VZCZCXRO2211
PP RUEHAG
DE RUEHRO #2724/01 2701723
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 271723Z SEP 06
FM AMEMBASSY ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6080
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 0839
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID PRIORITY 1746
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1723
RUEAHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
RULSDMK/DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/TSA HQ WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ROME 002724 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USEU BRUSSELS FOR MORENSKI AND NUTTER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/27/2016 
TAGS: ASEC EAIR PTER AORC ICAO KTIA IT
SUBJECT: PASSENGER DATA SHARING VIEWS AS OLD AGREEMENT 
EXPIRES 
 
REF: STATE 132268 
 
Classified By: ECMIN T. DELARE AS PER E.O. 12958 FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AN 
D (D). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY: Italy,s privacy authority reports EU member 
state privacy authorities are working toward a new U.S.-EU 
agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) to replace the 
current one expiring September 30.  The new agreement 
reportedly will not differ in substance from the existing 
agreement.  If the new agreement is not in place October 1, 
EU member states reportedly will continue to permit the 
airlines to transmit data as they do now to the USG.   END 
SUMMARY. 
 
MEETING WITH ITALIAN DATA PROTECTION AGENCY 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Econ Counselor met September 11 with Giovanni 
Buttarelli, Secretary General of Garante per la Protezione 
dei Dati Personali (GPDP), the Italian data protection 
agency.  Econ Counselor observed that with the ongoing threat 
to trans-Atlantic and other air travel, the Government of 
Italy (GOI) surely shares USG concerns to keep civilian air 
travel safe.  In that regard, she noted that the current 
U.S.-EU agreement authorizing transfer/sharing of passenger 
name records (PNR) would expire September 30.  She asked 
Buttarelli for GPDP,s views on the likelihood of a new 
agreement being in place October 1. 
 
¶3. (C) Buttarelli said he and representatives of other EU 
data protection agencies (DPAs) had been in close contact and 
that their common goal was for an agreement to be in place 
October 1.  To meet this tight deadline, EU member states had 
decided not to renegotiate or revise the content of the 
current agreement, even though there were some aspects of it 
that member states would like to change in future 
renegotiations.  In addition, the consensus among EU privacy 
authorities was that any new PNR agreement needed to contain 
the same level of privacy guarantees (for protection of 
individual privacy data) as the current agreement. 
 
¶4.  (C) EU DPAs were also concerned about the formal legal 
modalities of the agreement.  Questions include the need for 
EU parliamentary and/or EU Court of Justice involvement, and 
the nature of the agreement as either self-executing 
(approvable on the EU Commission level, with no need to refer 
to member states), or requiring member state review. 
 
¶5.  (C) If member state review is required, Buttarelli 
clarified that in Italy the GPDP, rather than the Italian 
Parliament or Council of Ministers, would take the decision 
to approve, or not. 
 
¶6. (C) Econ Counselor welcomed Buttarelli,s pragmatic 
approach but wondered what would happen practically speaking 
on October 1, should Italy not have legal means for air 
carriers to provide PNR data to the USG.  Buttarelli avoided 
an ironclad assurance, but said the GOI would allow the 
airlines to continue data transfer to the USG, under the 
terms and conditions of the current agreement, until such 
time as a new agreement was in place. 
 
EU DISSATISFACTION WITH CURRENT AGREEMENT 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Buttarelli mentioned several times that Italy and 
other EU member states continue to be dissatisfied with the 
current U.S.-EU PNR agreement.  He cited, in particular, the 
question of proportionality and a reported addendum 
concerning the provision of medical data (regarding avian 
influenza infection) to USG authorities.  He stated that 
Italy would pursue these and other substantive points in the 
2007 review/renewal of the current agreement. 
 
DHS PNR WORKSHOP 
---------------- 
 
¶8. (U) Buttarelli also brought up DHS,s invitation to attend 
a workshop in Washington, DC on PNR, passports, and biometric 
identification November 26-28.  Embassy offered to set 
appointments for Butarelli on PNR at the margins of the 
 
ROME 00002724  002 OF 002 
 
 
workshop. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9. (C) Some EU observers consider Italy,s privacy authority 
as the intellectual center of EU privacy policy.  Buttarelli 
is well and favorably known to the Embassy for his policy 
grasp and candid assessments of EU privacy policy direction 
over the recent past.  We believe part of his good will 
derives from our awarding him an IVP grant in the 
mid-nineties, which gave him the opportunity to observe how 
the USG protects privacy data.  We suggest Washington 
agencies might also consider this approach with other 
influential member state experts, especially in the run-up to 
the 2007 review of the substance of the current U.S.-EU 
agreement.  END COMMENT. 
 
LATE NOTE 
--------- 
 
¶10. (C) Given the imminence of the September 30 expiry of the 
current U.S.-EU agreement, Emboff called Buttarelli September 
27 for an up-date.  Buttarelli, just returned from 
discussions in Brussels, expected EU consensus September 28 
on &a temporary solution until 2007.8 Depending on the 
agreement,s final form, Buttarelli &could not exclude 
confusion8 in individual member states. (One possible point 
of confusion he identified was whether the agreement would be 
self-executing, or not.)  However, he said specifically he 
did not think &there would be any blocks8 to sharing data. 
END LATE NOTE. 
SPOGLI