It is a myth that Europe is not concerned about security. Just as it is a myth that Americans do not care about civil liberties. Europeans have firsthand experience of terrorism. Across Europe, a wide range of terrorist organizations, like ETA, IRA, the Brigate Rosse, the Rote Armee Fraktion, the 17 November movement, the Moluccan liberation movement, and many others, have used violence and murder to sow fear and panic. More recently, the Madrid and London bombings, and other attacks have introduced islamist terrorism in Europe as well. Europeans are acutely aware of the importance of security. To suggest Europeans are careless about terrorism is offensive to the victims of terrorism.

But having a living memory of bloody 20th century dictatorship, Europeans also have good reasons to be wary of excessive government powers. The twentieth century brought us Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Papadopoulos, Ceaucescu, Milosevic, and many more. Many Europeans have a vivid memory of government abusing "national security" as a pretext for expanding its own powers. Just visit the archives of the Stasi in Berlin to get an idea. What you contemptuously refer to as "amorphous anxieties about privacy" is actually a legitimate and healthy attachment to checks and balances as an essential tool for protecting democracy and freedom.

By asking critical questions the European Parliament, speaking on behalf of 500 million European citizens, is not being "difficult" or "heavily influenced by privacy activists", it is actually doing its democratic duty.

In a democratic society, invasive measures like the massive and indiscriminate collection of personal data, without concrete suspicion, without a court order, should be limited to what is strictly necessary and proportional for the stated purpose, and accompanied by legal safeguards for citizens. In the past decade governments have acquired almost unlimited powers to monitor all citizens, whereas democratic oversight of those powers has been reduced dramatically.

Policies must be based on evidence, not assumptions. It is generally assumed that the mass collection of data automatically leads to greater security and the prevention of attacks. But it is not that straightforward. In most cases the problem is not lack of data, but the difficulty of managing huge quantities of (often inaccurate) data, and the persisting failure of agencies and countries to exchange information and cooperate. This has been established exhaustively by unsuspect sources, including various US government agencies.

Furthermore, although the mass collection of Passenger data is presented as a counter terrorism measure, the data are used mostly for other law enforcement purposes, such as the fight against drug trafficking. An equally valid purpose (which Europe fully shares), for which PNR data are certainly useful, but the necessity and proportionality test are not the same as for a counter terrorism measure.

The use of profiling and data mining must be limited to a minimum. Profiling on aspects like race, ethnicity or religion run counter to the very democratic principles we are defending. Nor are they a very good risk indicator. Automated decisions on the basis of profiling, without intervention of a human being, are at odds with the presumption of innocence and the principles of a fair hearing.

The European Parliament uses its new powers responsibly. Parliament recognizes the importance of personal data for law enforcement. Our demands are very precise and reasonable. For example the use of PNR data should be limited to clearly defined purposes, as required by law. We also want the storage periods to be limited to the necessary minimum, as long as necessary for the purpose, but no longer. Citizens should be entitled to legal redress in case something goes wrong. Nothing shocking, I would say. These are basic principles both in American and EU law, even if our instruments may differ on details.

We want to protect our citizens, as well as our freedom and democracy. Rather than calling into question our respective democratically elected bodies and the citizens they represent, we should make them more robust.

Cooperation between all democratic forces is indeed essential. The European Parliament has long urged for closer transatlantic cooperation. But cooperation must take place on the basis of equality and mutual trust and respect. I suggest we abandon the silly rhetoric about "soft" Europeans and American "cowboy methods", and focus on a shared agenda for defeating our common enemy.

Sophie in 't VELD