Auf Mastodon teilen

Ich weise ausdrücklich darauf hin, dass ich eine Antwort per E-Mail an diese Adresse und nicht über ein Webportal wünsche. Ich möchte Sie um eine Empfangsbestätigung bitten und danke Ihnen für Ihre Mühe! Mit freundlichen Grüßen << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> Anfragenr: 292341 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://fragdenstaat.de/a/292341/ Postanschrift << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >>

-----Original Message----- From: << Antragsteller:in >> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 12:39 PM To: REA INFO <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: ROBORDER project deliverables [#292341] Antrag nach EU-Verordnungen 1049/2001 sowie 1367/2006 Guten Tag, auf Basis der Verordnungen 1049/2001 sowie 1367/2006 bitte ich Sie um Übersendung von Dokumenten, die folgende Informationen enthalten: We would like to access the following deliverables of the ROBORDER (autonomous swarm of heterogeneous RObots for BORDER surveillance) project cf. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/740593: - D1.1 Draft of concept of operation, use cases and requirements, which “Summarises the planned concept of operations, initial use cases and user, ethical, legal and security requirements” - D8.6 Ethical Code and Updates on Data Protection, which provides “updates on the project's ethics requirements” - D9.5 DU-Requirement No. 15, which includes “details on potential dual use implications of the project and risk-mitigation strategies as well as copies ethics approvals if applicable” Ich weise ausdrücklich darauf hin, dass ich eine Antwort per E-Mail an diese Adresse und nicht über ein Webportal wünsche. Ich möchte Sie um eine Empfangsbestätigung bitten und danke Ihnen für Ihre Mühe! Mit freundlichen Grüßen

-- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag der Antragstellenden auf dem Internet-Portal veröffentlicht. Falls Sie Fragen dazu haben oder eine Idee, was für eine Anfrage bei Ihnen im Haus notwendig wäre, besuchen Sie: https://fragdenstaat.de/fuer-behoerden/

-----Original Message----- From: << Antragsteller:in >> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:46 PM To: REA ACCESS DOCUMENTS <<Name und E-Mail-Adresse>> Subject: AW: REA reply to your initial request for access to documents to the ROBORDER project deliverables - Ares(2023)8380754 [#292341] Guten Tag, and thanks for your reply. — Concerning your reply on “the protection of the public interest as regards public security”, which in your opinion does not allow for the release of deliverable D1.1, you argue that: “The exception laid down in Article 4(1) (a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 does not include the possibility for the exceptions defined therein to be set aside by an overriding public interest.” This would more specifically apply to “sensitive information about border surveillance, in particular the reference to security system requirements, operational aspects of the surveillance system, individual technological components as well as the methodology applied for the evaluation of the system performance”. While we do believe that some information can and should be withheld from public scrutiny (eg: operational aspects and sensitive information on the developed surveillance systems), we disagree with the idea that under no circumstances should the public be allowed to be informed about “the methodology applied for the evaluation of the system performance”. How can the performance of the ROBORDER system be independently evaluated and scrutinised — by the media, civil society, academia, and the larger public — when it is factually impossible to even understand the basic criteria and methods according to which it is evaluated? This has concerning consequences as to the possibility of having an informed and democratic debate around its development, and use. In fact, we would like to know whether your position effectively amounts to the idea that the media, civil society, academia, and the larger public do not have a right to know about the methods according to which the outputs of a major research and innovation project such as ROBORDER system are deemed effective/ineffective. Is it the case? Also, we would be grateful if you could explain how such public knowledge would “undermine the protection of public interest as regards the public security”. Isn’t public, independent scrutiny precisely what allows democratic societies to better prevent the development and implementation of opaque, ineffective systems? - Concerning deliverables D8.6 and D9.5. You also argue that “The documents D8.6 and D9.5 contain personal data of individuals which are not in the public domain”, and conclude that “the necessity of disclosing the personal data to you has not been established and that it cannot be assumed that such disclosure would not prejudice the legitimate rights of the concerned individuals”. Again, this exception is absolute and it “does not have to be balanced against the public interest in disclosure”. While we strongly agree that safeguarding an individual’s right to privacy is of utmost importance, including in this context, we would like to remind that we did not ask for the disclosure of personal data of any individuals. Our aim is to understand the ethics review process for the ROBORDER project. For this reason, while we don’t need to know precisely who participated in such process, we would instead like to know about the affiliations of these individuals — as we think this disclosure does not compromise their right to privacy, while at the same time providing an important element to better understand how ethics requirements (D8.6), dual use implications and risk-mitigation strategies (D9.5) have actually been assessed and tackled. All the best, << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> Anfragenr: 292341 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://fragdenstaat.de/a/292341/__;!!DOxrgLBm!GaGQsj5Xn0q2Ajue6pokKVu8X-8ck61n1pzdgUjnvcrQC7rsq20yuXNqVJNFYBXwl6w9oEUBRzuQ9Z4jc-jmxrJ4ZLLYz6HrZTOBLZwke5IHlTM$ ( https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://fragdenstaat.de/a/292341/__;!!DOxrgLBm!GaGQsj5Xn0q2Ajue6pokKVu8X-8ck61n1pzdgUjnvcrQC7rsq20yuXNqVJNFYBXwl6w9oEUBRzuQ9Z4jc-jmxrJ4ZLLYz6HrZTOBLZwke5IHlTM$ ) Postanschrift << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag

