Slashdot Mirror


EU and US Reach Deal On Airline Data

gambit3 writes "According to the BBC, the EU and the US have struck a new deal for sharing airline passenger data. It will replace a deal struck down by the European Court of Justice in May, which allowed the US its own access to passenger data. Under the deal, the EU will 'push' the data — 34 pieces of information per passenger — to the US, replacing the current 'pull' system. The new deal will expire at the end of July 2007."

132 comments

  1. What are the 34 data items? by pelago · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What are the 34 data items?

    1. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are the 34 data items?

      I don't know but I am sure US customs will make sure that retrieving at least one of them will involve a large and cold hand, a latex glove and a rectal search.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    2. Re:What are the 34 data items? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I bet "Passenger is wearing a turban?" is in there.

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know but I am sure US customs will make sure that retrieving at least one of them will involve a large and cold hand, a latex glove and a rectal search.

      It is only for health purposes. US Customs doesn't want anyone coming into the country with hiccups. It's really just a public service.

    4. Re:What are the 34 data items? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I bet "Passenger is wearing a turban?" is in there.

      Yup. Got to watch out for all those Sikh terrorists...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't know all of them but they include:

      - Name
      - Passport no. and nationality
      - Creditcard no.
      - DOB and POB
      - Food preference
      - Religion
      - Seat (preference)

      I wonder how this is going to work though, I've never had an airliner ask me for my religion and if they would, they could file me with all the other Pastafarians on the flight. Good luck profiling that.

    6. Re:What are the 34 data items? by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about "Passenger is wearing a t-shirt is another language so he must be threat."?

      It's certainly an effective means of distinguishing potential terrorists. If you don't look, act, and think just like you MUST be a terrorist or terrorist supporter. I never thought I'd see the day when my president said that.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    7. Re:What are the 34 data items? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't we start doing some profiling? How many little gray haired caucasian grandmothers have tried a terrorist act lately? There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole. I myself pray to Budda, Mohammed, Jesus-H-Christ and any other religous huncho I can think of.

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    8. Re:What are the 34 data items? by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      Got some documentation of that? Or, are you just trying to cause an uproar?

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    9. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      List is here (scroll to the end of the article)

      Religion is not one of the items, and it's hard to imagine how they could find out your religion without asking. They could try to guess a religion based on name, but it's impossible to prevent them from doing that.

      Nor does it include place of birth or biometric info like eye color, hair color, height, etc. Of course, the POB and biometrics could be found out from your passport upon entry to US (or any other country).

      In fact the same 34 items have been exchanged for a few years now. This disagreement was because the arrangement was due to time out. Apparently the items themselves haven't changed, but the procedure for providing them has. Though frankly I don't understand how "push" and "pull" make any difference here. Maybe it's just so that both sides can save face with their respective publics.

    10. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sense the possibility for a /. poll:

      Religion you claim when asked by an airline:
      + Agnostic
      + Christian
      + Cult of Cthulhu
      + Hindu
      + Jewish
      + Muslim
      + Pagan
      + Rastafari
      + Satanic
      + Other
      + I'm atheist, you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, religion isn't mentioned (it's basically unknowable) and IIRC, religion-indicating food preferences (kosher, halal...) are excluded from the data transfer.

      It does include name, address, passport and visa details, credit card number, frequent flyer number, address in US, details about who paid for the tickets, links to other people who had tickets bought in the same transaction, the complete itinerary, whether a hotel, rental car etc. was purchased in the same transaction, and I think something about the passenger's flight history with that airline.

    12. Re:What are the 34 data items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:What are the 34 data items? by foobsr · · Score: 1
      Pulled from here:


      1. PNR record locator code
      2. Date of reservation
      3. Date(s) of intended travel
      4. Name
      5. Other names on PNR
      6. Address
      7. All forms of payment information
      8. Billing address
      9. Contact telephone numbers
      10. All travel itinerary for specific PNR
      11. Frequent flyer information (limited to miles flown and address(es))
      12. Travel agency
      13. Travel agent
      14. Code share PNR information
      15. Travel status of passenger
      16. Split/Divided PNR information
      17. Email address
      18. Ticketing field information
      19. General remarks
      20. Ticket number
      21. Seat number
      22. Date of ticket issuance
      23. No show history
      24. Bag tag numbers
      25. Go show information
      26. OSI information
      27. SSI/SSR information
      28. Received from information
      29. All historical changes to the PNR
      30. Number of travelers on PNR
      31. Seat information
      32. One-way tickets
      33. Any collected APIS information
      34. ATFQ fields"



      CC.
      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  2. 1101101 by Cybert4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    1101010001101

  3. 34 pieces of information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why exactly is that much data needed?

    Most forms request only a fraction of that amount. I don't even think I've provided that much information for credit card or loan applications.

  4. Push? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

    Wasn't push technology a still-born concept in the mid 90s? I tried PointCast once, and only once. I'm glad push technology died. Push technology, or the uncontrollable incoming flow of content, just does not work on the Internet, thats what TV is for. What's that? I'm only vaguely on topic? Oh sorry... I guess I should be grateful they (the EU) aren't using more recently developed methods of data streaming. It could be worse, passenger data could be available as an RSS feed!

    --
    I hate printers.
    1. Re:Push? by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Push technology, or the uncontrollable incoming flow of content, just does not work

      Surely in this case that is a good thing?

    2. Re:Push? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who says they're using the internet? There are many other technologies (Tux, MQ, X.25, MATIP, P1024, etc.) to choose from when exchanging data between remote hosts, and one can use IP technology and still not use the public internet. Some companies have their own internal IP networks, and dedicated point-to-point data lines are still very common in some industries.

      Commercial airlines and governments use "push" technology heavily, as they have been since the mid-1960's (and maybe even before). That's what an unsolicited data feed is by definition. Airline weather is sent that way, all airline ACARS messages are sent that way, FLIFO data is sent that way internally between internal airline systems and between airlines, passenger data is sent that way between reservations systems and the recipients of said data, bag information is sent that way, etc.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    3. Re:Push? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      As I said:

      I'm glad push technology died.
      --
      I hate printers.
    4. Re:Push? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To push it over to the US they just have to put the engines on the rear of the plane. That's all.

    5. Re:Push? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yup. Push technology is completely dead. No one ever makes telephone calls. I can't remember the last time anyone ever sent an SMS message. Radio and television were stillborn. And only old people send emails. Certainly no one uses IM.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Push? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Push technology was going strong before you ever touched a computer, probably. It's called UUCP and it made USENET go round for a long, long time. Mind you, it was around before I ever SAW a computer :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Push? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      Push technology predates UUCP, and even TCP/IP. Airlines were using it in the mid-1960's.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    8. Re:Push? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Given that I said "That's what TV is for" I would have thought it'd be obvious that I was referring to push style broadcasting on the Internet, and that I am aware that unrequested incoming content (messages, telephones, television, radio etc). But this is /. so why am I expecting people to read what they comment on?

      --
      I hate printers.
  5. So what's changed? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Old system: US pulls 34 items of data about each passenger.
    New system: EU pushes 34 items of data about each passenger.

    Unless the data itself has dramatically changed, I really can't see any functional difference. So how is this any better?

    1. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      nothing, it's just that they did not get their wish for even more data granted.

      personally I'd like to see proof that ANY effect has come out of this other than of course a massive breach of privacy.

      jacquesm posting on the road as AC

    2. Re:So what's changed? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the US can't go rummaging around for unrelated information in the second case -- they only get what they're given.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    3. Re:So what's changed? by lorg · · Score: 0

      Nothing. Basically all of Europe just (re)joined the mile high club since we just bent over and took.

    4. Re:So what's changed? by siljeal · · Score: 1

      The only change is that the whole thing is legal now. As if the US really gave much of a crap about European concerns regarding data protection. Calling this a 'deal' is weird enough, though. Or would you call it 'reaching a deal' if you gave a mugger the very wallet he demanded from you at gunpoint?

    5. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has documenting who is entering the country been a breach of privacy?

    6. Re:So what's changed? by tonigonenstein · · Score: 1
      Unless the data itself has dramatically changed, I really can't see any functional difference.
      push and pull explained
      --
      The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
    7. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The only change is that the whole thing is legal now.

      The previous agreement was claimed to be legal until the court pointed out that it plainly wasn't. This agreement is only legal until the court again (after a long and expensive process) points out that it plainly isn't.

      The only change is that it's changed. And that is the point.

    8. Re:So what's changed? by Decado · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA Please

      The new system is better from an EU standpoint because the data is sent to a single secure source. They no longer have to worry about it being pulled from an untrusted source. There is no longer an external logon to the EU system that could potentially reveal private information. Instead it is pushed securely to a trusted homeland security site which is then responsible for distributing it within the US. Because the EU is no longer a risk for distributing private information it is OK within the EU. If there is a privacy breach it won't be the fault of the EU and that makes the EU authorities happy. From the standpoint of the consumer the same data still flies around but that was never the issue, the issue was that there was potential for the EU system to leak sensitive data which was unacceptable.

      --

      Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece

    9. Re:So what's changed? by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1
      New system: EU pushes 34 items of data about each passenger.

      ... and agrees that the US DHS can share the data with the FBI, other govt agencies are supposed to get access in the future. Best part of it: German minister of justice welcomes the agreement, as a high level of data protection is maintained ... she therefore has no objections at all.

      Brigitte Zypries (SPD) begrüßte die Einigung zwischen EU und USA. "Es bleibt bei einem hohen Datenschutz-Niveau", sagte sie heute am Rande des EU-Justizministertreffens in Luxemburg. "Deshalb habe ich keine Bedenken."

      Spineless traitors.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    10. Re:So what's changed? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      How do you figure this deal was made at gun point? Nothing changed except how the data is moved. Don't you have anyhting better to do with your life than to blame the US for all evil in the world. I am not claiming that we are perfect, far from it but have you seen a video of a American cutting off the head of an innocent in the name of God or flying a jet into a skyscraper? I guess it won't matter in another 50 years or so when all of Europe is part of a muslim Caliphate. All the muslim fascists want is for us to convert, submit, or die. I would think that the Europeans would be even more concerned with this than we here in the US since your muslim populations are rising at an exponental pace. However, it seems that America is the bad guy until the time you need our boys to come spill their blood and bail you out once again. Its about time that the world recognizes the difference between the perceived threat and the true threat. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    11. Re:So what's changed? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      If there is a privacy breach it won't be the fault of the EU and that makes the EU authorities happy. From the standpoint of the consumer the same data still flies around but that was never the issue, the issue was that there was potential for the EU system to leak sensitive data which was unacceptable.
      I don't think you're correct. The issue was not only about an EU leak of information.

      Their strong privacy laws prohibit them from disseminating information to countries without strong privacy protections. It was/is against their laws to give out data to organizations or governments that may in turn leak it.

      That was one of the major sticking points and the article makes several mentions of this fact, which is why The U.S. & EU have just another temporary deal.

      Legally, the only way the EU can create a permanent program is if the U.S. upgrades their privacy protections for any and all EU passenger data. It is either that, or the EU must either water down their privacy laws or include an exception for the U.S. (neither of which is likely)
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:So what's changed? by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1
      the issue was that there was potential for the EU system to leak sensitive data which was unacceptable.

      Plausable deniability? There's no way that the data leak was OUR fault. Even though we were spineless and gave it to the US to begin with...

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    13. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European Muslim Caliphate.

      lol @ you

      You REALLY should get out more. Stop reading LGF.

      Really.

    14. Re:So what's changed? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should do 2 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan like I did and talk to some of the fanatics as I patched up their kids. Or you could stay in your little dillusional world and let my brothers and sisters in arms protect your families and ways of life. Its too bad I lost friends who were better than you so that could laugh at me. Really.

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    15. Re:So what's changed? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Since when has documenting who is entering the country been a breach of privacy?

      that depends on what data is being documented, what that data is being used for, and who has access to that data.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    16. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not have experience to dictate or even intelligently suggest rounded policy to any governmental group apart from a damned junta by dint of service in an armed force of one of the nations invading those areas.

    17. Re:So what's changed? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      You don't know my experience and I can hypothesize on data extrapolated from current population projections and from sources freely avaliable via multible media outlets. That is one of the freedoms we have in my country. If the Europeans aren't afraid of their muslim populations why cancel Mozart concerts? Why put up with riots over cartoons? Why hasn't the EU helped out in the Darfor crisis? Because of fear of the inevitable. To quote the movie Braveheart "If we can't chase them out, we will breed them out". The fight against muslim fascism will eclipse the cold war and the fight against the Nazis.

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    18. Re:So what's changed? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      That does a good job of sort of explaining things, but it's in a web context while the datafeeds being described in the article are almost certainly not related to the web (or http) at all.

      Push datafeeds exist in several forms. Some require explict application-level acknowledgements for each message and employ multi-priority queueing mechanisms (allowing high-priority messages to be sent ahead of everyone else), while others simply push messages into the ether and efectively forget about them (a response might not be required, or a delayed response might result in the sender simply resending the original message again).

      When I worked at NWA, the main system I worked on (WorldFlight) had a number of push datafeeds coming into the system from other systems both inside and outside the airline, and those datafeeds contained such important data elements as hourly station weather and various weather alerts from NWS and satellite feeds, passenger and bag info from the reservation system, crew info from the crew system, MEL/CDL (the "what's broken" list) information from performance engineering, OOOI (Out/Off/On/In) messages and position reports from aircraft via ACARS, etc.

      The system also pushed out current flight status information to various systems, airport displays, databases, and so on, pushed ACARS messages to ARINC and SITA for transmission to flying aircraft, etc.

      *None* of that stuff is "pulled".

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    19. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a trusted homeland security site

      Oxymoron alert.

    20. Re:So what's changed? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I know what the difference between push and pull is.

      I just don't see how it makes the remotest difference in this context as the net result is the same - the same amount of information about the same number of people leaves the same countries under much the same terms - the only difference is how it does so.

    21. Re:So what's changed? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I did. AFAICT most of what you say is speculation based on it, because it certainly doesn't explain specifically why they think this is OK yet pulling the data isn't.

      EU data protection law, amongst other things, outlaws sending data to countries without similarly strong data protection law. So technically, it matters not how the data gets to the US, it's still illegal. This is just an agreement to effectively exempt the US from the law.

      Thing is, if you're going to start cooking up agreements to exempt certain groups from a law which was designed specifically to affect them, what's the point in having the law in the first place?

    22. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vocabulary and logic, please. Why mention tours in an armed force if not to imply that it gave you authority to write on the matters you wrote about? That was my point in commenting that only a military dictatorship would give you control for that reason solely; solely being the only option as you described no other qualification. I do not suggest you could not, simply that your comments did not state more than that and so by implication your point was that your service did qualify you to do so. On your new points, shortsighted analysis and particularly jilted analysis are not comprehensive and so are inherently inaccurate; quotes and assumptions do not make a convincing argument when the basis is simply ignorance of the actual reasons. For example, in the instance of the "cartoon" mentioned; if you mean the Jyllands-Posten publication of depictions of the prophet Mohammad then the answer is obvious if one knows anything about Islamic aniconism. Additionally, in this instance there was blatant appeal to racial and cultural prejudice in many of the images published that even if you deny the application of aniconism here justifies opposition to the publication of the cartoons as they were.

    23. Re:So what's changed? by siljeal · · Score: 1

      >How do you figure this deal was made at gun point? The European side was quite interested in seeing landing rights upheld. And you are mistaken. The way the data was moved was not the only thing that's been changed. Easier access for other agencies is another change. And my dear DevilDoc I am not blaming the US for this. I am blaming our cowardly European negotiators for this. They should have stood up and said, "Well, let's see how long you guys can survive without any planes from Europe landing on US soil". Would have been an interesting experience. But of course, European politicians don't give much of a shit about their citizens' rights. In fact, they want to access the PNR data as well.

    24. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the other event you refer to is actually the cancellation of the opera Idomeneo by Deutsche Oper in Berlin, then the explanation is that performing it as it would have been in that instance would have displayed particular disrespect and that its cancellation is justified as performing it in that modified form would have only appealed to racial and cultural prejudice as showing a severed head indicated as that of the prophet Mohammad would have been a targeted insult.

    25. Re:So what's changed? by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      millions killed in Viet Nam
      100 of thousands killed in the illegal bombing of Cambodia
      supported terrorits in Nicaragua
      overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala and installed a bloody dictatorship
      same for Iran
      supported Iraq in the war it started with Iran and supplied targetting information for sadam's chemical weapons

      get your head out of the sand, this is just the tip of the iceberg

    26. Re:So what's changed? by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      Chill, dude. Faulty elevators pose a bigger threat to our lives that Sadam or Bin Laden ever did.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    27. Re:So what's changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serving in Iraq suddenly makes you an expert in European domestic politics?

      Delusional indeed.

    28. Re:So what's changed? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the delay in the response. I only bring up my tours to reference my dicussions with jihadist. They spoke freely and openly of their wish to create a Muslim world as I treated their families wounds and ailments. The only reason we could not detain them is due to our rules of engagement which military dictorships do not have. If they did not have weapon and were not on our wanted list we had to leave them in peace which is more than they would have given me if the situation would have been reversed. As to my "shortsigted" reference to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, not all muslims practice aniconism. Iranian muslims display pictures of the prophet. I agree that the images could justify civil and orderly opposition but they should not be another excuse for global riots and murder. If we Americans acted in this same way to the offensive cartoons, the burning of our flag and effigy of our President that happens on a daily basis we would be labeled barbarians. There is a difference between opposition and atrocity. "If the other event you refer to is actually the cancellation of the opera Idomeneo by Deutsche Oper in Berlin, then the explanation is that performing it as it would have been in that instance would have displayed particular disrespect and that its cancellation is justified as performing it in that modified form would have only appealed to racial and cultural prejudice as showing a severed head indicated as that of the prophet Mohammad would have been a targeted insult." I sorry but in this case you are just wrong. The scene in which you discuss actually shows the severed heads of Jesus, Budda, and Mohammed. It is not aimed soley at the Muslim religion. It is a work of art for one of the western masters, created in 1781 and nothing more. Yet it will become another excuse for the muslims of Europe, Asia, and Africa to raise arms against the infidels. All I have heard is that Islam is a peaceful religion. I have yet to see that. In fact if it is so peaceful why did the prophet lead 73 military campaings?

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    29. Re:So what's changed? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      If European planes stopped landing on US soil then how would you get to Disney Land or Las Vegas? Then we would cut off your imports and our security data and Europe would be left to bicker among theselves as how best to get back at the US while trying to appease the muslims. Yes this would hurt our economy but would most likey hurt your economies more since the EU ships in more than we ship out. So I don't see how it would have been an "interesting experience". I am sorry that your politicaians don't care. I can't imagine a life where I could not contact my legislative representatives to voice my concerns.

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    30. Re:So what's changed? by siljeal · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine a life where I could not contact my legislative representatives to voice my concerns.

      Nor can I.

      Oh wait, you're not assuming that I cannot contact my legislative representatives, are you? Because, believe it or not, I can. And I did. But there is little they can do, because this decision is not being made by the German or the European parliament. With the latter one being absurdly weak in comparison to the EC, where the actual decisions are really made.

