VZCZCXRO0040
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHSM #0408/01 1890555
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 080555Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4476
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEAWJB/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 STOCKHOLM 000408 
 
STATE FOR EUR/NB, EUR/ERA, EUR/PGI, S/CT 
DHS FOR MCALLAHAN 
JUSTICE FOR NLIBIN 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KJUS EUN PGOV PREL KCRM SW
SUBJECT: Swedes Propose Seminar to Break HLCG Redress Roadblock 
 
Ref: Berlin 0523 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary.  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chief 
Privacy Officer (CPO) Mary Ellen Callahan met with her counterparts 
at the Swedish Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to discuss how to make 
progress on the final issue relating to the High Level Contact 
Group's agreement on the principles for U.S.-EU transatlantic data 
privacy standards for law enforcement and national security.  As a 
solution, Sweden proposed a seminar to discuss how U.S. privacy and 
freedom of information laws already provide key legal protections to 
non-U.S. citizens.  Callahan also visited a new Swedish data privacy 
protection commission to see their privacy oversight model.  End 
Summary. 
 
------------ 
Swedish Propose Comparative Privacy Law Seminar 
------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Swedish MOJ officials invited CPO Callahan to Stockholm to 
discuss ways to break a stalemate in ongoing discussions of the High 
Level Contact Group (HLCG) and its efforts to agree to data privacy 
principles in the law enforcement and national security context 
between the EU and the United States.  To date, the HLCG has agreed 
to a series of non-binding but guiding data privacy principles for 
the implementation of any information sharing agreement.  The 
remaining issue is whether or not European citizens would have 
redress in U.S. courts for potential violations of the use of their 
personal information.  CPO Callahan and Shannon Ballard (Director 
for International Privacy Policy) met with a small group of Swedish 
MOJ officials, including Lars Werkstrom (Director General for 
International Affairs), Dr. Anna-Carin Svensson (Director, 
International Section, Division for Police Issues), Tora Wigstrand 
(Director, Division for EU Affairs), Julia Mikaelsson (Deputy 
Director, Division for Police Issues), and Annika Waller (Deputy 
Director, Police Legislation, Division for Police Issues). 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Continuing her effort to correct misconceptions among some 
EU counterparts regarding U.S. privacy law (reftel), CPO Callahan 
refuted the long-standing myth that non-U.S. citizens have no 
redress in U.S. courts, which she lamented as a show of bluster by 
some European interlocutors.  She first noted that two laws guide 
the use of personal information: the Privacy Act and the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA).  The Privacy Act relates to the use of 
personal data by federal entities and provides statutory privacy 
rights to U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs), but 
does not cover visitors or aliens.  As such, non-U.S. persons lack 
"standing" in American courts to sue for perceived violations of the 
Privacy Act.  In contrast, the FOIA relates to the access to and 
processing of records including those with personal information and 
does permit non-U.S. persons to sue in court.  Callahan explained 
that the vast majority of personal information held by the USG on 
non-U.S. citizens consists of DHS traveler data.  She explained that 
DHS assumes that U.S. and non-U.S. citizen personal data sources are 
intermingled (i.e., "mixed systems").  DHS policy regarding privacy 
protections afforded to non-U.S. persons for information collected, 
used, retained, and/or disseminated by DHS in these "mixed systems" 
is the same as with U.S. citizens. All individuals, regardless of 
nationality, are given the same protections of both the Privacy Act 
and FOIA at the agency level.  In practice, she emphasized, the 
protections offered to U.S. and non-U.S. citizens are virtually the 
same. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Expressing sincere appreciation for Callahan's analysis, 
the Swedish MOJ representatives suggested the general idea of a 
seminar or workshop on comparative EU-U.S. privacy law to help move 
the discussion on redress to a conclusion.  They maintained that a 
public discussion would help educate the appropriate representatives 
of the EU Member States and lead to a focused discussion on the 
redress issue.  Callahan noted that the idea sounded promising, but 
stressed the need for some concrete outcome from the workshop and 
indicated the importance of EU Member State ministerial 
participation to force the participation of the relevant national 
stakeholders as well as cooperation of the Data Protection 
Authorities of EU Member States.  Callahan promised to review the 
idea and respond to the Swedes shortly.  (Comment: The redress issue 
will be a top priority for next week's July 9-10 EU-U.S. Informal 
Justice and Home Affairs Senior Level Meeting in Stockholm. Callahan 
briefed the U.S. delegation to the JHA and supported the workshop 
with certain conditions.  End Comment.) 
 
------------ 
SIN Responsible for Integrity 
------------ 
 
STOCKHOLM 00000408  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
¶5.  (SBU) CPO Callahan also visited the Swedish Commission on 
Security and Integrity Protection (known at SIN in Swedish), which 
was formed in January 2008 to provide better oversight of the use of 
personal data by law enforcement officials, including the use of 
secret surveillance.  SIN was established in response to a 2006 
ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that criticized Sweden 
for not providing a remedy for abuses of secret surveillance which 
was found to be inconsistent with that court's understanding of the 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms.  The Commission consists of a committee of 
political appointees from the leading political parties and a 
professionally staffed Chancery which handles the daily operations 
of the Commission.  The Chair of SIN, Dr. Anders Eriksson, explained 
the Commission's ability to investigate how law enforcement agencies 
use personal information in operations.  The Commission can begin an 
investigation on its own initiative or respond to a complaint from 
the public.  Dr. Eriksson noted that in the case of data obtained 
from foreign sources, the Commission focuses only on how the Swedish 
law enforcement personnel use the information.  Dr. Eriksson noted 
the possibility that SIN would receive additional oversight 
authority over other controversial privacy issues. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) CPO Callahan noted that the DHS Privacy Office handles 
many of the same oversight functions at the agency level and 
expressed her appreciation at the opportunity to learn more about 
SIN's operations.  She suggested that a professional staff member 
from the Commission might be an appropriate candidate for an 
exchange visit to DHS Privacy. 
 
KIRKCONNELL