I. Introduction

Increasingly, the threat of terrorism and other emergencies are causing sociopolitical unrest in every community throughout the world. In response to this fact governments are taking measures to secure infrastructure and more importantly citizens. In this research paper four items will be introduced and analyzed: The Council of Europe�s Convention on Cybercrime; a European Commission press release about activities in the fight against terrorism; the European Commission�s communication regarding Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP); and, the United State�s National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

A. Council of Europe�s Convention on Cybercrime, Budapest, 11.23.2001

This convention was held to establish ground rules and procedures for dealing with cybercrime. The convention proved that computers, especially their connection through the internet is for the most part unregulated and hosts a vast gray area for legal implications; therefore, many articles introduced in this convention are vague at best to cover as much ground as possible in such an unorganized environment as the internet.

Articles include the establishment of laws for handling computer data, the prohibition of child pornography, and copyright infringement controls. More importantly it goes on to emphasize transparency and collaboration between EU member states in the form of sharing investigative responsibilities and data, organizing jurisdictions, and the forming of central authorities in each member state to expedite and aid the transfer of important information regarding criminal proceedings and data for specific cybercrime concerns.

Throughout the convention, the protection of civil and human rights of EU citizens is reflected as a concern that must be realized in all anti-cybercrime activities.

B. European Commission Activities in the Fight against Terrorism, Brussels, 09.21.2005

This press release described Europe�s standing as it relates to several anti-terrorism efforts, and their respective issues, legislation, and proposed legislation. The communication included among other issues procedures for handling anti-terrorism efforts such as prevention of terrorism, finances of terrorism, information exchange throughout European states, and handling of research.

C. European Commission communication regarding Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) in the Fight against Terrorism, Brussels, 10.20.2004

Defining Critical Infrastructure (CI) as vital components necessary for stable state operation, the Commission reinforces the concerns of the two items above as well as the introduction of regulatory agencies. This communication highlights the importance of cybercrime control since a successful cyber attack could cause severe damage and chaos to CI. The emphasis on sharing and collaboration between member states is resurrected as a crucial component in curbing terrorism and terrorist actions. Also introduced are the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) and the Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN).

D. United States National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)

As the name of the plan suggests, the NIPP, like the CIP of the European Commission, has been established to protect critical infrastructures and key resources (CI/KR). The NIPP is in place to serve as guidelines for all around control and resiliency of any national emergency, natural disaster, and/or terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the fairly new central agency responsible for securing and protecting the nation�s CI/KR; nevertheless, the DHS is supported by classic government agencies such as the Department of Energy and the Department of the Treasury. The outline of the NIPP bears many similarities to the CIP plans of the European Commission.

 

II. Analysis of the Aforementioned EU Plans � Opinion & Comparison with NIPP

 

A. The Positive Factors

The EU�s plans are a result of the collaborative efforts of various nations, utilizing diverse resources, differing ideologies, and regulatory agencies. The establishment of a few central agencies and networks to control plan implementation throughout the EU is a good way to establish authority across all member states. The European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP) is a model example of one such central agency. The EPCIP will be successful in my opinion because several groups of interested parties will contribute to its funding, including non-governmental business such as telecom and energy companies (European).

Because the EU is composed of several nations with their own infrastructure in place to handle cybercrime and other criminal activities it can be a daunting task to draw up veritable jurisdictions and delegate authority. However, the EU�s cybercrime convention aims to eliminate confusion with the establishment of EU-wide cyber laws that protect human and civil rights. In late 2004, Germany was faced with a polemic when German officials disagreed as to when it would be permissible to demand customer data from businesses involved in cyberspace, creating civil right issues (German).

Data retention is another topic covered in the EU cybercrime convention where ambiguity is eliminated by the adoption of the Convention on Cybercrime. The convention�s Article 29 outlines an ideal methodology for requesting, utilizing, and disposing of data in an efficient way. In an article regarding data retention the author described some EU countries as wanting to require retention of data by companies involved in cyberspace; nevertheless, Commission authorities rejected the data retention proposals (The European Parliament).