      But tell me, how could the Europeans have resisted the friendly request of the US? How is there any way the European side could have said that they're not giving any information that the US wouldn't get through the passport and the visa waiver forms? As you clearly said yourself, the US is in a far stronger position, and whatever 'offer' was made, it wasn't one that the Europeans could refuse. Now tell me this deal wasn't made at gunpoint.

    31. Re:So what's changed? by DevilDoc · · Score: 1

      The deal wasn't made at gunpoint. We are open to negotiations. The EC could have declined. If the EC had said "No" what would we have done? Dropped a bomb? Please, we have had nuclear weapons since 1945 and have we used them since, especially on allies? Would we use sanctions? Again, that is absurd. Do you think we really want to harm our European allies? Do you think that the flow of of information is only one way? We could probably take the information if we really wanted to. Or we could be be like other countries like the Chinese who are constanly trying to hack our government or we could threaten tactical nuclear strikes like the Russians if eastern Europe stations US missile interceptors. Instead we try going about it diplomatically and once again we are the bad guys. I understand you see it as America once again bullying our way into getting what we want. We see it as protecting our borders. Maybe you have forgotten the airliners flying into the towers killing more innocent civilians then the attacks at Pearl Harbor but we haven't. The terrorist can no longer plan strikes from within our borders and the breakup of the plot this summer in Britain proves that the information being passed is helping. Perhaps with European cooperation we can push back the front line of the war on terror to the middle east. America wears the largest target the rest of the world chooses to point their anger and critisms at us. We are not perfect far from it, but now is time to recognize the percieved threats and the actual threats.

      --
      --DD

      "All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

    32. Re:So what's changed? by siljeal · · Score: 1

      If Europe had said no, the US would have denied landing rights. Why do you keep forgetting that bargaining chip, just after you pointed out how damaging it would be for European economies?

  6. 34 data fields (missing from article) by digitalderbs · · Score: 5, Informative
    The data fields can be found from this earlier article.

    • Information about the passenger: name; address; date of birth; passport number; citizenship; sex; country of residence; US visa number (plus date and place issued); address while in the US; telephone numbers; e-mail address; frequent flyer miles flown; address on frequent flyer account; the passenger's history of not showing up for flights
    • Information about the booking of the ticket: date of reservation; date of intended travel; date ticket was issued; travel agency; travel agent; billing address; how the ticket was paid for (including credit card number); the ticket number; which organisation issued the ticket; whether the passenger bought the ticket at the airport just before the flight; whether the passenger has a definite booking or is on a waiting list; pricing information; a locator number on the computer reservation system; history of changes to the booking
    • Information about the flight itself: seat number; seat information (eg aisle or window); bag tag numbers; one-way or return flight; special requests, such as requests for special meals, for a wheelchair, or help for an unaccompanied minor
    • Information about the passenger's itinerary: other flights ticketed separately, or data on accommodation, car rental, rail reservations or tours.
    • Information about other people: the group the passenger is travelling with; the person who booked the ticket
    1. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      frequent flyer miles flown;

      That's scary.

      the passenger's history of not showing up for flights

      Why do they want to know that?

      how the ticket was paid for (including credit card number)

      That's even scarier.

      whether the passenger bought the ticket at the airport just before the flight

      Because terrorists never plan anything out in advance, they just buy the ticket at the last minute, right? It seems like they want to know if this is a person fleeing from law enforcement.

      special requests, such as requests for special meals, for a wheelchair, or help for an unaccompanied minor

      'Cause if the passenger requests certain dietary restrictions, they can usually nail down what religion he is.

      pricing information

      Hmmm...now why does it matter how much the person paid for the ticket? Just exactly who are they selling this information to?

      You just gotta love those evil, corrupt bastards that run the U.S. Government!

    2. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'll try to think of justifications for the ones I can. Frequent flyer miles flown;

      Presumably frequent flyers are more likely to be businessmen

      the passenger's history of not showing up for flights

      Weird one this.

      how the ticket was paid for (including credit card number)

      Is a lot of tickets are bought witht he same CC, then I suppose this will show something. Or maybe they have some "suspicious" credit cards. That just makes it seem scarier.

      whether the passenger bought the ticket at the airport just before the flight

      I agree with you on this one. Sounds more like a fishing expedition. I expect that terrorists will book flights some time in advance though. I doubt this is particulalry conistent

      special requests, such as requests for special meals, for a wheelchair, or help for an unaccompanied minor

      I bet they're only interested in the meal requests. But the terrorists know this. Best bet for terrorists is to opt for the vegetarian option. Unlikely to offend any dietry requirements and common enough in the western world that it would be fairly ineffective.

      pricing information

      Businessmen wil pay more for their tickets than holidaymakers. Would not be much use on its own, but will indicate incongruities.

      You just gotta love those evil, corrupt bastards that run the U.S. Government!

      But they're your friends. Don't you trust them? You must be a terrorist then.

    3. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

      email address? Why an email address? (rhetorical question of course)

      I always refuse to give my email (airlines sooner or later use it for spam) and if I have to, I always give: diespamdie@127.0.0.1. Does this mean I'm screwed?

    4. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      the passenger's history of not showing up for flights

      Weird one this.


      It could be indicative of dry runs. If someone booked a LHR-JFK flight and then didn't turn up, then books another LHR-JFK flight for a week later on the exact same plane, alarm bells should be ringing.

      I bet they're only interested in the meal requests. But the terrorists know this. Best bet for terrorists is to opt for the vegetarian option. Unlikely to offend any dietry requirements and common enough in the western world that it would be fairly ineffective.

      Better.. you'd make no special requests and just not eat the food. That isn't knowledge that could be passed to authorities until you're in the air.

      Rest assured that they're collecting something a little different to these 34 publicized pieces of information. I'm certain I've read articles where the US authorities have stated that they actually lie about what they do and don't do in order to "protect your security". There's no way these 34 items are the whole story. A serious terrorist would know this and plan operations in a style that fits a reasonably standard profile.

    5. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by simcop2387 · · Score: 1
      the passenger's history of not showing up for flights

      Why do they want to know that?</blockquote>

      i'd guess so that if you don't always show up they can TRY to overbook the flight and get away with it, or give your seat away to standby passengers before boarding has started just to piss you off.
    6. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by Brobock · · Score: 1

      34 fields and not one asks for criminal convictions in their home country. In this globalized era, I am surprised that America doesn't demand this data (not that I want them to). I have personally been in trouble in my late teenage days and worry I will be denied entering other countries because of something I have done long ago and irrelavent to who I am today, but we do live in a world of collateral consequence these days.

