U.S. to Gain Access to EU Retained Data

shenanigans writes "After the EU recently ratified controversial data retention laws for ISPs and other telecommunication companies, it now looks like the US government will get full access to the data. From the article: 'US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected'. Apparently, the US has been calling members of the EU to 'ensure that the data collected [...] be accessible to them'."

Comments

Well, it's only fair.

[Bacon Bits]

I mean, the US is based on equality. Might as well invade everyone's privacy equally, right?

But don't worry, the US Government would never abuse that information! That would be unethical. That's why everyone in the US is so pleased with the President and his national security policies.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[laughingcoyote]

I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization.

So, GP was right-let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria. Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too. Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.

People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target.

Which is their right...

We have bag searches at all major public events.

Which is no one's right, see Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This should be stopped at once.

Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists

Absolutely wrong. This is a symptom of:

1. The tendency of government to increase its power given the opportunity. Terrorism only provided the OPPORTUNITY to pass measures like the "PATRIOT" Act--it did NOT provide the will to do so.
2. The arrogant belief of the current administration and Congress that they are above the law and Constitution, and the reluctance of anyone (including in some cases the Supreme Court!) to rein them in, sharply if necessary.
3. The refusal of the population in general to accept that sometimes random events will be human-caused, and that sometimes we should simply accept them as random. Sometimes, a school getting shot up or a plane getting crashed does NOT necessitate "someone" doing "something"-you must first determine if the cure is worse then the disease.

When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.

I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?

In short, don't blame politicians for being overly cautious -- that's their job.

Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (President's Oath of Office). (emphasis added).

The job of politicians is to solve problems using a CERTAIN set of tools, provided by the US Constitution. It is not their job to "manufacture" tools outside of that framework-unless they want to undertake the arduous task of amending the Constitution. It is possible to do so! It was made very difficult, and for GOOD reason. However, until lawmakers -do- undertake and succeed at that process, they should not be able to step outside the Constitutional framework.

They can't just sit back and do nothing, their job is to solve problems, even if you don't like the solutions.

Actually, as I recall, their job IS to find solutions people like-that's why we have elections. Their job is also to find solutions which are legal and Constitutional to implement-that's why we have judicial review. Their job is NOT "whatever I feel like today", it's to work -within- an existing framework.

When the problem goes away, so will these privacy issues.

There has always been terrorism, and there always will be. It's like the disingenuous "But when we win the War on Drugs we'll give back all the privacy we took away in its name!" while knowing damn well that their "war" is unwinnable. The "War on Terror" is the same way--it's ALWAYS going to be possible to inspire terror

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[laughingcoyote]

Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.

I 100% agree with you, and that is 100% irrelevant to my point, which was that going too far in terms of "prevention" can be as bad or worse then not enough. Tighter customs inspections and improved airport security are reasonable responses of reasonable scale and scope. Large-scale wiretapping and imprisonment without charge are not.

Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.

My point exactly! There are some responses to a risk which are reasonable (not standing with a lightning rod during a thunderstorm), and some which are hysterical or overkill--EVEN in response to very real risks. (You also didn't note that I mentioned car accidents, which are a heightened risk during inclement weather-and at some point, most people do get out of the car.)

I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work.

I would argue that bombing out a country which was already a decently ripe recruiting ground for terrorists only strengthens their recruiting propaganda in that region. But that's another debate for another time.

As to your personal participation in helping out in the disaster zone, I certainly can say nothing bad for you on that note, and I can certainly understand where the source of your emotional investment in this matter stems from. Still, it is good to take a step back, and make sure that we're not just reacting with "SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING!" without thinking carefully about just how far "something" should go. There does come a point when we HAVE done enough.

Why bother building levees in New Orleans?

Again, reasonable response to a reasonable risk (and the failure to do it properly caused more death and damage then "terrorism" did!)

There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat.

Again, I can see why you think so, but I still must disagree. In the end, it's far too easily extensible.

"There is absolutely no right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into a (shopping mall|restaurant|park) when suicide bombings are a very real threat."

How many suicide bombing attempts did those random searches stop? And what's to stop the bomber, if such were to exist, from pushing the button the minute he sees the metal detector-and presumably while standing in a sizable crowd? Just how do you stop a guy that's willing to die in an effort to take out a few people with him?

There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection.

What is this "time of war"? This is a "time of war" about as much as the "war on drugs" was. We're currently "at war" with a tinpot Third-World country whose military we destroyed in approximately five seconds, and with what amounts to an organized crime syndicate. World War II was a fight against -two- (not one, two) actively hostile superpowers who easily possessed the resources and will to invade the US and win. To say they're not in the same ballpark would be a gross understatement-they're not even in the same league.

This tradition of intercepting communications is as old

Sorry

[Mikya]

I have to apologize for the US. I didn't vote for Bush!

Tell us again...

[Lord Kano]

how it's no big deal when your European governments retain data on you because you know that they'd never misuse it.

LK

I think that we (Europeans)

[ratta]

should absolutly try to solve this kind of problems together with our American fellows, since in a global world a problems for someone is also going to be a problem of all. I mean, please let's not start Yet Another Flamewar about EU vs USA.

Erosion of civil liberties...

[X-rated Ouroboros]

...is a threat to national security.