In the few years since the attacks of 11 September 2001, security as a political discourse has grown and evolved more than any other discourse in recent memory Yet, despite the way it dominates European politics, security has not always been a central concern for Europe. At the moment of its birth, the threats faced by the European Community were of an en- tirely different kind than those we face today. The core issues that marked the first 55 years of Euro- pean construction were primarily economic and thus largely organized by a kind of economic rationality. It is also essential to recall that the European Union we see today was conceived as a project of peace. With the horrors of World War II freshly in mind, Robert Schuman, together with Jean Monnet and with the support of Konrad Adenauer, formulated in 1951 the basic idea that the only sure way to prevent future armed conflict on European soil – and, in particular, between France and Germany – was not to shelter the nations from each other, but rather to integrate them. The path to that integra- tion, as we all know, was economic. The Threat to Europe In this sense, the most clear historical threat to Europe in its early days was its own historical divi- sions. European security politics in the early years of the European construction – if we can speak of such a thing – was formed around the insecurity caused by Europe’s own internal oppositions, cul- tural differences and historically shaped animosities. The quest for peace and security was based on a perceived need to overcome these divisions. Europe’s primary security challenge was thus in its early years its relation to itself. It was an internal chal- lenge, one of the self-knowledge and self- understanding of Europe. European security was a gaze into the mirror – to a great extent, the mirror of history. It was, in a way, a problem of Europe’s unease with itself, with its own identity, and with its relationship to its ‘others’. This kind of uncomfort- able historical intimacy, I want to suggest, still guides us today, and is living a new life today. Europe is under threat. But, who or what exactly is threatened when Europe is threatened? Is it Europe’s critical infrastructure, its subways, bridges and railways, the nuclear plants and other buildings, its ships and harbours, the sea-lanes from the oil- exporting Middle East that are in danger? Is it the people of Europe who are threatened? Its political leaders? Is it the integrity of the Union, its princi- ples and values that are under fire? Or, do threats concern something else, something more funda- mental, something more intimate or human? In my opinion, this is the question of the day. Yes, Europe may be under threat. But, precisely what does it mean to say that Europe is under threat? The question of the security of Europe profoundly engages the notion of privacy. It concerns the rela- tion of Europe to its intimate self, to its people, to its fears, and to its hopes and aspirations. This is the key to understanding the need for privacy. Technological and Human Conceptions of Privacy The most widely accepted analysis of the link be- tween security and privacy builds upon the notion that the two concepts are opposed to each other in a more or less zero-sum logic. More security, it is generally said, comes only at the cost of less privacy, and vice versa. The axis along which this zero-sum game is played out is technology. 5/2008 Security After Privacy: The Transformation of Personal Data in the Age of Terror J. Peter Burgess, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO)