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.
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.