Cable Viewer

The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.

To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #10RIGA85.

Reference ID	Created	Released	Classification	Origin
10RIGA85	2010-02-18 10:37	2011-08-30 01:44	CONFIDENTIAL	Embassy Riga

VZCZCXRO6574
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) 
 
¶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

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

Browse by tag

Browse by classification

Community resources

Viewing cable 10RIGA85, GOL SPLIT ON SUPPORT FOR DATA PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH US