US To Get EU Private Citizen Data

An anonymous reader writes "In a case of 'all your data are belong to us,' the US government is close to coming to an agreement with the EU that allows it to get private citizen data on EU citizens to 'look for suspicious activity.' So, now we know what step three is: set up a security agency in the US to resell otherwise unavailable data."

Comments

EU requests private US citizen data

[dlb1]

So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[anonieuweling]

Yes, the US is more aggressive in obtaining the data of travellers. But the but since the USE (EU) are in the process of becoming a super-state kind of thing, despite the Lisbon treaty dilemma (the people don't want it, still the politicians move on) the stance on looking into private data might gradually change.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[wvmarle]

I don't know whether the people really want it or not. No-one not deep into politics really knows, nor understands, the full meaning of this treaty. What it means for them, for their country. And that is a big problem with many of those treaties: it is also why the "EU Constitution" (which for starters shouldn't have been called like that) was voted down. This was, at least in The Netherlands, largely because of unhappiness with the Dutch government, and somewhat unhappiness with the EU, not because of rational understanding of this "constitution".

The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well. Not everything is suitable for referendum.

I for one don't really and fully understand the implications of these agreements. I do understand the national parties that are also active in the community, the province, and the national government. I know what they stand for, and will vote for who-ever is closest to my ideas. And with that, they can support or reject these mighty complex treaties the way I would very likely have done it, if I had the time and understanding to really know what they mean.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Zemran]

So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

Why would they want it? So the US wants to horde lots of personal data that serves no other purpose other than to violate basic human rights, why should any one else want to be as stupid? It will waste money keeping and attempting to process this data to no worthwhile end except the jobs that it will create for the friends of those that pass these stupid laws.

It makes us all feel warm and fuzzy at night, knowing that the good old USSA have got the world police looking after us.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[anonieuweling]

Democracy on a national level is already very indirect and very vague and *you* trust even farther away EU politicians (who you'll rarely see, get to know, etc) to decide on a treaty that might very radically change the world around you? What you can eat? What you can do? Where you can go? Yes, all that kind of stuff. Exactly because it is a constitution we need a vote. And if it is too complex it is to be explained *WAY* better before, and not after, accepting it. It's not a matter of trust. They, who work for us, simply shouldn't push ahead with something that was voted down thrice. (yes that is what they will do after a slight break because of the Irish no...)

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Vinegar Joe]

So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

Maybe when a group of terrorists operating out of Hamburg, Minnesota hijack several European passenger airliners and crash them into the Eiffel Tower and Buckingham Palace?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[drsquare]

The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well.

Great, so EU politicians living a thousand miles away who don't even speak your language can make decisions like this data sharing, and you have no say in it whatsoever. The way the EU is acting recently, it's becoming less like a democratic organisation, and more like a giant, unaccountable fascist beaurocracy.

The reaction to the Irish vote just sums it up: the people have rejected it, but they're going through with it anyway, because they're in charge and 'they know best'. Most of the arrogant politicans in favour of the constitution haven't even fucking read it. In fact the document is purposefully long and complicated so no-one can understand what it's actually about.

Personally I don't see why the EU can't just be a trade zone, and fuck off all this federal superstate crap. Thank god we're not in the Euro, the last thing we need is these jokers running our economy.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[dbcad7]

These same people also hung out in Florida I believe.. and were also not citizens of the EU.. wouldn't it make more sense to collect data from all the citizens of the countries that these people came from ?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[dbcad7]

As a matter of fact.. the people from 911 all had to apply for, and received, visas to get here.. so a lot of good even collecting the information does.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[thetoadwarrior]

Did you mom drop you on your head when you were born? Just because the American voting public is willing to be walked all over doesn't mean everyone wants to or should have to deal with it.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Fjandr]

Politicians are people too. If ordinary people cannot understand what a treaty or constitution is designed to do, there is something wrong with either the people or the document.

When you vote for someone, you should be voting for someone competent (heh, wonder how often that actually happens), but how do you have the slightest chance of determining their competence and how they will respond to an issue like a treaty if you are completely incapable of understanding the impact of said treaty?

If it's really that complex, the politicians need to break down what it's going to do so that the general public understands it. Note, this would be in a perfect world. More likely is that they'll lie and say what people want to hear in order to get votes...

When you vote for people, and "trust" that they will do the right or competent thing, without understanding the issues yourself, things will go wrong, corrupt politicians will be elected, and the public will get exactly the government they deserve.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[JaredOfEuropa]

The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well. Not everything is suitable for referendum.

The problem is with the document itself. It should be a real constitution, like the US and many other countries have. A document that delimits Europe's influence over its member states and its people, and clearly states what they can and cannot do, and how they do it. It does not have to be more than a few pages in very simple language that anyone can understand. Then we'll have something meaningful to vote on... and I think it'd good and right that we actually get to vote on it, too.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Fred_A]

Politicians are people too. If ordinary people cannot understand what a treaty or constitution is designed to do, there is something wrong with either the people or the document.

The problem is that this so called "constitution", now renamed "treaty" is more or less a sum of all the inter state treaties that have been agreed upon since the 1950s. And it's now something like 300 pages long and an absolute mess despite some apparent attempts at organising the whole thing.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with a constitution (which is merely the topmost law), or a treaty, it's *all* the treaties at once. No wonder nobody could read it. Only people who have made a career of studying European laws and agreements can navigate through it.

I have the published version commented by the designed committee of the original version (the one that failed to pass the first time, supposedly pretty much the same as the current one) and I have to say that the comments didn't help much.

A proper constitution would be a good start in making the eurofolks feel they're part of the same thing though. I'd vote for a properly written one.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[sumdumass]

Because if they didn't, it was going to become a situation where passengers and planes couldn't land in the US or even fly through US airspace unless the information was taken and passed on. A visiter from the EU would have to take a flight to a country that does the fingerprinting and then fly into the US. Evidently, there is or was enough people in the EU who saw this as a problem and the rules were changed. For people not going to or through the US, this doesn't effect them so their opinions sort of matter less.

When I say matter less, I don't mean that they are irrelevant, I mean that your opinion about something that would never effect you isn't as important then the opinion of someone who is effected. Granted, people's opinion over government actions is just as important as anyone's who is subjected to that government. But their opinion over having to give fingerprints to enter or fly through the US when they never do that, doesn't carry as much weight as someone's who is directly effected by it.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[sumdumass]

The idea behind the finger prints is that a sovereign nation has a right to know who is entering their borders. You can fake visas and passports, but you will have a hard time faking a fingerprint. This provides a somewhat accurate way of determining is person X is really person X and not terrorist Y in disguise.

It doesn't really matter who they fooled into thinking they were legit or someone else before. What matters is if the US buys the story and they have stated that they won't unless fingerprints are used.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Fjandr]

"there is something wrong with [...] the document."

