IDEMIA
IDEMIA est le leader de l’Identité Augmentée et est fiers d'avoir réussi cet exploit.
ID: 904218833588-78
Lobbying Activity
Response to Digitalisation of travel documents and facilitation of travel
5 Oct 2022
IDEMIA’s answer
IDEMIA supports option 6
Rationale
• In order to develop the uptake and usages of this technology, it is of the utmost importance to have
o mandatory issuance of digital travel documents;
o mandatory facilitation rules when crossing borders with digital travel documents;
• Nevertheless, the choice shall be left to EU citizens to have or use a digital travel document. Therefore:
o The choice to have a digital travel document shall be left to the holder;
o The choice to use a digital travel document shall be left to the holder. Therefore, former facilitation infrastructure and process shall be maintained;
• The facilitation measures proposed in option 6 are very interesting and have the potential to substantially increase fluidity, streamline and expedite border crossing while increasing the traveler experience and the throughput of airports. Therefore, option 6 should be promoted and implemented provided strong data protections are guaranteed to EU citizens. It implies that the following conditions are met (1) it shall supplement the current facilitation measures which shall remain, (2) it shall be made available in dedicated area that are well delineated and signaled (e.g. an entry or exit lane dedicated to travellers that have subscribed to this service), (3) traveler shall have previously consented to use it (through registration), and (4) shall have the possibility to revoke this consent at any time. The implementation of this option may require substantial investments from national authorities or airport operators, therefore, these facilitation measures shall only be mandated where the flow of travelers is sufficient. The idea would be to avoid heavy investments at border crossing points with low number of travelers.
Read full response17 Mar 2021
IDEMIA supports these updated technical specifications. However, we would like to highlight some discrepancies that we feel should be addressed and revised in the final version. Please find attached our comment sheet.
Read full responseResponse to Strengthening the automated data exchange under the Prüm framework
2 Oct 2020
IDEMIA’s position on the revision of Prüm
October 2020
1- Speed up and streamline the hit-follow-up exchange process
IDEMIA supports option 3 that is the best one to streamline the hit follow up. This option would provide a framework for (1) an efficient and evolutive mean to request data, and (2) a swift exchange of data between Member States. Furthermore, it would substantially improve the current situation as it could support semi-automatic exchanges of data. While this approach may be considered as difficult, our experience shows that setting up such technical infrastructure can easily be solved (agreement on a technical details and deployment of the infrastructure), and has already been achieved in other domains (e.g. RESPER or eIDAS nodes). Last but not least, this approach could help reducing administrative burden pertaining to (1) processing of requests and (2) transmission of information, which is a strong deterrent to the usage of the Prüm system and the overall efficiency of cross-Member States investigations.
2- Enable automated exchange of additional data categories that are available in Member States’ criminal or other databases for the purpose of criminal investigations
IDEMIA supports option 2 as the way to streamline at least some of the use cases supported by the Prüm system. Typically, while preserving the anonymity of the person, a simple addition of the Facial Image of the reference can help the investigator to quickly confirm a match without waiting for the administration procedure of disclosing all the data to be completed and thus match periods of custody.
3- Facilitate the implementation, use and maintenance of the information system
IDEMIA supports option 2. We believe this option presents the benefit of streamlining the querying process and drastically reducing maintenance costs, while preserving the initial vision of the Prüm treaty. This approach maintains the possibility of bilateral quotas, but addresses the serious issue of the multiplicity of possible connections and maintenance of all said connections. It would also foster harmonization amongst the different versions of the Interface Contract Definition with the central system coping with discrepancies, instead of each Member State at their own level. Furthermore, unlike option 3, option 2 ensures data remain under the sole control of the Member State of origin. By design, it ensures national laws covering the management of these data can be effectively enforced and applied.
4- Enable search and comparison of data received by Europol from 3rd countries
IDEMIA supports option 2. For the sake of improving the effectiveness of Europol within its mandate of tackling cross-border serious crime and terrorism, Option 2 is a reasonable approach in the sense that it would automate some of the processes that Europol is maintaining at greater expense. Extreme caution needs to be exercised in establishing safeguards, which effectively prevent transmission of data to 3rd countries. In this perspective, Europol could be invited into the Prüm Treaty with a different Interface Contract Definition, quotas, and ad hoc legislative instruments covering exchange of information, especially in the follow-up to hits. Option 3 may also be considered should the stakeholder deem it necessary.
Read full responseMeeting with Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)
3 Sept 2020 · Artificial intelligence
Meeting with Alejandro Cainzos (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager), Nele Eichhorn (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)
12 May 2020 · To discuss cybersecurity of 5G networks