Balode, Deputy Director of the
SDI. We also discussed the issue with several Latvian members of
the European Parliament in advance of the vote on the Terrorist
Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) (Reftel B). All of the above
contacts and the members of the Latvian Parliament's European
Affairs Committee (listed on this website
http://www.saeima.lv/Elkom/par_mums_struktura .html) are appropriate
contacts on this issue in the future. We also contacted the MFA
regarding this demarche, but they referred us to the MOJ as the
competent Ministry.
3. (SBU) The MOI completely supports working through data
protection issues and continuing the exchange of terrorism and law
enforcement information between the US and the EU. Rinmane said
that the MOI will express support "at every level" for an
over-arching agreement on data protection generally and for the
TFTP and the Passenger Name Record agreements specifically. She
said that the MOI is looking for appropriate ways to express its
support to members of both the Latvian and European parliaments.
Rinmane acknowledged that many in the GOL and the Latvian public do
not trust US data protection laws, but she said that those concerns
stem from misunderstandings.
4. (SBU) The MOJ is more skeptical of US data protection law.
Pommere refused to commit to supporting an over-arching agreement
on data protection issues. The MOJ will take the lead for the GOL
during EU discussions about this issue. Pommere deflected
questions about Latvia's position on this issue and repeated
multiple times that Latvia will follow the EU consensus and closely
examine any proposals that develop during internal EU discussions
or during discussions with the US. She said that the European
Commission will seek a mandate to negotiate a data privacy
protection agreement with the US in February. She supported
granting the mandate and believed it will be granted soon.
5. (U) The SDI, the GOL's lead data privacy agency, is not
confident that US data privacy protection laws are adequate.
Balode said that the GOL's concerns mirror those of other EU member
states. She specifically listed the Privacy Act's allegedly weak
protection of foreigners' personal information, the absence of a
single US agency responsible for data privacy, and concerns about
how personal data is shared between different US agencies as some
of Latvia's concerns.
6. (U) Comment: Kelly Busby, BusbyKH@State.gov, has the lead
on this issue for Embassy Riga.
GARBER