So this pretty much sums it up? :)

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Reziac]

I don't know about this 'Irish vote' of which you speak, but politicians overriding what the people want happens everywhere. We are seeing a surge of such behaviour here in California, at both state and local levels. I think the problem is that once an elected gov't gets just so entrenched, it becomes immune to everything outside of its own power. Electing a different official, even one who starts out honest, is at best a temporary fix and far too small to influence the whole. The powers that be will make sure anyone too disagreeable gets un-elected next time around.

As to TFA, I found this disturbing:
=====
For example, the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or "sexual life" may not be used by a government "unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards." But the accord does not spell out what would be considered an appropriate safeguard, suggesting that each government may decide for itself whether it is complying with the rule.
=====

And I'd like to know what the EU is getting in return -- I'd bet it's access to similar data on American citizens.

Asking my name and country of origin are reasonable enough when I enter your country. Anything else is none of your country's business.

Same goes for MY country.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[dbcad7]

But they are not talking about fingerprints here... here is an excerpt from the article..

an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information -- like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits -- about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Also the 911 passports and visas were all legit.. although a few of them got their visa using a program called "express visa" (no consulate visit with interview), the majority did have to do an interview at the US consulate... but regardless of that, I have no problem with fingerprint or other biometric data. You need to better identify persons who might be a threat, and take preventative actions from them traveling for something like this to be successful... our system at the time failed big time.. and that was even with knowing that some of these people were bad people.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[polar red]

you have no say in it whatsoever.

WRONG. look up "Representative democracy"

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[polar red]

Personally I don't see why the EU can't just be a trade zone

I suggest you read some history, count the number of wars in europe BEFORE and AFTER the foundation of the EU (the European Coal and Steel Community, 1951). The rest is 'filler'.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[mrmeval]

"Great, so Washington politicians living a thousand miles away who don't even speak your dialect can make decisions like this patriot act, and you have no say in it whatsoever. The way the US is acting recently, it's becoming less like a democratic organization, and more like a giant, unaccountable fascist bureaucracy."

Suitably edited to show that the EU is late. ;)

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The masses are too apathetic to do anything

Actually, when the masses have actually been asked in a referendum, they have generally rejected the various EU constitution/superstate treaties. It's just that this time around with the Lisbon treaty, only one government has so far had the courage to go to its people and ask (well, actually their constitution required it). Despite widespread criticism, other leaders have ratified the treaty againt popular opinion. The masses aren't apathetic, they just aren't being given the choice, in one of the most flagrant violations of democracy in recent history.

And for the avoidance of doubt, we don't get to elect the people with real power in the EU framework, who are apparently behind this particular affront to privacy, either.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[sumdumass]

But they are not talking about fingerprints here... here is an excerpt from the article.

Well, it was fingerprints and the information that airlines kept on passengers which included credit card info and so on.. Evidently, this went as far as including parts of the swift consortium goals too but that is sort of a sidestep in this.

Also the 911 passports and visas were all legit.. although a few of them got their visa using a program called "express visa" (no consulate visit with interview), the majority did have to do an interview at the US consulate... but regardless of that, I have no problem with fingerprint or other biometric data. You need to better identify persons who might be a threat, and take preventative actions from them traveling for something like this to be successful... our system at the time failed big time.. and that was even with knowing that some of these people were bad people.

I have no objections to this except that the program that neccesitate this exchange is based around identifying the people entering the country and determining if they are real or a threat. Every other country that send flights into the US already does this. Many of the EU states/countries had some strict privacy laws that caused an issue for EU officials. This is probably the only reason we are hearing about it outside of when we heard of the program that necessitates this. Now I'm not going to argue the potential effectivness or even the worth of the program. I'm just saying it is there and it is the reason the US is attempting to make deals with the EU over the information. From what I can tell, this isn't a matter of the US getting a credit card purchasing or use history, it is a matter of getting what the airlines have on file for each flyer on flight comming to america which could mean using a certain credit card or not.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[emilper]

how about counting the number of wars in Europe before and after the US occupation ? :-P

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[slarrg]

Actually, the article says, "the pact would make clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the United States, and vice versa." So, of course, this means the data will be streaming both ways. Apparently, there's no cause for concern that US data will be going to the EU as far as the New York Times is concerned.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[emilper]

There will be only a lot of false positives: dangerous terrorists already know how to fake being benign tourists ...

Anyway, this is not about collecting data about EU citizen: it's just about mobilization, negotiations and scoring brownie points. US gov-t wants EU to send more troops in A. and I. or lower their export subsidies, EU gov-ts don't want to pay for sending the troops or something else, etc. etc. so they started a righteousness contest: EU began investigating "torture camps" (while western European gov-ts collaborated quite openly in "renditions", so what's there that they don't already know ?), and US asks for info on EU citizen traveling to US, as if they don't already share info on people with higher risk ...

The EU bureaucrats only attempt to appear righteous, and US bureaucrats want to show that they care about security and play favorites with no one.

This is the oldest trick in the book: to control your subjects you need to keep them on their toes, and give them something to feel superior to, and something to hate.

We had a long vacation ... Americans moving to Europe or Canada and feeling at home and not missing the apple pie, French, English, German etc. moving to US and not being bothered much by "consumerism", Eastern Europeans moving everywhere and maybe raising a few eyebrows, but not because they were weird, but because they were unexpectedly normal and unentertaining ... Now mobilization is back in fashion: a Russian bodyguard gets poisoned, and suddenly becomes a brave KGB defector involved in a life and death strife with terrible enemies, plans to install a useless and untested "missile shield" in Europe (probably only a bit of pork - think construction contracts) becomes the best argument that the Russian government can use to prove to it's own people that innostrantsi want to harm them etc.

While the bureaucrats from both sides of the Atlantic play their charade, we bite the hook, swallow it whole, then go be heroes on internet forums ... that until we get ourselves persuaded that indeed Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[joshsnow]

I'm a member of those masses. I haven't got a clue what the Lisbon treaty is about, or the previous constition proposal. I blame the media for that. Instead of educating and informing, they're knee jerking and scare-mongering. Of course, being web savvy, I could do my own research, but many other people can't...

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[joshsnow]

I was thinking "there is something wrong with the people" - the thing being wrong is that they don't understand what this treaty or the previous constitution is, thanks to a nationalistic, xenophobic media and vested interests.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[zsau]

It's really quite simple: independent states should generally be limited to about four or five million people or a single city plus enough land (but no other large towns or cities) for a decent amount of water. Anything larger than that and some begin to get too powerful. Obviously freedom of movement and trade should be retained or extended to cover greater regions; Australia's relationship with New Zealand is probably a good model to go for here — merely a holdover of the freedom of trade and movement that existed under the British Empire with London removed — rather than the EU's internal relationship.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Swampash]

The way the EU is acting recently, it's becoming less like a democratic organisation, and more like a giant, unaccountable fascist beaurocracy.

Oh come on, I think if you actually compare the EU with the USA you'll find there are lots of differences.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[roesti]

I don't know whether the people really want it or not. No-one not deep into politics really knows, nor understands, the full meaning of this treaty.