      I for one don't ever want countries to share this data unless it is serious enough to mandate it be logged by Interpol such as Murderer on the run.

    7. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      damn it i really need to preview

    8. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You just gotta love those evil, corrupt bastards that run the U.S. Government!

      Now that is a mental image I didn't need !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      While I think this entire policy is unnecessary, one interesting thing that I recall from the previous article was that if your food preference could indicate religion it would not be revealed. For instance a request for hillal food would not be disclosed, but a request for vegetarian would be.

    10. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      A serious terrorist would know this and plan operations in a style that fits a reasonably standard profile.

      True. I remember reading about a list of items that have been used for profiling drug smugglers. Since the smugglers knew about these signs and responded to them, items included disembarking first, last and in the middle, as well as travelling alone and in a group. Wish I could remember where I read about it.

    11. Re:34 data fields (missing from article) by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      A lot of the information being provided is kept by airline reservation systems in the standard PNR (Passenger Name Record) for each passenger, anyway. Criminal conviction data is (probably) not.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  7. Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once the data leaves the hands of the EU, it is beyond the control of the EU. DHS can (and will, I'm sure) give it to anyone they want to. I have little reason to believe that won't include corporations that are willing to pay off the right people.

    So, really, how is this any better than what the U.S. was demanding to begin with, other than the fact that the EU gets to decide ahead of time whose data gets sent to the U.S.? For ordinary people, it seems to me that this is no different. Only people with "special" standing within the EU (i.e., those who have special connections to the people who decide what data goes out) will be protected.

    The actions of all governments with respect to the rights, liberties, and protections of the people have become so predictable that it's depressing. :-(

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by paranode · · Score: 1
      The actions of all governments with respect to the rights, liberties, and protections of the people have become so predictable that it's depressing. :-(

      Is it really surprising that you cannot travel anywhere you want without a passport/visa, etc? The passenger data they are getting is the same thing you would give to the airline when you book the flight.
    2. Re:Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's now going to US DHS, who are going to "facilitate" passing the data on to other security agencies, apparently. I'm sure we can all work out where this one is going to end.

      And yes, it does quite flagrantly violate the spirit of EU data protection laws, even if they've found a technicality to work around the letter. The correct response was to deny the US any information that isn't clearly necessary to allow them to take reasonable security precautions, and if the US threatened to deny landing rights, to call their bluff, loudly and publicly.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      While privacy is certainly a good thing, most likely the CIA and the NSA (and the spy agencies of other governments) already have a whole dossier of information on you, and no doubt that information ends up in the hands of corporations.

      Your own government collects tax information, occupational information, health care information, education information. This information is not kept secure the same way defense and security information is kept secure by your government, because it would be cost ineffective to do so and at the same time make the info available to provide services and charge taxes. No doubt, any government with a basic spy apperatus infiltrates and collects the information your government keeps on you.

      This agreement simply gives the TSA and the people who are responsible for U.S. airline security the information... if you don't want the TSA to have your information, then it might be a concern. But if you are worried about corporations being able to get your personal information, well your own government is already doing the job of collecting your personal information to give to corporations.

      If you truly were worried about privacy, you would not trust your own government to keep vast stores of information about you (which will eventually end up in the hands of politically connected corporations via government spy agencies). Flying to the U.S. is really the least of your concerns.

    4. Re:Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      I find this a little odd. The Data Protection Acts in Europe essential follow the same kind of general pattern, i.e if you want to store information in a computer database then you have to register what information you are storing and why you are storing it, and you have to comply with certain conditions such as you will tell someone what information you hold about them if they ask and that you will correct any mistakes in that information.

      Now these rules apply to anyone who wishes to maintain databases on individuals within the jurisdiction of the act. So why can DHS set up a little office in the airport to which the airline gives the information - bit like where US immigration operates in Europe to pre-clear passengers.

      Then they do their little analysis and come up with a guess at who's the likely lads with the bombs or whatever. Then their not sharing information about the individuals, just a list of names. They print them out and fax them off to head office in Washington or whereever.

      Don't see the problem...

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    5. Re:Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      But I didn't book my flight with the US government, so I don't really see why they need to know what my in-flight meal preference is.

      European governments (excluding the UK, which is superglued to the US's hindquarters) have no particlular objection to data collection, it's the processing and transmission that usually causes the problems. The US would like, for example, the EU passenger data to be transmitted to agencies that strictly have nothing to do with passport control such as the FBI. Given that nowhere in Europe is nearer than five hours from the US, and the US gets manifests of all passengers before take-off to run off against the DHS big database of bad guys anyway, you could view the extra requirements as being invasive. In reverse: how many US tourist would be happy to know that their complete itinerary had been passed to the DST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_de_la_surv eillance_du_territoire)?

    6. Re:Does this violate the EU's data protection law? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1
      That isn't the way the US government wants to operate. They want to be able to share all of the information with any government agency that might have some interest.

      The only reason it is even semi-legal is that the EU commissioner wrote a statement saying that he fully trusts the US government to comply with the data protection act, and there are no adverse privacy implications. This was written despite the US government refusing to comply with the conditions. Basically, the EU is saying "don't tell me what your doing with the data, and we won't ask questions". Sigh.

  8. Frankly by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We should just tell the US to go fuck themselves over the data and not travel there. If anything US airline security has been shown to be so poor we should be the one imposing the ridiculous restrictions on them coming here.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Frankly by dmatos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Troll? Maybe. Insightful? I think so.

      I'm personally boycotting any travel to the US for this and a myriad of other reasons. Apart from all the risks to my own personal liberty and freedom if I do happen to go there, there's the added fact that it's faster to fly to Europe than to the US (from Canada).

      When you add the four hours spent getting through security to the four hour flight, that pretty much equals the 1h security + 7h flight to Europe. And, you get to spend more of that time sitting down, rather than standing in line on a hard concrete floor.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    2. Re:Frankly by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 1
      ...If anything US airline security has been shown to be so poor we should be the one imposing the ridiculous restrictions on them coming here....
      I don't think any country or group has a monopoly on airport and/or airline security. See for example, this wikipedia list of airline hijackings, the hijackings seem distributed all over the world. Or consider the number of terrorist acts over the last couple of decades at various airports around the world. These include terrorist events in Germany and Italy. By no means do I think that US airport security is very good, but according to the historical evidence neither is EU airport security.
    3. Re:Frankly by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      i totally agree with you on this one, i guess you're not american either? (wait for the /. trolls to mod us down now)

    4. Re:Frankly by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      I find your comment bizarre. Before I let someone in my house, I ask who it is. This is a basic courtesy dating back to ancient times. This is no different, and there's a very real security threat to many people involved.

