Mr. Gerapetritis categorically repeated the government’s position that “the Greek State has not procured, has not used in any way this type of malicious software, including EYP”.
Faithful to the government’s doctrine, “”elections at the end of the four years” or, in any case, close to the end of the four years”, the Minister of State Giorgos Gerapetritis rejected, in an interview with SKAI 100.3, the argument that it is not of such great importance the time of the elections, since, sooner or later, they will be held. “There are many stakes ahead of us,” he noted. On the occasion of the Prime Minister’s visit to London, he emphasized that “Greece has changed the page”, although, he added, “things that are built are often dismantled with the changes of governments”. Thorough on the subject of the declassification – cyber security – personal data protection bill, he underlined an “important innovation” of the bill: Until now, for reasons of national security, declassification was allowed in perpetuity, now it will be limited to two or ten months, the maximum, and indeed under conditions. While, at the same time, he stated that he completely agrees with the approach that a political person or, much more, the President of the Republic cannot be monitored with a simple request from the commander of the EYP and the signature of the competent prosecutor.
Starting, in detail, from the visit of Kyriakos Mitsotakis to London and the contacts there, with investors, in his introductory comment the Minister of State stated that “Greece has turned the page and is entering a phase of continuity and consistency”. Although, he added, “history has proven that things that are built, are often dismantled with changes of governments.” Given the opportunity, however, he underlined the “very big goal” of the country’s inclusion in the investment tier in 2023, something that “will return us, after the exit from enhanced supervision, to a regime of economic normality. It must be a stopping point for all of us.”
Asked about the election scenarios, the Minister of State started his answer from the common observation that “2023 is an election year”, but then went a step further saying: “The feeling I have and want to convey to you with in all honesty and after all, we remain faithful to, “elections at the end of the quadrennial” or, anyway, close to the end of the quadrennial. There is no reason to enter into a process that will cause significant disruption. Soon we will be subjected to the scope of simple analogy, but it does not cease to create a disturbance in the continuity of the state. I don’t “hear” the argument that, since at some point we will face elections, they should come sooner. And this is because there are many stakes ahead of us.”
Also, on the occasion of his belief in double elections, he also answered the question of whether, in his opinion, a government could emerge from the first Sunday. He replied as follows: “We believe that there should be a stable and consistent government. The stability of the government is not ensured only by single-party governments”, he acknowledged with the simultaneous clarification, however, that “even in the case of cooperation (there is) a basic core, we have never taken the issue of governmental cooperation out of the discussion. If the people put us in a position of self-reliance we will serve them, that is our main political goal. If it puts us in a position where we have to seek political partnerships, we will. The Constitution does not provide for dead ends, it provides for political gatherings”. While he concluded, “unfortunately at this time it appears that the bridges are not extremely sustainable, and this is not the responsibility of the governing majority”.
Asked, however, whether the wiretapping case had cut off that communication, he observed: “The bridge had been broken much earlier when the leader of the Movement for Change – a very fresh statement from a young man – stated directly that he would never work with the leader of the first party. On the other hand, the issue of the legal de-privacy of Mr. Androulakis’ phone is, indeed, a very serious blow. I don’t want to go blind, I never do. It is a serious matter, the prime minister himself took responsibility for this failure”, he noted and added that he “absolutely understands both the anger towards the leader of KINAL and the institutional weight of this act. However, the National Intelligence Service must function, I do not know the reasons (including removal of confidentiality).
According to the Minister of State, “there are certain limits within which every national security service should operate – and I say this after knowledge, after studying all European systems. Mr. Androulakis had the opportunity to be informed about these issues alone by the management of the EYP, he preferred to reduce it to a matter of more political dialogue so that, in his opinion, he would reap the greatest possible political benefits. But these are not issues that can be discussed publicly.”
At the same time, he categorically reiterated the government’s position that “the Greek State has not procured, has not used in any way this type of malicious software, including EYP”. On the other hand, he explained spyware is a hot debate everywhere in the world, most member states of the European Union are facing this issue.
On the issue, in particular, of the filed bill and the question of whether the government is open to further changes, G. Gerapetritis initially remarked that “we have proven our deliberative nature”. In any case, he added, the framework until now was defined by a 1994 law, with very different characteristics in the use of the Internet and mobile telephony.
On the substance of the bill to be discussed, he said that “until today, for reasons of national security, any public body could appear before the prosecutor and request its removal”, (but) this is currently limited, as he said, in three ways:
The first is that “not every public body can, but only the EYP and the Anti-Terrorist Service”.
The second, “the term “national security” is now defined”. In other words, it becomes a “very narrow” list and although, as the minister announced, “I am not convinced that we should go to a much narrower list. But I also heard from the political and scientific community, who had clear reservations about a broad national security term. Today it is basically national defense, foreign policy, energy security and cyber security. We leave out issues like public health, environmental security and other forms of modern assault on the integrity of a state.”
The third way is that “there was no specific type of documentation of the request […] Now the request should cover very specific issues, e.g. to state the reasons and, in addition, to document the necessity of the lifting of the confidentiality”.
At this point, he also mentioned “an important innovation” that, as he said, the bill introduces: “While for reasons of national security, declassification was allowed in perpetuity, it will now be limited to a two-month monitoring period, which can reach a maximum of ten months . However, any extension beyond two months should be done with the same procedure and furthermore, simple documentation of the reason and necessity will not be sufficient. But it must, in the judgment of the prosecutors, the risk makes the endangerment of national security immediate and extremely likely.”
Asked to comment on the objections raised at the consultation stage, his first comment was that “50-75% of what was put to the consultation was accepted”. From there, as far as the approach of the independent authorities is concerned, “in the very large majority of issues raised by the Communications Privacy Authority and by the Personal Data Protection Authority, the interventions were made, so that they were incorporated into the bill that was submitted” , he argued. Regarding the three-year period for informing the monitored person, he noted that “it also exists elsewhere, it is a reasonable time”. Regarding the involvement, finally, of the speaker of the Parliament, after acknowledging that “in fact, in most legal classes the filter is not the speaker of the Parliament but a government agent”, he requested that the particularities of the Greek political class be taken into account, therefore ” I think that the president of the Parliament, who is the third representative of the country, is superior in many points to the governing majority […] I think it is the person who coincides with the will to be a political filter, but not a politically directed filter”.
While to the observation that a political person or, much more, the President of the Republic cannot be monitored with a simple request of the EYP commander and the signature of the prosecutor, G. Gerapetritis reacted by saying: “I absolutely agree”.
The interview ended with “a very important addition” that, as he mentioned, was made after the submission to consultation: the committee that will ultimately decide to inform the interested party that, in fact, there has been a legal removal of privacy, will consist of not, as it was initially said , by the commander of the Service, the president of the ADAE and a prosecutor, but by two prosecutors and the president of the ADAE.
Read the News today and get the latest news.
Follow Skai.gr on Google News and be the first to know all the news.
I have worked in the news industry for over 10 years. I have been an author at News Bulletin 247 for the past 2 years. I mostly cover politics news. I am a highly experienced and respected journalist. I have won numerous awards for my work.