You don't need to know everything about it to make an informed decision: there are big enough traps in the Treaty for anyone "not deep into politics" to distrust it completely.

Put simply, the Treaty of Lisbon, like the TCE before it, is a thinly-veiled attack on democracy. You can get a seven-minute history lesson about it here.

I think you put too much faith in your elected representatives. I don't doubt that they are, as you say, "competent people", but I have no delusion whatsoever that they really give a damn about what I think is good for the country.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[muffel]

I suggest you read some history, count the number of wars in europe BEFORE and AFTER the foundation of the EU (the European Coal and Steel Community, 1951). The rest is 'filler'.

Why not count the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the introduction of color TV?
Or the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the assassination of JFK?
Or the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the Berlin Wall was built?

Were you actually trying to indicate some sort of proof with your statement?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[I cant believe its n]

WRONG AGAIN: Look up "not so representative democracy"

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[I cant believe its n]

The Irish vote was a xenophobic reaction, they want to "control" their borders. (Read: not let in foreigners to take the jobs created by Ireland joining the EU in the first place.) The new text, and the EU constitution before that are very good, ethical, strong texts that more people should read before voting against them out of gut reaction. The Euro is currently the strongest currency in the world, this happened by unity, not xenophobic isolationism.

I am truly impressed by your amazing ability to correctly distill the opinions of an entire nations into the few lines of your comment. The stupid no-voters are xenophobics, who form an opinion without reading the entire document.

Interestingly enough the people who voted yes, where right even though the vast majority of them did not read the text for this constitution either.

B.t.w. Did you read the text in its entirety?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[mcsporran]

Double plus ungood oldthinker
Oceania was always at war with Eastasia.
Room 101

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Zemran]

or maybe when such a thing happens the US subjects will see what a load of BS this whole thing is. So you have fingerprints taken in Minnesota and a lot of dead people in France or England... great. Those fingerprints will not keep the plane in the sky and as the terrorist is going to die he does not worry about another piece of information about him. We already have his passport details (as in September 2001) so what good is having his fingerprints as well? If we cannot stop him despite knowing who he is (as in September 2001) what are we going to do with these fingerprints?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[jsiren]

You can fake visas and passports, but you will have a hard time faking a fingerprint.

I take it you haven't been watching Mythbusters, then. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4Xx5Noxyo

Slides from 2002 about reproducing fingerprints in gelatin http://web.mit.edu/6.857/OldStuff/Fall03/ref/gummy-slides.pdf

Besides, you can have all the biometry you want. All you've got is a document stating that a fingerprint that looks like this (image) belongs to a person that looks like this (image), has irises that look like this (image), has a signature that looks approximately like this (image), is called (name), is a citizen of (country), is (male/female), was born on that date at that location, was given this document with that serial number by that authority on that date, and this document expires on that date.

Now, what of this can you verify? You can trust the authority that granted the document by inspecting the security measures embedded within. Perhaps you can even contact the authority and ask about the content of the document by its serial number. You can even go so far as to determine that the person actually is the one who they claim to be. Then again, what does it prove? That they have not committed any crimes? That they will not commit any crimes? That they have not or will not use a false identity in the future?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[the donner party]

It is worth pointing out that the Lisbon treaty (like the EU Constitution before it) actually greatly simplifies the mess that it the accumulation of all EU treaties. It's just that it was considered politically impossible to make radical changes to the structure, so they couldn't simplify it any more, and what remains is still hideously complex. However, preferring the current state of affairs to the Lisbon treaty is by no means reasonable. I understand many nay-sayers would prefer a wholly reorganized structure, but any attempt to do so would be even more doomed that the current reorganization.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[TirolTiger]

What a typical British uninformed tirade by 'drsquare'. Some of his points are valid as I too agree that the EU politicians do not care what their constituents say, and that goes for the British politicians as well, who incidentally, are far more ready than the bigger EU States on the Continent to steal our private data and give it to the damned yanks. I live in Austria five minutes from the German 'Border', and we cross back and forth nearly every day. The thought of having to always carry two currencies again is an awful thought. We love the Euro Zone, and only wish the Labour Hypocrites in Government had done as they said, that is to go into the Euro Zone 'when the Exchange Rate was right'. It is now far better than Blair and Brown ever hoped, but neither has/had any intention of joining. Shame on the liars. The only problem for us is that because Britain did not join the Zone, and because the EURO has risen so strongly against Sterling, my pension (from my employer) which comes from Britain is now worth nearly 20 per cent LESS than it was SIX months ago! AND drsquare talks as if he knows all about the Euro Zone and the strength of the pound! Think again, and before you mouth off again, try to get your facts correct.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Maybe when the EU starts spending 600 B$ on its defense, or the US isn't capable of spending that much anymore?

You'd be surprised how much of international politics is simply powerplay wrapped in a lot of diplomacy and a smile.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Yes, because it's absolutely obvious the Euro is good-for-nothing.

The last thing we need is jokers like you commenting on economics.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Anspen]

Yes, because the clear language of the commerce clause in the US constitution has made sure that the federal government never oversteps the limits of its power.

The EU had much clearer boundaries where the distribution of powers is concerned than the US, since every power the commission or council has was explicitly given by all member states. Yes, that still leaves room for abuse, or a better distribution but IMHO the problem doesn't lie with the clarity of the language/treaties/documents but with the fundamental way it has been set up.

Back on-topic: TFA shows an agreement that isn't great however there are four things to consider:

1) Some agreement is necessary. At the moment airlines for example are trapped between a rock and a hard place. EU law tells them they can't give information, US law says they must, otherwise they can't land.

2) Some exchange of data seems sensible. I would say that basic data like name, date of birth, nationality and time/date of flight are reasonable. However, other data is worrisome and hopefully the EU will stop that.

3) I'd argue that the much more important issue is how the data is handled. Who has access an din what way.

4)This isn't final, negotiations are still ongoing. One of the key issues seems to be the right of EU citizens to sue the US government to get errors corrected. Which, looking at the no-fly list seems quite important. We will have to see what the final outcome is, especially since in this case it's the US that wants something (as opposed to for example the open skies agreement, which greatly favoured the US).

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[KDR_11k]

This doesn't seem to be about travellers.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[drsquare]

For most of the post-war era, the EU was just a trade zone, as I suggested. And I'm pretty sure that the lack of wars since then was more to do with the presence of the Soviet Union than anything else. Since the fall of communism we've had wars in Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[drsquare]

I know how strong the Euro is compared to the pound, and that's pretty much one good reason not to join. Unless you want to destroy all our exports of course. And tell me an advantage of having our interest rates and money supply controlled by Frankfurt rather than the Bank of England. I can't think of any.

But yeah, let's change currency and the whole way our economy operates, just so you don't have to carry too many coins.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[infolib]

Correlation does not equal causation! And if Union is so great, can you tell me what happened in the US 1861-65? Not to mention the Soviet breakup.