      Now, if the US refuses to reciprocate, then there's a problem. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc.

      -Jeff

      P.S. Please do not read this as "the us is perfect, us security is perfect, etc". I'm only commenting on the exchange of information.

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    5. Re:Frankly by RexRhino · · Score: 2

      While I agree that the U.S. should drop all the security requirements it has on planes traveling to the U.S. (it doesn't improve security, and frustrates visiters to the U.S.), I think you must not be very well traveled if you think that U.S. security restrictions are very difficult to deal with, or U.S. security is bad. No-one is going to boycott the U.S. when E.U. citizens are treated far worse in other places. You are simply used to getting your news from U.S.-centric news sources (like Slashdot), and are probably a bit U.S.-obsessed, so you are more aware of U.S. security issues than say those of Burma, or Belarus, or some other non-EU country.

      You are also missing the point that if European airlines refuse to fly to the United States, that U.S. airlines still can. It would be a boon to the U.S. airline industry.

    6. Re:Frankly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly we should tell the EU commission to go fuck themselves. They don't act in the interest of the people. The EU was a nice idea, but the implementation is a train wreck.

    7. Re:Frankly by ev0l · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know where you live but I live in Toronto and fly to the states five or six times a year.

      In the Toronto Airport (YYZ) it usualy takes under thirty minutes to clear through both US customs (yes you clear through US customs while still in Canada) and security. A direct flight to Florida takes about 2 and a half hours.

      To be safe I usualy show up 90 minutes before my flight departs and usualy have about an hour wait when I get to the terminal.

      I don't know where you fly out of by 4 hours is absurd and I am not sure you have ever actually experienced that sort of delay or were embellishing to make a point.

      In fact the YYZ web site states that you should show up 2 hours early for flights with both international and US destination.

      So that puts you at at most 5 hours to fly from Toronto to Florida or 9 hours or more to fly to Europe.

    8. Re:Frankly by Malc · · Score: 1

      Really? I'm confused, the last two trips to California for me, I checked in at Pearson less than an hour before departure. I don't recommend checking in so soon before any flight, be it within Canada, to Europe or the US. It takes just as long for me to check-in for the US as it does for Europe - pre-clearing US immigration and customs has been very quick for me in four trips.

      I now have a Canadian passport, but last year I travelled to the US on my British one, the first time I'd tried in five years after being falsely accused of working illegally in the US (and Canada!!??!) and refused entry (I chose to spend my money elsewhere for a while, yah fuckers). On that occasion last summer (since it was post the 11th Sept event) they were more concerned about scanning my iris and finger prints. Oh, and telling me that my denial entry was ridiculous and that they didn't believe me that it had happened (except it was on their computer, and still didn't make sense to them!). Maybe they've started hiring more intelligent people. Pretty smooth and quick, to my surprise.

    9. Re:Frankly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the US and am boycotting air travel, unless there is an emergency or I need to leave the country. I don't care if I have to drive a day to visit family at this point, fuck the airlines and fuck the authoritarians at TSA and DHS.

    10. Re:Frankly by chicago_scott · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would probably agree with you about boycotting travelling to the US if I lived outside the US.

      But regarding your point about risks to your personal liberty and freedom if you come here; I have to point out that the EU is the one that collects this data on it's citzens in the first place.

      Isn't the EU also infringing on on their personal liberty and freedom?

      What about Canada? They have to do the same thing. Here's Air Canada's policy. Isn't your government infriging on your personal liberty and freedom as well?

      http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/APIS/apis.h tml

      Air Canada (like all other airlines) is required to adhere to the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), which requires the collection of specific information from every passenger travelling to Canada, to/from the U.S. and other countries. This information is required for the purposes of ensuring aviation safety and security.

      Travellers must supply Advance Passenger Information at time of check-in or they will be unable to travel.

      Following is a list of information required:

            1. Full name (last name, first name, middle name if applicable)
            2. Gender
            3. Date of Birth
            4. Nationality
            5. Country of residence
            6. Travel document type (normally passport)
            7. Travel document number (expiry date and country of issue for passport)
            8. Destination address in the U.S. (Not required for U.S. nationals, Legal Permanent Residents, or Alien Residents of the U.S. entering the U.S.)

    11. Re:Frankly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point. I'ld wish more Europeans would realize the fault here lies not with the Americans asking for that data - it lies with European governments bending over when Bush tells them to. I second what someone posted above - the EU should tell the U.S. to go fuck itself and refuse to hand over any data. In fact, we should tell the U.S. to go fuck itself on general principles until the American public decides to return into the community of civilized nations and runs their insane moron in chief and his fuckwit friends out of office. Who knows, that might inspire the citizens of Europe to get rid of that corrupt abomination known as the EU commission (hey, a man can still dream !).

    12. Re:Frankly by BBird · · Score: 1

      I was planing a trip to Arizona
      and gave up (or at least postponed until
      2u leaves office).

    13. Re:Frankly by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      We should just tell the US to go fuck themselves over the data and not travel there

      I'm actually blown away that so many people are willing to travel voluntarily to the US based on the new laws. The first thing we do to everyone who isn't a Canadian or Mexican is photograph and fingerprint them. I wouldn't travel to any country that did that to me. (And I do support other countries doing it to US citizens until we stop doing it to their citizens.)

      This article implies that some tourists are already telling the US to go to hell.

  9. It went something like this by thefirelane · · Score: 4, Funny

    US: Hey EU, we need to talk about your Pieces of Information
    EU: Oh, is there a problem, I thought I was giving you the right number, 34 is the minimum right?
    US: Oh, yes, 34 is the minimum number of pieces of information, if you just want to do the minimum
    US: Look at Bulgaria over there, they give 54 pieces of information, don't you want to be like Bulgaria?
    EU: Look, if you want 54 pieces of information, just make the minimum 54
    US: I just want you to want to do more than the minimum


    Sorry, I forget the actual script, that's off the top of my head.

    1. Re:It went something like this by besenslon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good adaptation of "Office space" :)

      A side question - do you have any information about Bulgaria providing more info? As far as I know, there are no direct flights, so ...?