A key strength of the EU�s plans for Critical Infrastructure Protection is the reliance on the owners of critical infrastructure. The NIPP of the U.S. also places responsibility on the owners, but takes on a lot of the burden as well, perhaps as a result of recent terrorist attacks. The U.S. is estimated to spend over $63 billion on CIP and the EU is proposing a mere $140 million. Magnus Ovilius, a senior administrator at the European Commission says that �Responsibility for managing risk will lie primarily with the owners and operators (Lipowicz).�

There are frequent reports that the protection of EU citizens is actively being pursued by the EPCIP, this is proof that the EU�s plans for fighting terrorism are working. In April the European Commission began plans to �identify ports across the European Union which are �critical� to the functioning of the European economy in order to provide them with extra protection from potential terrorist attacks (Brussels).�

B. The Negative Factors

The fact that terrorism is a daily fear for citizens of the world is enough to push for more stringent measures of protecting data, critical infrastructure, and borders � but there are limits as well. The regulations imposed by EU anti-terrorism plans cause many people to dissent on grounds of human/civil right violations. The civil rights issue causes a big clash between the U.S. NIPP and EU plans, though both target similar enemies. This quote from the New York Times is testimony to the controversy at hand:

The European Union’s highest court ruled Tuesday that the Union had overstepped its authority by agreeing to give the United States personal details about airline passengers on flights to America in an effort to fight terrorism (Clark).

Only five months after this court ruling:

European negotiators bowed to U.S. demands to let more American authorities see 34 pieces of information about passengers, including names, addresses, seat numbers and ticket-paying methods (U.S., European Union).

To mend ill relations regarding terrorism issues members of the EU and US President George Bush met in Vienna to pledge adherence to human rights (US to Vow at EU Summit).

The EU plans to counter terrorism and protect CI state that open communication and sharing of information between member states is crucial; However, it is as of late becoming apparent that several issues in EU plans and communications are not up to standards. The president of Romania, Traian Basescu stated that �Intelligence is traveling hard now and only under bilateral agreements between intelligence services of the member states (Romanian).� In addition the EU, in revision of old plans, is having talks of new plans to �retain data from telephone calls and e-mails for a minimum period of 12 months (New EU).�

III. Conclusion

While the EU and the US face the same fear that is an unforeseen terrorist attack, there are different issues for both. The EU is a combination of several nation states while the US is a cohesive unit with several states that respond to one single federal government; in addition, the US has more recent clashes with terrorists to fuel the fight against terrorism. This may be the reason for a very aggressive stance taken by the US Department of Homeland Security, its NIPP has bumped heads with the EU�s plans most notably on the civil rights issues surrounding data and information sharing.

 

Bibliography

“Brussels Ring of Steel for Terror Target Ports.” Lloyd’s List 10 Apr. 2006: 1. Lloyd’s List. 19 Oct. 2006.

Clark, Nicola, and Matthew L. Wald. “Hurdle for U.S. in Getting Data on Passengers.” The New York Times 31 May 2006, Late ed., sec. A: 1.

“European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection.” EU Center. 19 Oct. 2006 <http://www.eucenter.org/index.php?action=programs&process=detail&id=99>.

“German Data Officer Says Terrorism Doesn’t Justify Undermining Rights.” Washington Internet Daily 15 Dec. 2004. LexisNexis. George Mason University Library, Fairfax. 19 Oct. 2006.

Lipowicz, Alice. “EU to Spend Far Less for Infrastructure Protection.” Washington Technology 5 July 2005. LexisNexis. George Mason University Library, Fairfax. 19 Oct. 2006.

“New EU Anti-Terror Plan Calls for Retention of Data for 12 Months.” The Hindu 16 Oct. 2006. 19 Oct. 2006 <http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200410160312.htm>.

“Romanian President Urges EU to Establish Intelligence Community.” People’s Daily Online 19 Oct. 2006. 19 Oct. 2006 <http://english.people.com.cn/200610/19/eng20061019_313299.html>.

“The European Parliament (EP) Tues. Rejected a Proposal to Require Retention of Communications Data.” Communications Daily 9 June 2005. LexisNexis. George Mason University Library, Fairfax. 19 Oct. 2006.

“U.S., European Union Agree on Passenger Data.” Los Angeles Times 7 Oct. 2006. 19 Oct. 2006 <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-briefs7.6oct07,1,5837271.story?coll=la-headlines-business>.

“US to Vow At EU Summit to Respect Rights in Anti-Terror Fight.” Agence France Presse 21 June 2006. LexisNexis. George Mason Library, Fairfax. 19 Oct. 2006.

 

Download this report in PDF format