It's a know fact that democratic countries fight each other very rarely or not at all. Now given that, how hard is it to keep the peace in a club that only allows already democratic members?

Or perphaps Europe was just scared shitless by the Soviets?

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[sumdumass]

No, I have watched this myth buster's episode. I also remember playing around with an canon bcj80 portable injet printer/scanner back in the mid 90's attempting to do the same things (find and scan a fingerprint with the scanner head then place a latex glove over a cardboard cutout and print the fingerprints onto it). Anyways, this or what the myth busters did is something that wouldn't attract some attention because of the equipment or skin colors and so on. While it might not be true, I have to assume that the people looking at the stuff aren't idiots.

Besides, you can have all the biometry you want. All you've got is a document stating that a fingerprint that looks like this (image) belongs to a person that looks like this (image), has irises that look like this (image), has a signature that looks approximately like this (image), is called (name), is a citizen of (country), is (male/female), was born on that date at that location, was given this document with that serial number by that authority on that date, and this document expires on that date.

Sure. And when you take that document and run it against a bunch of previously known elements you have a good chance of knowing that A: the person presenting it is the same person who received the document from an issuing authority. And B: if that person pops a flag up from the computer or is listed on some watch list or somehow barred from entry, they can be denied entry into the US or taken into custody until something is sorted out and whatever mistake is made/seen. I'm not sure the idea is as much involved with making sure person X is actually person X as much as it is that Person X acording to these papers boarded this flight and we have reasons to believe that the same person who got the papers is the same person pretending to be person X.

Now, what of this can you verify? You can trust the authority that granted the document by inspecting the security measures embedded within. Perhaps you can even contact the authority and ask about the content of the document by its serial number. You can even go so far as to determine that the person actually is the one who they claim to be. Then again, what does it prove? That they have not committed any crimes? That they will not commit any crimes? That they have not or will not use a false identity in the future?

You can verify that the person claiming to be Person X on a flight entering the states is in fact the same person who got the passport and VISAs for Person X. And when you get this information before the flight takes off headed for the US, you can run it against a database for threats and perhaps charges against them so you are somewhat better prepared to react once the plane lands.

Sure it isn't fool proof. Sure, it isn't a single comprehensive measure that revolutionizes border security. Sure, it doesn't change the acts of dishonest people. But what it does is place on layer that wasn't there before which can be used in connection with other layers to aid in the overall security issue. In the myth busters episode, If a guard was standing there monitoring access to the doors protected by the biometric scanners, would he have noticed the fake thumb? There is a good chance he would. Even if they matched the skin color perfectly, there is still a good change that it will appear "dead" or "inanimate" when used. Now imagine a flight into the US where you have to make that thumb print be convincing to get on the plane as well as get off of it without blowing your cover. You now have two separate personalities to contend with and subvert as well as two chances of getting caught. If you appear nervous or out of character, then there is a chance for a more thorough examination and so on. It isn't an end all, it is simply part of a larger picture.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[rronda]

No, I am not stupid, I didn't read the original article and I received my punishment.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Archtech]

So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

When it wants to get bombed.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Archtech]

The excellent EU-phemisms cartoon in the current Private Eye (No. 1213) has an EU spokesman saying:

'Of all the EU member states, only Ireland voted "No"'.

Underneath, where the real meaning of such statements is traditionally explained, it adds:

"Of all the EU member states, only Ireland voted".

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[thalassinos]

You are confusing Czechoslovakia with Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia split amicably to the Czech Republic and Slovakia (now both EU members). Yugoslavia was composed by Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia (which included the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija). Starting in 1991, Yugoslavia disintegrated in the Yugoslav Wars which followed the secession of most of the republic's constituent entities.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[jsiren]

Sure. And when you take that document and run it against a bunch of previously known elements you have a good chance of knowing that A: the person presenting it is the same person who received the document from an issuing authority. And B: if that person pops a flag up from the computer or is listed on some watch list or somehow barred from entry, they can be denied entry into the US or taken into custody until something is sorted out and whatever mistake is made/seen. I'm not sure the idea is as much involved with making sure person X is actually person X as much as it is that Person X acording to these papers boarded this flight and we have reasons to believe that the same person who got the papers is the same person pretending to be person X.

(...)

You can verify that the person claiming to be Person X on a flight entering the states is in fact the same person who got the passport and VISAs for Person X. And when you get this information before the flight takes off headed for the US, you can run it against a database for threats and perhaps charges against them so you are somewhat better prepared to react once the plane lands.

Biometrics are often touted as a certain solution to the problem of verifying whether Person X is really Person X or somebody else in disguise. The point I'd like to raise is that this may not be the real problem, making biometrics a moot solution. Are you sure the entire system is waterproof? That there is no way one could get two genuine passports under different identities, with valid biometric data? If not, we can end up with a situation where one passport proves that country 1 knows the person as X, and another passport proves that country 2 knows the person as Y, etc. If Person X is a threat, maybe Person Y has a clean slate and is given a warm welcome?

In the end, all you know is the person is probably using their own passport. So you catch those who are known to be threats plust those who travel on stolen, borrowed, or counterfeit passports. Stolen passports can be reported as it is, counterfeit passports can be recognized, although having an encrypted chip on the passport makes it somewhat more difficult to counterfeit.

My main criticism is against the attitude that the more we know about each individual person, the more effectively we can mitigate any threat that they might present. This attitude is like keeping pink elephants away by individually examining each person and object in the room, listing all the things it is, and if "pink elephant" doesn't come up, being satisfied it isn't a threat. I take the view that the more we know about the source of the threats, the more effectively we can mitigate them. That source is not the hordes of individual airline travelers, nor is it the entire half-billion population of the EU, nor the 300 million people of the USA.

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[sumdumass]

Biometrics are often touted as a certain solution to the problem of verifying whether Person X is really Person X or somebody else in disguise. The point I'd like to raise is that this may not be the real problem, making biometrics a moot solution. Are you sure the entire system is waterproof? That there is no way one could get two genuine passports under different identities, with valid biometric data? If not, we can end up with a situation where one passport proves that country 1 knows the person as X, and another passport proves that country 2 knows the person as Y, etc. If Person X is a threat, maybe Person Y has a clean slate and is given a warm welcome?

Your right in that you can't make something 100% water proof in this way. But what you can do is make it as buoyant as possible and keeping the holes in a safe position.

One of the reasons for getting the information before they fly into the US airspace is to make sure that person X on the plane is whoever was represented as person X. With this information, the information on payments such as credit card info and so one, it would be relatively easy to track Person X to person Y in another country if the situation required it. It might not be as easy as a few keystrokes but the goal is to make proper identification easier not easy. Plus it is debatable to how long this dual identity could be maintained if the data was shared and use the same biometric information.

In the end, all you know is the person is probably using their own passport. So you catch those who are known to be threats plust those who travel on stolen, borrowed, or counterfeit passports. Stolen passports can be reported as it is, counterfeit passports can be recognized, although having an encrypted chip on the passport makes it somewhat more difficult to counterfeit.

