VZCZCXRO3334
OO RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV
DE RUEHC #3088/01 3381723
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 041704Z DEC 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS IMMEDIATE
INFO EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 STATE 163088 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER EUN
SUBJECT: MEETING OF U.S.-EU SENIOR OFFICIALS ON DATA 
PROTECTION PRINCIPLES 
 
Summary: On November 2 the USG hosted senior officials from 
the European Commission, Council Secretariat, the EU 
Counterterrorism Coordinator, and the Portuguese and 
Slovenian Presidencies for the second meeting of the High 
Level Contact Group Principals to discuss a long term 
solution to the growing privacy debates between the EU and 
the U.S.  Broad agreement to press for a swift completion of 
the catalogue of common principles, preferably by the end of 
the year, was reached.  EU Representatives also made 
welcoming overtures about seeking a formal negotiating 
mandate in the near future, representing a significant step 
forward from previous conversations.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  On November 2, DHS A/S for Policy Stewart Baker, Amb. 
Boyden Gray, State INL DAS Liz Verville, DOJ AAGs Fisher and 
Wainstein chaired a High Level Contact Group (HLCG) 
Principals meeting with EU officials in Washington. 
Principals discussed the purpose and way forward for the 
group,s discussion of data privacy principles. A/S Baker 
framed the meeting around 1) the timing of the agreement, 2) 
the benefits the agreement will extend to either side, and 3) 
the procedures to be taken following the conclusion of the 
agreement in instances where data privacy issues arise. 
 
¶3.  A/S Baker expressed his desire that the work of the HLCG 
should head off future disputes like those preceding the 
U.S.-EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement, and expressed 
his conviction that such disputes had long term deleterious 
effects on the transatlantic relationship. Agreement on HLCG 
principles would eliminate these drawn out debates, and 
instead would enable discussions to focus on whether HLCG 
principles were respected.  Justice, Freedom, and Security 
Director General Jonathan Faull agreed that the HLCG should 
&be as ambitious as possible8 in its work, and that the 
group should finalize its work as quickly as possible. 
 
¶4.  Faull mentioned that he would have some difficulties 
convincing Europeans that HLCG principles would be fair, 
given that the U.S. Privacy Act only applies to U.S. 
citizens. He understood that in practice many protections are 
conferred on non-U.S. citizens, but emphasized that any 
efforts the U.S. can undertake to reassure Europe that U.S. 
privacy laws, policies, and regulations will be applied to 
European citizens would be positive.  A/S Baker noted 
operational difficulties in making blanket statements but did 
not dismiss emphasizing this point when practical.  DAS 
Rosenzweig asked whether the difficulties Principals 
enumerated were problems of  messaging., Principals 
affirmed that the equivalent application of the principles to 
U.S. and EU citizens alike would send a strong message. 
 
¶5.  Faull noted his desire to show &very, very substantial 
progress8 by the end of the year.  Principals agreed that 
the soft deadline for the group's work was the end of 2007. 
 
¶6.  Commission and Council officials headed off U.S. concerns 
that political agreement on the EU Data Protection Framework 
Decision by the end of 2007 would negatively affect the 
conclusion of favorable HLCG principles. DG Faull explained 
that the conclusion of HLCG principles with the United States 
should be &highly persuasive8 to Member States as they make 
their adequacy determinations of the U.S., giving 
&considerable effect to the principles.8 DG Faull also 
noted that a &common approach8 among member states to the 
adequacy requirements of Article 14 of the Framework was a 
possibility.  He emphasized that the Framework Decision would 
only apply to indirect data transfers, when Member State A 
would transfer to the United States data from Member State B. 
 Faull cautioned, however, that the principles are general 
and don't dispose of specific concerns, such as retention 
periods. 
¶7.  The Commission and Council Secretariat agreed that the 
Portuguese Presidency,s announcement of agreement on the 
Framework Decision should also include statements noting the 
significant amount of progress achieved on HLCG principles 
and that the Framework Decision would not interrupt ongoing 
data exchanges. They also emphasized that the expected 
&agreement in principle8 on the text of the Framework 
Decision by the end of the year did not mean the HLCG needed 
to conclude its work by the end of the year to take advantage 
of the grandfather clause because it could take up to two 
years for Member States to adopt domestic legislation 
implementing the EU Framework Decision. (NOTE: The EU 
achieved agreement in principle on November 8 at the Justice 
 
STATE 00163088  002 OF 002 
 
 
and Home Affairs Council meeting.) 
 
¶8.  A/S Baker inquired about the agreement,s benefit for the 
U.S. and EU, e.g., for assuring private entities were not 
punished for transferring data according to legal 
requirements, and how conflicts would be resolved. Faull 
responded that EU expert level discussions on these topics 
had not yet taken place. Faull also insisted that current 
conditions prevented any binding outcome because the 
Commission did not currently operate under a mandate to 
negotiate an international agreement. However, Faull noted 
his willingness to seek a mandate for a binding agreement, 
should there be consensus that one was needed. A/S Baker 
affirmed the group needed to explore its options, and that he 
was not necessarily in favor of a binding agreement. 
 
¶9.  DG Faull noted the Canadian government,s interest in a 
similar set of principles, and opined that the work of the 
HLCG could establish a model that other countries could 
follow. A/S Baker responded positively to this news. 
 
¶10.  The Principals agreed to continue expert level 
discussions, with a goal of reaching agreement on principles 
by the end of 2007. 
 
¶11.  Principal attendees included: 
United States: 
USEU Ambassador C. Boyden Gray 
DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker 
DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Paul Rosenzweig 
DHS Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Marisa Lino 
DHS Chief Privacy Officer Hugo Teufel 
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher 
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Ken Wainstein 
DOJ Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer Ken 
Mortensen 
DOS Deputy Assistant Secretary, INL Liz Verville 
 
European Union 
European Commission, Justice, Freedom and Security DG 
Jonathan Faull 
EU Counterterrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove 
European Commission, Head of Sector Cecilia Verkleij 
Portuguese Border Service, Assistant Director General, 
Francisco Marques Alves 
Portuguese Ministry of Justice, Director, Bureau for 
International Relations, Miguel RomFo 
Embassy of Slovenia, Consul, Jean-Pierre Vonarb 
RICE