Slashdot Mirror
US–EU Flight Talks Collapse
fantomas writes, "The BBC is reporting that the current US-EU talks over data collected from people flying to the USA collapsed last night. US Customs and Border Protection is insisting on access to the airlines' records and 34 pieces of data to be collected from each passenger. This data has been gathered since 2004, but only as a temporary measure. The European Court of Justice threw out the temporary agreement and set a deadline of Sept. 30 to arrive at a new one. Airlines that refuse to hand over information to US authorities may be fined up to $6,000 per passenger, and the passengers themselves held up in immigration for hours. Good for the EU on protecting the privacy of their citizens? Or are they hindering the War on Terror?" An EU official said that the EU wanted to give away less data, while the US wanted more.
This is all fine, unless you're in the UK, in which case the government has conveniently made an arrangement for airlines to give the US all the information they want legally, circumventing the EU law on a technicality. It's good to know that Tony is independent of George's dog-handler these days, isn't it?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That doesn't sound right at all!
More seriously, here's some of the data they're talking about (from the article)
I also found this passage interesting:
I'm not exactly a friend of the airlines, but it seems like they're screwed either way.
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable con
"No, the terrorists have won when our troops stop killing their countrymen"
I know it's not your position - but it is the position of many in the Mediaverse.
What you are describing is "collective punishment" - a war crime.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What if, from the "Home Front", the United States just stopped attacking non-terrorst countries. By not creating a terrorist factory, like the new Iraq, the supply would be choked off before it could take root.
it is moslem in most european countries.
Since several of the languages commonly used by Muslims, like Arabic, typically indicate consonants rather than vowels, and since there are several dialects and accents used by speakers of some of the most commonly spoken languages in the Muslim world, when transcribing directly to English, choices between English o and u, a and e, and other similar pairs are rarely set in stone. Similarly, many of the consonants are transcribed in different ways: kh, k, and qa and qu are all commonly used for both the Arabic letters qaf and kaf. That's why (in English) one sees a variety of spellings of proper names of people and items particular to Islam, such as the Koran (or Qur'an).
So, one may find a Muslim writing (in English) "Muslim", "Moslem", "Musulman" (from the Turkish, Farsi, Urdu, and Hindi), "Musliman" (from the Bosnian) , and so forth.
"grammar nazi"
This is a point of orthography, not grammar.
Any policeman is free to look at me when I walk down a public road.
:)
That's not the same as having to provide him my passport, birth certificate, credit card, telephone, email and meal prefernces just because he wants to know.
Does that answer your question?
Camereras in the UK generally come in two flavours:
1. put up by property owners to cover their property - I'm fairly sure that's commonplace all over the world.
2. put up by the (usually local) government as a way to curb / displace crime. Of somewhat dubious effectiveness, but sadly generally popular with the voters.
And they're not joined up into a nationwide surveillance network. In fact, the charming British tradition of complete and utter incompetence means that aggravated assault is usually missed because the operators are too busy zooming in on some fit blondes' ti^H^H assets.
no taxation without representation!
I have lived in Soviet Union and can't say it's true.
I have NEVER carried my paper unless I was going to travel by air or conducted business with bank or goverment agency. You didn't need your paper otherwise. Militia (police) didn't stop you at random. You didn't need paper to travel by train, tickets didn't have a names on it. All this shit about carry your identification started at beginning of 90th, when SU sease to exist.
So right now in USA we have more restricted movement then in Soviet Union, except "locked" ("closed") cities, that ytou have to have special pass to go in, unless you lived there. (you didn't need a permission to leave city though). Otherwise... I missed easiness of travel inside Soviet Union.
That is already happening -- last international conference (organized by American companies in the tourism industry) I went to was held in Montreal. Easier for everyone coming from outside the US to get a visa....
How do you know the copper doesn't like to stop fat women so he can make fun of them?
I have to agree with Infernal Device, it is your neibors you have to worry about. In the place I used to live, the majority were of one religion. They'd call the police if you didn't have the "right" look or you weren't wearing clothes which conformed to what most of them wear or just if they thought you might not belong to their church.
Hardly a freedom loving people if they don't respect other's freedom. They even manged to close down all the dance clubs and such, so the only place for people to socialize was their church.
Currently under way? It's already HERE! The law passed. Habeus Corpus is now permanently suspended, and torture is "legal" under United States law. You can be indefinately held, with no attorney, and no trial, all they have to do is say you "support terrorism"