Sure. But a stolen passport doesn't always get reported before it is used and so on. With the information in the computers, The system would know it wasn't your passport the very minute you checked in for an international flight. Well, perhaps maybe a little longers but generally the efficiency of a computer system is going to be greater then the 4-12 hour flight across an ocean.

My main criticism is against the attitude that the more we know about each individual person, the more effectively we can mitigate any threat that they might present. This attitude is like keeping pink elephants away by individually examining each person and object in the room, listing all the things it is, and if "pink elephant" doesn't come up, being satisfied it isn't a threat. I take the view that the more we know about the source of the threats, the more effectively we can mitigate them. That source is not the hordes of individual airline travelers, nor is it the entire half-billion population of the EU, nor the 300 million people of the USA.

I think you might be operating under two preconditions that could be more misconception then anything. First, you would have to view the potential threats that are hoped to be thwarted as pink elephants, non-existent mythical creature usually attributed to intoxicated people's misdirectong or understanding of normal events. While it may be true or even possible to be true that the threats of concern won't be orchestrated in ways effecting airline travel, we simply do not know that. But a further point, and one that you bring up, is that the hoards of law abiding people coming in and leaving the various countries. You see, it could be that they are hiding in with these hoards and that their objective isn't immediate but significantly later. Without monitoring, they can hide in the open to some degree and move about unchallenged to effect and plans they might have. Now if there is an attack because person X got into the country by traveling under the name Lucy Loo, and we have information that Person X has met with Terrorist A, it could

Re:EU requests private US citizen data

[Downside]

Why not count the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the introduction of color TV?

I don't know... maybe because the stated goal of introducing color TV wasn't to make warfare between the Western European nations impossible?

on behalf of Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you America

signed, Europe

Re:on behalf of Europe

[brxndxn]

fuck you America

signed, America

Re:on behalf of Europe

[ScrewMaster]

Hey, it's your leaders that are agreeing to this shit. Put the blame on their shoulders ... they could have said "no".

Re:on behalf of Europe

[WoollyMittens]

Leaders maybe... But we sure as hell didn't get to vote for any of the European Parliament. They're not democratically elected.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Opportunist]

To shorten things:

Fuck you, America

signed, world

Re:on behalf of Europe

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Oh, smashing, groovy, yay democracy!

Re:on behalf of Europe

[sa1lnr]

You're either for us or against us.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Opportunist]

Yeah, we could have voted differently.

The US ain't the only country where the "I voted for Kodos" meme applies. It's not like calling any other party to the helm would have changed a thing.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Ren.Tamek]

That's a rather naive viewpoint. I doubt it was even phrased as a question.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you European citizens

Signed, European overlords

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Ethanol-fueled]

Fuck you American Government. signed, We the People.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[adsl]

Europe is working on an implementation that will have ALL telephone calls and ALL broadband activity, by Eurpoeans, recorded and held for a minimum of 18 months. So if you criticize the USA please examine your own EU Goverment's "security" activities first.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[McDutchie]

Leaders maybe... But we sure as hell didn't get to vote for any of the European Parliament. They're not democratically elected.

Actually, they're the only EU body that is democratically elected! If you refused to vote in the 2004 EP elections, that's another matter; next year you'll have a chance to remedy that.

(And of course the Lisbon treaty was supposed to give the EP more power, which would have increased democracy in the EU. Too bad.)

Re:on behalf of Europe

[rwxrwx]

Hey, it's your leaders that are agreeing to this shit. Put the blame on their shoulders ... they could have said "no".

If you had any idea as to how the EU Officials get into office you wouldnt have posted that half ass comment.

Most European citizens do not even get to vote for country officials or representatives. Most EU Officials or governing body positions are appointed positions, from either voted politicians , or other appointed politicians.

In some EU Countries citizens are not even allowed to vote on most EU policies and laws.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[fastest fascist]

Actually,

Fuck you, EU

signed, EU Citizens

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you Government, signed, We the People.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[the_1000th_Monkey]

>> --- We need more Ron Paul!

I have a fever, and the only prescription is more Ron Paul!

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Jesselnz]

Why are you pissed? At least you're not the ones paying for this shenanigans.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[jsiren]

Do you live in an EU member country? I live in Finland and I did get to vote for members of the European Parliament.

Re:on behalf of Europe

[OrangeTimer]

Your sig continues to serve you well.

Fabulous

[Instine]

Just what I would have wanted my unelected EMPs to do on my behalf. Thanks guys. Keep up the good work.

Re:Fabulous

[jo42]

The terrorists have won.

Re:Fabulous

[Anonymous Coward]

Ach, please don't say 'terrorist' like it's labels a group of people with a common cause.

The terrorist moniker is a dumming down.

Re:Fabulous

[intx13]

I wouldn't say that. The "terrorists" don't really get much out of this (whoever they are) - this is just going to create more identity theft problems for our European neighbors.

It's stupid, yes, and it's invariably going to create a whole host of headaches, and I have no idea why any EU official would possibly think this is a good thing... but this is typical government nonsense, not terrorism.

Re:Fabulous

[Anonymous Coward]

What he means is that through the act of trying to "protect" people from terrorism, in both the United States and abroad, the governments of democratic nations everywhere are imposing draconian restrictions on their own populations which destroy the very ideals that these "free" nations stand for.

By trying to restrict terror, we are in fact subjugating ourselves to it.

Thus, the end result of "terrorism" is being achieved.

Re:Fabulous

[wvmarle]

You could have voted, you know. There are elections for the European parliament. It's just that no-one shows up (typically 20-40% of registered voters actually votes).

Re:Fabulous

[Halo1]

Just what I would have wanted my unelected EMPs to do on my behalf.

The EMP's, who are actually directly elected, have nothing to do with this agreement (and if you'd read the article, you'd see they are more critical of it than anyone else).

It's being negotiated by the Commission with a mandate of the EU Council of Ministers (who will later still have to, and probably will, approve it). The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

Re:Fabulous

[Anonymous Coward]

And so have shady politicians and the war profiteers.

Re:Fabulous

[Opportunist]

It's one of those "we gotta do something" things.

Voters demand actions from their leaders when things go wrong. They can't just sit there and say "Ok. We can't do anything. Let's grab popcorn and watch the world come to an end". Even if that's the only thing to do. They wouldn't get reelected if they did. The media would rip them apart.

So they do something. It doesn't solve the problem, actually, it pisses off a lot of people, but it appeases the masses who don't think but just demand action. They got action now. And it's sold as the miracle cure to a disease that can't be cured easily, or at the very least not directly.