  10. ISR by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia^H^H^H^H EU airline reports YOU!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:ISR by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I, for one, do not welcome our new Soviet Overlords...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. So, that's the new definition of "reaching a deal" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    One saying "bend over" and the other one saying "please harder"?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. What about US citizens? by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the EU gets the same access to US databases im a ok with this. Somehow i suspect the US would never bend over and take it like that. Only the EU is so cowardly bent over for their new puppet lors.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:What about US citizens? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Somehow i suspect the US would never bend over and take it like that
      Maybe not, but apparently they have no problem giving a reacharound. If you think for one minute that the US isn't allowing passenger data to go to the EU, then you're a little naive.

      The EU's concern was that the US would too freely share such information with non-terrorism-related agencies; the US has no such compunctions, and has no problem forking the information over to the EU.

      However, the EU doesn't currently have as much of a centralized intel system, so the info is (from what I've read) distributed to the member states, but without a central database that can be easily scraped.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:What about US citizens? by slew · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the EU doesn't actually want the US information, because then they'd be required to protect it (and who would want to go through all that trouble)...

      Besides, looking at that information would probably be too depressing for them anyhow, credit card numbers for maxed out credit cards, finding out how little US folks pay for flights, that they use AOL email, tolerate the "standard" coach airline meal, and are travelling on a generic 21 country Trafalgar tour. I think after looking at a few hundred thousand of those database entries, most european countries would just cry Uncle... ;^)

    3. Re:What about US citizens? by traveller604 · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Since EU is made of good countries we don't have to be paranonoid. We don't need to waste our resources to stuff like this. We don't care. It doesn't concern us. People don't hate us like they hate you because of your goverment and attitudes like the one you represent in your post. EU isn't bending over, it's simply being diplomatic, plus I'm sure USA is paying some kind of a price for this. They just don't tell you that :p

    4. Re:What about US citizens? by Malc · · Score: 1

      You don't think that information is demanded by the UK? I recently booked a flight to the UK, and the airline's web site asked me if I wanted to give them my passport number then and there rather than at check-in time because I was going to a country that required extra information beforehand. I decided not to because I couldn't make up my mind which passport to use, and there's nothing like confusing people when you're a multi-national ;)

    5. Re:What about US citizens? by straybullets · · Score: 1
      If the EU gets the same access to US databases im a ok with this. Somehow i suspect the US would never bend over and take it like that. Only the EU is so cowardly bent over for their new puppet lors.

      Well, it's either that or EU citizens won't be allowed to travel to the USA.
      It's the same with the Biometric Passports, and I don't think the EU has much of a choice here...

      --
      With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
    6. Re:What about US citizens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Score:-1)
      I am starting to hate slashdot like I hate Amerika!

      It's war time.

  13. Under the new deal... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    The U.S. will "twist" the information from the E.U. nipples, instead of "pulling" the information from the E.U. underwear.

  14. So basically what are looking for is by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    A person who has a long history of checking in his baggage, but then not boarding on flights that later mysteriously blew up?

    Brilliant!

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:So basically what are looking for is by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's rather pointless anyway. Don't you have to say if you're a terrorist (and an ex-nazi, and if you came to attack the US government) on those little forms you get before landing in the US ? Seems much simpler to get it straight from the horse's mouth than trying to extrapolate from seating preferences. :)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  15. Huge difference in privacy rights by viking80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just some background info.
    Europe and US has a huge difference in privacy rights. In Europe the individual owns his own data. In the US the entity (read corporation) owns whatever they can collect (And sell).

    In Norway, for example, if you are unhappy with your credit rating, you just call them and tell them that they have to erase all data they have on you. (This will of course not result in a good score of course). Companies can not keep any information other than what is needed to complete a customer transaction. They can not sell it. The information belongs to you. A patchwork of laws are added to create "holes" in this "firewall" of privacy. Like credit reporting agencies

    In the US, Corporations owns whatever they can get, and can sell it as they like. There is no "Privacy firewall" A patchwork of laws is applied in an attempt to plug the glaring errors in this system.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Huge difference in privacy rights by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      No, Europeans don't have any such right to protect their information from their own governments. In Norway, you cannot demand that your government erases the information it keeps on you. European countries keep vast stores of private information on all its citizens. There is no way you can have a nationalized health care and education system, and government economic central planning, and a whole bunch of social controls and legislation, without the government collecting vast amounts of private data on its citizens.

      You don't fear the fact that your government holds vast information about you, because you have been conditioned to fear corporations and to trust the government implicitly. But both are just as likely to intentionally abuse your privacy, or to accidentally compromise it. (and that doesn't even take in consideration that foriegn spy agencies can easily take whatever information your government has at its leisure, and then share it with politically connected corporations in its home country. If the CIA and NSA could steal state military secrets from a paranoid totalitarian Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, BEFORE information was digital and easily copied.. they can most certainly take whatever they want from Norway in the digital age. So can the spy agencies of most countries.)

      The "privacy protection" Europe has is as much useless rhetoric designed to make citizens feel that the government is "doing something about the problem", as the terrorism "protection" in the U.S. that you are so against. If governments were serious about protecting the privacy of it's own citizens, not only would it stop creating national databases that are most certainly compromised by foriegn governments and corporations... but it would also abolish things like social insurance numbers that provide a single, easy way to track or steal identities.

  16. or "dealing a reach-around" by spun · · Score: 1

    No see, the US said "I'm just gonna take it from you and you're gonna like it," and the EU said, "You can't take it from me if I give it to you, you big stud!" and then wet slapping sounds were heard.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:or "dealing a reach-around" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh great. You are aware that someone will pick this up and make up some cutscenes with EU and US politicians, and post something like this on YouTube, yes?

      Think of the children! Although... it would be soooo wrong with children... in other words, twice as likely to appear on YouTube.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Why on Earth does the USA need all this info? by Panaqqa · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So, the USA thinks the following information will help them determine if I am a terrorist or not:

    • Whether or not I order a vegetarian or Kosher meal
    • My email address
    • The fact that I occupy a window or an aisle seat
    • The fact that I might want to go on a museum tour
    • That I missed a connecting flight in 2002

    Funny, but I don't see terrorists these days showing up to the airport to buy a one way ticket in cash, ordering a Halal meal, and pre booking a tour of The White House and The Capitol.