-----Original Message-----From: << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> [#292341] < ( )<<E-Mail-Adresse>> ( mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>> )> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:46 PM To: << Antragsteller:in >> Subject: AW: REA reply to your initial request for access to documents to the ROBORDER project deliverables - Ares(2023)8380754 [#292341] Guten Tag, and thanks for your reply. — Concerning your reply on “the protection of the public interest as regards public security”, which in your opinion does not allow for the release of deliverable D1.1, you argue that: “The exception laid down in Article 4(1) (a) first indent of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 does not include the possibility for the exceptions defined therein to be set aside by an overriding public interest.” This would more specifically apply to “sensitive information about border surveillance, in particular the reference to security system requirements, operational aspects of the surveillance system, individual technological components as well as the methodology applied for the evaluation of the system performance”. While we do believe that some information can and should be withheld from public scrutiny (eg: operational aspects and sensitive information on the developed surveillance systems), we disagree with the idea that under no circumstances should the public be allowed to be informed about “the methodology applied for the evaluation of the system performance”. How can the performance of the ROBORDER system be independently evaluated and scrutinised — by the media, civil society, academia, and the larger public — when it is factually impossible to even understand the basic criteria and methods according to which it is evaluated? This has concerning consequences as to the possibility of having an informed and democratic debate around its development, and use. In fact, we would like to know whether your position effectively amounts to the idea that the media, civil society, academia, and the larger public do not have a right to know about the methods according to which the outputs of a major research and innovation project such as ROBORDER system are deemed effective/ineffective. Is it the case? Also, we would be grateful if you could explain how such public knowledge would “undermine the protection of public interest as regards the public security”. Isn’t public, independent scrutiny precisely what allows democratic societies to better prevent the development and implementation of opaque, ineffective systems? - Concerning deliverables D8.6 and D9.5. You also argue that “The documents D8.6 and D9.5 contain personal data of individuals which are not in the public domain”, and conclude that “the necessity of disclosing the personal data to you has not been established and that it cannot be assumed that such disclosure would not prejudice the legitimate rights of the concerned individuals”. Again, this exception is absolute and it “does not have to be balanced against the public interest in disclosure”. While we strongly agree that safeguarding an individual’s right to privacy is of utmost importance, including in this context, we would like to remind that we did not ask for the disclosure of personal data of any individuals. Our aim is to understand the ethics review process for the ROBORDER project. For this reason, while we don’t need to know precisely who participated in such process, we would instead like to know about the affiliations of these individuals — as we think this disclosure does not compromise their right to privacy, while at the same time providing an important element to better understand how ethics requirements (D8.6), dual use implications and risk-mitigation strategies (D9.5) have actually been assessed and tackled. All the best, << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> Anfragenr: 292341 Antwort an: <<E-Mail-Adresse>> ( mailto:<<E-Mail-Adresse>> ) Laden Sie große Dateien zu dieser Anfrage hier hoch: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://fragdenstaat.de/a/292341/__;!!DOxrgLBm!GaGQsj5Xn0q2Ajue6pokKVu8X-8ck61n1pzdgUjnvcrQC7rsq20yuXNqVJNFYBXwl6w9oEUBRzuQ9Z4jc-jmxrJ4ZLLYz6HrZTOBLZwke5IHlTM$ ( https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/fragdenstaat.de/a/292341/__;!!DOxrgLBm!GaGQsj5Xn0q2Ajue6pokKVu8X-8ck61n1pzdgUjnvcrQC7rsq20yuXNqVJNFYBXwl6w9oEUBRzuQ9Z4jc-jmxrJ4ZLLYz6HrZTOBLZwke5IHlTM$ ) Postanschrift << Antragsteller:in >> << Antragsteller:in >> << Adresse entfernt >> << Adresse entfernt >> -- Rechtshinweis: Diese E-Mail wurde über den Webservice fragdenstaat.de versendet. Antworten werden ggf. im Auftrag