Re:Fabulous

[TheGratefulNet]

and I have no idea why any EU official would possibly think this is a good thing..

deals. its all about closed-door deals. you scratch my back and I'll tattle on your neighbor.

follow the money, as they say. or the motivation. its about 'making an offer you can't refuse. I honestly do believe that. when the US comes knocking, you CANNOT say no. and that's a goddamn SCARY thought, albeit a true one.

why do you think the riaa/mpaa have so much international power? they're a US entity, afterall. but when the US 'suggests' an idea to a foreign semi-friendly nation, they NEVER EVER decline. ever notice that?

the US gives and the US gets. its all about deals. it was never about right or wrong, but about power trades and exchanges.

Re:Fabulous

[sa1lnr]

Odd, I thought the were actually elected here in the UK.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/guide/Gelectionsmain.html

Re:Fabulous

[Opportunist]

And that's what bothers me about this practice to no end.

First, they issue the EU guideline (read: something you have to make a law in your country), then they come and say they're so awefully sorry that they have to implement that, but the EU forces them.

Who the fuck made that guideline in the first place?

If there is anyone to blame for the EU to have a bad name and getting people irate over its "senseless" guidelines, it's the member countries ruling parties that abuse the EU as a scapegoat for unpopular laws.

Re:Fabulous

[greenpete]

By 'terrorist' you mean the American government right? Any so called terrorists on the other side of the world were created by the US with their damn oppression!

Re:Fabulous

[Anonymous Coward]

No there are not. There are national elections for European parliament, but there is no choice. I can only choose between our own European politicians, who I would NEVER vote for. I cannot vote for German Green party members, or for Danish Socialists, or for Italian Catholics. These are national elections, not European ones.

Re:Fabulous

[akozakie]

I have voted, you know. So what? It's not like this is the type of action you see in your candidate's program - how could I have known if he's going to vote for or against something like that? If I had known he would vote for it, I wouldn't have voted for him.

That's the problem with indirect democracy - there is now way to know what to ask. You judge the cadidates by the things you think are important, but then something new comes up and they surprise you. Anyway, the only effect of knowing in advance every possible decision the candidate would make if elected would be an even more difficult decision - there are too many decisions to be made, there's just no way I could find a candidate I could fully agree with. So, do I care more about social decisions, anti/pro-monopoly stance, or maybe privacy laws... Tough.

Re:Fabulous

[Richard W.M. Jones]

The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

It's a real shame that Slashdot mods can't go over +5, because this needs to be modded up to +500 and every person living in the EU needs to understand exactly how this undemocratic process is working.

The worst thing about the EU Constitution (erm, I mean Lisbon Treaty)? It enshrines this abuse. The worst thing about friend-of-Holywood Charlie McCreevy? NO ONE can directly threaten to vote him out.

Rich.

Re:Fabulous

[ardle]

The Irish government have been adopting this stance in relation to the Lisbon Treaty: in spite of evidence that they gave assurances to the big boys, they act as if they are merely conduits of their citizens' will, i.e. it's the citizens' fault if there are bad consequences.
The finance minister recently adopted a fatalistic attitude about the construction slump (knock-on effect of credit crunch), saying that it was his bad luck to get the job just as the industry collapsed, and was chided in newspapers.
I'd like to think that the citizens expect their politicians to actually do some work now that times are getting harder. It seems the politicians' priority is security for themselves - which, in these uncertain times, is understandable.

Re:Fabulous

[Instine]

And its MEP not EMP :P Thats electromagnetic pulse. The point is did I vote for the gits making the mark on the paper. Probably not.

Re:Fabulous

[Zarluk]

You bet! At least it helped a lot.

Re:Fabulous

[Zarluk]

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â" like a new Pearl Harbor"
(in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

Something like 9/11, maybe?

Re:Fabulous

[jsiren]

I sent email about this to the European Data Protection Supervisor ( http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/lang/en/pid/1 ), since this is within their mission. The address is edps@edps.europa.eu

Re:Fabulous

[Opportunist]

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't handle responsibility for millions of people, get out of politics.

When you're a politician, you're first and foremost my employee, and that of a few million other people. Act accordingly! Your job is to work for us. Don't act like it's your god given right to consider the country entrusted to you like your personal property. It is not. It's ours. And either rule it well or prepare to be kicked off your high stool!

Re:Fabulous

[wvmarle]

In Europe it should not be too hard to become a candidate yourself. For national elections (in The Netherlands) it requires a certain number of signatures of people supporting your candidacy or your party's candidacy; for EU elections it will be something like that. And don't forget that anyone can set up a political party, at will. Getting sufficient support is the hardest part of course, but that also prevents ballot lists to become filled up with thousands of candidates that do not stand the least of a chance.

Re:Fabulous

[wvmarle]

I have voted, you know. So what? It's not like this is the type of action you see in your candidate's program - how could I have known if he's going to vote for or against something like that? If I had known he would vote for it, I wouldn't have voted for him.

This is exactly why I argued in another post in this discussion that this kind of major treaties should be implemented over two parliaments, with an election in between. Then all candidates can tell you how they would vote on this (and of course the rest of their agenda), and you could make your choice accordingly.

Re:Fabulous

[Zarluk]

Why is the parent modded down? It's the plain truth!

Thought, I should say that the parliement sometimes gets the things right. It was the parliement that stopped the patent law ( http://eupat.ffii.org/ ), proposed by the comission a couple of years ago.

Gah!

[Realistic_Dragon]

The EU is so good at selling us out they even take paypal.

The right standard for decisions about handing private data over to the US should be; will the President and the members of congress submit to having the same data about them printed in European papers?

Re:Gah!

[WK2]

No, but they'll happily give your governments our private citizen data. You'll have to pay more for it, though, since there's more of us.

Re:Gah!

[wvmarle]

That would never happen as it is against EU privacy laws. And in the EU, the rule of law is pretty much respected. Unfortunately it seems less and less so on the other side of the pond. Especially when "terrorism" enters the argument.

Re:Gah!

[HalAtWork]

But the president has enough power to pardon and influence their way out of any trouble their information lands them in. They also can spread disinformation campaigns... and in the case of Bush, looks like he can just ignore a problem, even ignore his own illegal actions and other politicians will follow, and the citizens and media will just take it.

Re:Gah!

[The End Of Days]

Did you miss the point of the story completely?

And at least 3 days in advance

[Anonymous Coward]

We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.

Seriously though, when are we the people going to say enough is enough. We do not need any more surveilance and invasions of our privacy. If we keep on this path then the so called war on terror will be lost not by the efforts of terrorists but by our own governments. Perhaps moving to Zimbabwe is not such a bad idea after all.

Re:And at least 3 days in advance

[wvmarle]

We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.

While I really understand the feeling, I totally disagree with it, as it is the wrong thing to do. Fingerprinting and photographing people at the border is wrong. It should not be done. It doesn't stop terrorists, it may make it a bit less convenient for them to do their thing, but that inconvenience is limited to the crossing of borders. When a would-be terrorist has crossed the border, it's kinda too late already. Fingerprinting is no deterrent after the border has been crossed. It's just stupid to believe otherwise.

There are great systems in place to keep unwanted persons out of the country: normal police work, and exchange of information on criminals between governments. Osama bin Laden would not have much of a chance to enter the USA, unless he manages to get a very well done fake passport.