    IMHO they are demanding this data because they need to be seen to be doing something, and because the current US government has had a good deal of success with bullying tactics. So tell me: if I paid for my ticket with a credit card issued to an online gambling company, will I be arrested? Will I come under suspicion if one of the other members of the group I am travelling with is on the infamous "No Fly" list? Will the fact that I have dual citizenship and two passports, and that I use either passport depending on destination, raise flags? Let's say my visa was issued on one passport, but somehow the record shows the other one?

    This is just an excuse for a massive fishing expedition, and I fully expect the information they get to be misused. The current US government has demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot be trusted, and will do whatever it wants to regardless of international agreements, common sense, or fair play.

    It is too bad that the EU knuckled under on this. America can apply American law all it wants in America, but it has to get over this thinking that its laws supercede those of other sovereign nations.
    1. Re:Why on Earth does the USA need all this info? by l0b0 · · Score: 1

      This kind of data is invaluable to root out false positives when looking for suspicious / interesting patterns. E.g., you'll probably be less likely to think of someone as a terrorist if they asked for a wheelchair or anything else which would make them stand out in the relatively small crowd of a airline passengers. Other things, like booking shortly before the flight, indicates little planning. Each indicator gives a small nudge in one or the other direction (provided you have good reference data), and helps data mining a lot.

    2. Re:Why on Earth does the USA need all this info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.
      Yes.
      Yes.
      Yes.

      You're welcome.

    3. Re:Why on Earth does the USA need all this info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you ordered a vegetarian or kosher meal on previous flights, but now are having pork chops, may be significant. It could mean that you are a bad guy impersonating someone else.

      There's a whole class of things that are not suspicious by themselves, but become extremely suspicious compared to past history.

      Credit card companies do this all the time for fraud detection. They build up a profile of the customer over time, and look for things that are out of the ordinary.

    4. Re:Why on Earth does the USA need all this info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently bought an airline ticket on a US domestic flight for cash, using a pre-paid mastercard gift card, just to see what would happen. The card had no name on it, although I did give them my name when I booked the ticket.

      And... absolutely nothing unusual happened. I didn't get asked any extra questions, and I didn't get the 'special' boarding pass for extra screening.

      So I don't know what it is that they're looking for, but they apparently don't flag everyone who buys tickets for cash.

  18. Fly Austrian Airlines (only 10 fields) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fly Austrian Airlines (www.aua.at), it got a special status and they only transmit 10 fields to the US. Apparently the small market share was sufficient to have them slip through the rake. Here is the Austrian press (sorry, it's in German): http://futurezone.orf.at/business/stories/141834/

    Have fun.

  19. "What is the purpose of you trip?" by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    "I plan on blowing up the plane."

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  20. Maybe America is right??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I don't have an account - but I am not an anonymous coward either, my name is Aaron, hi!

    Lets look at this in a way that does not assume that just because America is getting this data that George Bush is reading it and laughing. Let's say someone is flying into New York from Paris with a one-way ticket bought in cash from a travel agent in Afghanistan, lets look closer at him. His flight history shows he flies into Syria and Lebanon regularly, he is 22 year old male, and he requested an aisle seat near the cockpit. Peronally I am glad they have this info, not so they can arrest him on the spot, but so the Air Marshall can keep a closer eye on him.

    But what do I know, I am just a stupid American, I probably deserve to have a plane flown into my office building.

    1. Re:Maybe America is right??? by scsirob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, hi there, Aaron.

      Don't you think that with this as public knowledge, people with bad intentions will make sure they order their ticket including return flight from a reputable travel agency (who couldn't care less who they sell their ticket to), using a pristine 'John Smith' passport showing no irregularities whatsoever? It's pretty easy to hijack the identity of any John Smith so the passport and records would be just peachy. No problem traveling with well-known airlines either, and I'm sure they won't tick the 'kosjer' box in the food selection box either. They may be scary backward folks, but they are *not* stupid.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  21. When governments collude by squarooticus · · Score: 1

    When governments collude, you and I lose rights.

    Well, I guess that isn't news: whenever governments to anything, you and I lose rights.

    --
    [ home ]
  22. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One less clueless leftist tourist!

  23. If you don't do this voluntarily... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    This looks very similar to "if you don't do it voluntarily, we'll force you".

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  24. great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Under the deal, the EU will 'push' the data -- 34 pieces of information per passenger -- to the US, replacing the current 'pull' system."

    So, basically; dont even bother asking for it, we will give it to you just like that.

  25. You've never heard of Air India Flight 182? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. Got to watch out for all those Sikh terrorists...

    I see that you are not aware of the whole Air India Flight 182 bombing situation been going on since 1985. It was the most deadly terrorist attack involving aircraft until September 11, 2001. It is also the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

  26. determining religeon by r00t · · Score: 1

    Place a Mohommed drawing on the floor in front of the door to the plane, so that you can't avoid stepping on it if you board the plane.

    Make all the seats on the plane be leather... from pigs.

  27. That is the whole freaking point Kemosabee. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Anybody could be a terrorist. Profiling is useless and lazy.

    Governments resort to this instead of the hard work of genuine intelligence gathering.

    If governments are waiting for the information about passengers in a flight before actin, we are already at danger.

    Good intelligence would mean a real dangerous person would not even manage to get a foot in the airport, perhaps not even manage to buy a ticket, before being busted.

    Profiling of passengers is an exercise of hand waving to the peanut gallery.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  28. No difference whatsoever by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The alternative universe in which politicians move defies normal logic.

    The only formal difference is that in Europe you have higer protection in regards how your personal data is used, but I am sure that if you don't allow that data to be used you will not fly.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  29. Well, doh. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    When you are working in big projects you flight often to the same place, and often you have to miss flights due to last minute plans.

    Profiling does not work. It is hand weaving for the peanut gallery....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  30. Me too. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I refuse to be submitted to the insulting handling of US immigration. Not even Vietnam immigration people were as nasty as US immigration are.

    I could save money making stop overs in the US but I don't, I prefer to pay a bit more but to be treated with some respect and dignity.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  31. Bullshit. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I have been in places like Vietnam, Namibia, the Philippines and Indonesia (Suharto era) as well as many other more potable places. I have acquantices that have actually been to Burma (may their companies be shamed forevever).

    I can confidently say that US immigration is unpolite, aggressive and downright racist.

    As for security, it is similar to Europe now, but the US was the one that upgraded.

    I remeber my first travel to the US and watched in horror in the way back as they allowed pretty much anybody and his dog to bid farewell to their friends and relatives in the boarding gates. This was in Houston, not in a small regional airport.... This was at a a time when in Mexico you would not be allowed into the plane with small items that could be dangerous (screwdrivers for example).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.