The opposition in the Second Room wants to know why there is so much uncertainty around the origin of the 1.8 million metadata records. “This isn’t a café lwa”, said D66 Mp Gerard Schouw against Plasterk. Only last week it was announced that the Netherlands itself behind the data collection was.
The Second Mps expressed their dissatisfaction in a debate in the house on Tuesday, that until deep in the night would last. “Why is this failure so deep in the cover up stopped that the lie of the minister to state is declared?”, asked Member of parliament Ronald van Raak of the SP.
Until last week, was the message of the cabinet is that not the Dutch, but the foreign intelligence behind the collection of 1,8 million metadata were. Only when there is a lawsuit against Plasterk served, gave the cabinet clarity. “Without the lawsuit, this was for always remained hidden,” says Van Raak. Second Mps were irritated mainly because the Norwegian government, which is also in Snowden-revelations occurred, be immediately brought out that they are the data itself had been collected and was shared with the NSA.
D66 Member of parliament Gerard Schouw, wonders whether the Second Room or ‘adequately informed’. “Correctly informing of the parliament is the engine room of our democracy,” says Schouw. The government knew at the end of november all of the origin, but decided the origin of the data and when not to bring out, because it would go to ‘state secrets’. Until that time, suggested to the government that the metadata by the NSA were collected; afterwards it appeared that an incorrect hypothesis. “A informatiegokje take should not,” said Scow. “This isn’t a café.”
According to PVV Mp Martin Bosma are suffering Plasterk to vanity. “It is easy for America to bc, but that is more something for bananenrepublieken,” said Bosma. That information only came out when there was a lawsuit filed, called Bosma ‘weird’. CDA Mp Madeleine van Toorenburg agrees: “It is apparently great to be an ally to accuse and then to keep it a secret that you are,” said Van Toorenburg. “How is criticism received in the United States? Has the minister apologize?”
The Labour party, the party where the Balls come from is considered less harsh, but also proposes that the minister hypotheses, not as facts had to be present. “The minister had not as a fact need to present what is not a fact”, says PvdA Mp Jeroen Recourt. That the Labour party Balls are not more restrictive condemns, came Recourt on a lot of criticism. His colleague Klaas Dijkhoff of coalition partner, the VVD thinks that Plasterk ‘be more careful’ would have had to have with his statements. Rather, he had seen nothing at all about the collection of metadata to the outside.
The british national Party responds critically. “When the minister didn’t know what it was, he spoke, and when he knew how it was, he became silent,” says Dutch Mp Gert-Jan Segers. GroenLinks leader Bram van Ojik hopes that there is not only a debate about the position of Balls, but also about the intelligence agencies themselves. “Sanctify the goal or the means?”, early Ojik. “It would be good if the Second Room there is quickly a debate about perform,” says Van Ojik.
In October, Tweakers that the NSA in december 2012 and January 2013 in a month’s time metadata of 1.8 million telephone calls in the Netherlands seized. Last week, the cabinet decided to demand to the origin to bring out; the lawsuit against Plasterk was the immediate cause. The plaintiffs in that case, among them journalists, activists and lawyers, like that the cabinet is prevented to data from foreign intelligence agencies to use if they were not lawfully obtained. In addition, the 1.8 million metadata records as an example.
The government was afraid that the judge would judge that there are indeed restrictions on the use of data from foreign intelligence services. To prevent this, is the origin of the data is yet to be made public, wrote Plasterk on Monday.
The 1,8 million metadata records relate to satelliettelefonie, as appears from a letter to the Second Chamber today. It comes with the 1.8 million records mainly to make calls, but also to a limited number of text messages and faxjes. The ‘1.8 million different moments of communication’, in which one or both of the two interlocutors in the foreign country. They are collected and shared “in the context of counter-terrorism and military operations abroad’.