The EU gives a great example on how it can be done. Traveling within the EU, crossing state borders, is often so easy you don't notice it. If you miss the sign next to the road, that is. There is often not more than that to crossing a national border. And for foreigners entering the EU as visitor, that is generally also easy.

But does that make the EU borders more transparent than US borders? I truly doubt it. People from some nationalities have to apply for visa before entering - that of course includes a more thorough screening. And then of course there exists a black-list of unwanted individuals, those people trying to cross the border will likely be arrested and/or sent back.

And all this does not make the EU more susceptible to terrorism by foreigners - on the contrary. Most if not all serious attacks in the EU were all done by nationals or residents, the greatest threat comes from the inside as always.

Re:And at least 3 days in advance

[h4rm0ny]

I understand why you feel the way you do, but I disagree. The Us vs. Them is not Europeans vs. US citizens, it is both sets of citizens against both sets of authorities. Two natural allies (the citizens of both countries) selling each other out to their respective governments is a sad thing. Best thing to do is keep the US as the extremist in as many areas such as this as possible. Don't give them the benefit of justifying it further.

Re:And at least 3 days in advance

[sumdumass]

While your right in that Fingerprinting people when they enter a country doesn't necessarily stop terrorism, it does go a long way to finding those responsible and possible stopping future acts.

If we had records and proof of all the countries the 9/11 hijackers visited and were able to discern who they traveled with before the events on 9/11, it would have lead a clear trail to other conspirators and perhaps information pertaining to future planned events. I know it is a bit like treating people guilty until proven innocent but that is being done without an accusation of wrong doing so there isn't an immediate harm to a person. Something as basic as knowing who is entering and leaving a country is a right of sovereignty which might actually surpass any or most rights to privacy. That is at least how the supreme court reconciles the searches at the border with the 4th and other constitutional amendments. OF course the constitution would be useless if we didn't have sovereignty, it restricts our government, not others.

Re:And at least 3 days in advance

[sumdumass]

That wouldn't be immediate. It is something of a longer term concern but It isn't immediate.

Anyways, if someone saw you close to the crime scene, you are likely to be asked why you where there too. The would be the same instance of guilty until proven innocent too. It isn't something unique to fingerprints.

Re:And at least 3 days in advance

[sumdumass]

Lol.. "I don't agree" != "troll". Let me translate that, Not agreeing with something doesn't make it a troll.

If you disagree with the premise, then state it. Labeling it troll only causes me to respond like this which will have others view the the comment for perspective. Then on meta moderation, the troll mod will likely be removed which means you done no damage. Use your brain people, Words are far more powerful then arbitrary moderations.

Registration required?

[Godji]

Is there a copy of TFA anywhere that does not require registration?

Re:Registration required?

[freedumb2000]

Have you even tried the link?

Re:Registration required?

[socsoc]

NYTimes randomly requires free registration on popular stories.

Some bugmenot accounts

Do we get their data in return?

[tripwirecc]

Is this an one way deal? If so, then fuck the US and our politicians in the EU even more for agreeing to that silly deal.

Re:Do we get their data in return?

[stranger_to_himself]

No. They get our data, and after years of waiting we get finally get Oreo cookies. I think it's a win-win situation.

Re:Do we get their data in return?

[ShiningSomething]

How would Europeans getting their hands on American data make anything better?

Re:Do we get their data in return?

[aproposofwhat]

We've already got them in the UK - I saw a poster for Oreos the other day.

.

There was a fine sketch on 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' many years ago, which in this context sums it up: Rowan Atkinson was talking at the Tory Party Conference about Asian immigration, and the punchline was -

I like curry, but we've got the recipie now, OK?

Substitute Oreos for curry in the above, and you've got my feelings on US impositions on our culture.

Re:Do we get their data in return?

[johannesg]

In an equal trade, americans would be losing just as much (instead of absolutely nothing) and be willing to fight it as well. That would certainly be helpful.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't want to put anything on their shoulders.

We do want to remove something though.

Re:What?

[ruffles321]

now that's a good idea. oh, and nobody said anything about travelers... "get private citizen data" not only travelers. Reminds me of the "Team America" movie - Police the world. There are a few words that come to mind to describe it, none of them acceptable here though.

How bad is this?

[damburger]

I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?

Re:How bad is this?

[oldhack]

Where you visiting? Gitmo?

Re:How bad is this?

[game kid]

Don't worry.

We can quickly destroy the evidence (and the forum servers, and you too, you traitorous alien of America) with our unmanned drones and shredders. No hassles for you!

--The White House

Re:How bad is this?

[Znork]

I doubt it.

Now, if you have a name like some suspect, or look like some other suspect, or if they need a scapegoat, that's another thing. If they can get the profiles in advance, it's much easier to pick the appropriate scapegoats, and they can even be waiting for them on arrival. Nothing personal, but the government needs to be looking like it's doing something.

Of course, you'd know if you were guilty of being an reasonable scapegoat, right?

I said goodbye to the US last time I was there. The country's just not the same anymore, and there are better places to go that actually welcome visitors. Maybe it'll change in the future, but until then I'm taking my money and business elsewhere.

Re:How bad is this?

[damburger]

I've already got to fill in some homeland security forms just to be let off the plane. It is a very intimidating environment for a visitor, and I am going to be concerned that MI5 is going to casually pass my name as a possible subversive to them, and suddenly I'm classed as a threat.

Re:How bad is this?

[n dot l]

Meh. You could be saying all sorts of good things about the US and they'd hassle you. If the list of random evil people's names doesn't get you, the poor, uneducated morons on a power trip that run airport security will (imagine Heathrow, only worse). That's just the nature of travelling to (and within?) the USA these days, and likely will remain so until some future president declares victory on terror and gets around to the next big issue (like, say, fixing their economy).

Re:How bad is this?

[steve buttgereit]

You're OK... from what we've seen so far. ;-)

Re:How bad is this?

[falconwolf]

I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?

Didn't you know, this is all about oppressing political dissidents.

Falcon

Reciprocity

[camperdave]

I think it's time we start publishing data on our politicians and the heads of corporations that deal with the government and see how they like it.

Re:Reciprocity

[denoir]

Forgot to post a link to the proposed law, so here it is. And yes, it's for real.

Re:Reciprocity

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

They generally seem to not like it. But ten to one if someone consistently delivered this kind of retribution against privacy-violating politicians, they'd find themselves in jail, because that's one of those things they'll make sure is written into the law: they can do it, but you can't. Since we're all "working together to end terrorism" now, anybody actively opposing such good-willed spying will be classified as a terrorist and silenced in one way or another.

By Odin's beard, I sure am cynical today.

Re:Reciprocity

[Opportunist]

In Austria, someone already does it.

Though they have to find a new target now, he's no longer the Interior Minister. At least they can surrender their spot when they get fed up with being under constant surveillance.

