Parliament is unhappy confusion provenance metadata




The opposition in the House wants to know why there was so much uncertainty surrounding the origin of the 1.8 million metadata records. “It’s not a bar,” said D66 MP Gerard Schouw against Plasterk. Only last week it was announced that the Netherlands was himself behind the data collection.

Plasterk The MPs expressed their dissatisfaction in a debate in the House on Tuesday that would last until late into the night. “Why is this failure so deeply covered up the lie of the Minister to state secret reason?” Asked MP Ronald van Raak of the SP himself.

Until last week, the message of the government was that not the Dutch, but foreign intelligence services were behind the collection of 1.8 million metadata. Only when there is a lawsuit filed against Plasterk, the government gave clarity. “Without this lawsuit had remained hidden forever,” said Van Raak. MPs annoyed especially that the Norwegian government, which also occurred in Snowden-disclosures, or directly brought out that it had collected the data itself and had shared with the NSA.

D66 MP Gerard Schouw wonders whether the Lower House ‘is adequately informed. ” “It correctly informing the parliament is the engine of our democracy,” says Schouw. The government knew the origin, the end of November but the origin of the data then decided not to put out, because it would involve “state secrets”. Until that time, the government even suggested that the metadata collected by the NSA; turned out that an incorrect assumption. “Taking a gamble information should not be,” said Schouw. “It’s not a cafe ‘.”

According PVV MP Martin Bosma Plasterk suffers from vanity. “It’s pretty easy to bash America, but that’s more for banana republics,” said Bosma. That information only came out when there was a lawsuit filed, Bosma calls “weird.” CDA MP Madeleine Toorenburg agrees: “It’s obviously good to accuse an ally and then keep secret that you yourself,” Van Toorenburg. “How was that received criticism in the United States? Does the minister apologized?”

The Labour Party, the party which Plasterk is derived, ruled as hard, but states that the minister should not have to present. Hypotheses as facts “The minister should not have to present what was not a fact as a fact,” said Labour MP Jeroen Recourt. That Labour Plasterk not severe condemnation, Recourt came to be. Lot of criticism His colleague Klaas Dijkhoff coalition partner VVD think the minister should have been with his statements. ‘Cautious’ Rather, he saw that the collection of metadata had come all. Anything out

The Christian Union responds critically. “When the minister did not know what it was, he said, and then he knew what it was, he was silent,” said parliamentarian Gert-Jan Segers. Green Party faction Bram Ojik hopes not only a debate about the position of Plasterk, but also about the intelligence itself. “Does the end justify the means it?” Asked Van Ojik himself. “It would be good if the House as soon as a debate on leads,” Van Ojik.

In October reported that the NSA Tweakers in December 2012 and January 2013 in a month metadata of 1.8 million telephone calls intercepted in the Netherlands. Last week, the Cabinet yet to bring out the origin, the lawsuit against Plasterk was the immediate reason for it. The plaintiffs in the case, including journalists, activists and lawyers want the government is prevented to use as they are not legally obtained. Dates of foreign intelligence In addition, the 1.8 million metadata records were used as examples.

The government was afraid that the court finds that there are indeed restrictions should be on the use of data from foreign intelligence services. To avoid that the origin of the data are made public yet, Plasterk said Monday.

The 1.8 million metadata records relate to satellite telephony, showed off a letter to the House today. It comes with the 1.8 million records mainly talks, but also to a limited number of text messages and faxjes. These are ‘1 .8 million different moments of communication ‘, which were one or both of the two interlocutors abroad. They are collected and shared ‘in the context of counter-terrorism and military operations abroad. ”


In: Technology & Gadgets Asked By: [15564 Red Star Level]

Answer this Question

You must be Logged In to post an Answer.

Not a member yet? Sign Up Now »