Re:Reciprocity

[HiThere]

I *wish* I thought you sounded cynical. Unfortunately, there are too many laws like that already on the books.

Re:Reciprocity

[alexmeaden]

Did you miss this bit of that page?

"Own initiative reports are drafted by individual MEPs and are not proposals for EU laws."

Re:Reciprocity

[lovebyte]

Did you miss this bit of that page?

"Own initiative reports are drafted by individual MEPs and are not proposals for EU laws."

Please, mod the parent up. If we are to blame each and every government/organisation for a couple of their crazy members/affiliates/MEPs, we really are doomed!
This mad proposal does NOT come from the EU commission or any EU government.

Re:Reciprocity

[Reziac]

From TFLink:
=========
German Liberal Jorgo Chatzimarkakis acted as advisor for the Economic and Monetary committee. He told us that "bloggers cannot automatically be considered a threat, but imagine pressure groups, professional interests or any other groups using blogs to pass on their message. Blogs are powerful tools, they can represent an advance form of lobbyism, which in turn can be seen as a threat". He said "any blogger representing or expressing more than their personal view should be affected by this report."
======

Even in light of the other replies (stating that it's just an initiative report, not a proposal for law) this is bloody scary thinking. This means that while a political pamphlet might be okay, the *same* material presented as a blog could be a "threat" simply because it's from a group rather than an individual. WTF?!

Re:Reciprocity

[lysse]

And since when did accurately relaying every inconvenient little detail of reality ever serve anyone's agenda?

Re:Reciprocity

[dajak]

Influential anonymous political pamphets play an important positive role in the democratic history of some countries, but apparently not in Estonia where this MEP comes from. Let's hope that MEPs from countries with a tradition in this area like the UK, France, Netherlands know their history and oppose this.

Regarding the quality mark: there are generally two ways to convince people, being 1) the authority of the writer on the issue (his reputation of fairness and honesty, the knowledge we ascribe to him), and 2) the quality of the argument (proper logical structure, cited evidence). The second way is clearly the royal road, and when you publish anonymously it is the only way you will convince people of anything.

People will of course believe in bullshit argumentation, but only if it is in line with what they already want to believe. Prohibiting it only has the consequence of those people still believing the bullshit and in addition believing that there is a conspiracy to cover up the truth.

Holocaust denial in Europe is a good example: if you treat people who grossly underestimate the number of victims of the holocaust based on selective but otherwise real evidence as criminals this is going to give the impression that the correct number is a political invention that is beyond scientific critique. The belief that there is a conspiracy going on will then be a reason to discount the scientific literature that does confirm millions of victims.

Am I understanding this correctly?

[Robert1]

"So, now we know what step three is: setup a security agency in US to resell otherwise unavailable data."

Did the editors just allow the entire thread to be trolled?

So this means ...

[tuxgeek]

the US wants to become the global police?

This could be made into a great cartoon, no wait ...

-------------

The Jewish Dilemma - Free Pork

Sweet

[pembo13]

I really don't have a problem with a country messing with its citizens and even its geographical neighbors -- I think that's well within every countries right even if I don't like the specifics of what they are up to (China for eg.). However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening. How about they stick to spying on their own citizens, that's much more fair (since it is a democratic nation)

Re:Sweet

[Adambomb]

However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening"

The point of recent actions isn't to rule an increasingly larger part of the world. If that was the agenda, they've accomplished the exact opposite in terms of global influence.

In fact if that is really your concern, you should be grinning like a maniac at how much LESS influence the US has since the clinton or bush sr eras.

There's concerns to be had, but i do not consider this to be one of them at this time. They can influence europe less than before, even less so for russia or india, and even less if not vice versa for china. I'm more worried about America doing something so mindbogglingly arrogant and jingoistic that it sets off another major multi-national conflict.

Reciprocity

[denoir]

Well, this goes hand in hand with another law proposed in the EU. If it passes all blogs of EU citizens will have to be registered with the government. So now the US can get private data on EU citizens and perhaps in return the EU can get a list of those criminal Europeans that have unregistered blogs on US servers.

A quote from the MEP that was responsible for the proposal:

I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.

I may have to flee to China to keep some of my individual rights. Lovely.

Inaccurate summary

[Aaron England]

I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[causality]

I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.

You say that as though you doubt the inevitability of it. My bet is that they're already doing this in a clandestine way and are seeking to retroactively legitimize it like they did with the telecoms' cooperation with the wiretaps.

It seems obvious to me that our news services are compromised, otherwise we would hear about how these things are a threat to our freedoms. Instead, all we hear is the party line about how all of these things are necessary to protect us from $vaguely_identified_enemy, with a single sentence along the lines of "but some groups express privacy concerns" thrown in to give an appearance of balance. Never is there a detailed outline of why "some groups" have "privacy concerns" about a government that is becoming increasingly authoritarian and knows more and more about you, or the fact that we were warned about this precise condition by the Founding Fathers. None of that is going to appear on CNN or Fox News, and if either were worth a damn it would.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[Simon (S2)]

I RTFA.

I did.

The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities.

Actually,

"The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information â" like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits â" about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean."

to me, means exactly that.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[Aaron England]

Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[Aaron England]

I don't presume to know the "evitability" of it. I was simply toning down the sensationalism of the headline. Of course this will make it easier in the future for the EU to transfer information to the US and concerned EU citizens should be worried over this fact. But to state that the EU has decided to hand over private information and that some sort of agreement has been reached to permit this is misleading.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[Simon (S2)]

As I understand it, that is one point they still have to agree on:

"The negotiators are trying to agree on minimum standards to protect privacy rights, such as limiting access to the information to âoeauthorized individuals with an identified purposeâ for looking at it. If a governmentâ(TM)s policies are âoeeffectiveâ in meeting all standards, any transfer of personal data to that government would be presumed lawful."

But that is just a technical point they have to discuss. The main point of "sharing data" is still valid.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[TheGratefulNet]

It seems obvious to me that our news services are compromised .

It seems obvious to me that our news services are merged and owned by a select ruling class.

there, FTFY.

if you read it in the news, its likely more for ENTERTAINMENT (or control) purposes than actual information dissemination.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[TubeSteak]

Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.

Does anyone expect anything other than the EU capitulating to American demands?
I only ask because I can't see that America will ever agree to abide by European Union privacy standards.

The ultimate question is can the EU (legally or politically) sign away their citizens rights to privacy through a treaty?

Re:Inaccurate summary

[Ren.Tamek]

From that quote, it appears as if the information exchange will be two-way. Misleading summary?

Re:Inaccurate summary

[Opportunist]

As a European, you'd know that this means "how can we bend the existing law so it suits our new needs because we can't change it".

What's next

[Qwavel]

>> So, now we know what step three is: setup a security agency in US to resell otherwise unavailable data.

No, step three is that they setup a security agency in Europe so they kidnap these suspicious looking people and put them on flights to Syria (or wherever) for torture.

As a EU citizen...

[EvilAlphonso]

I would like to know which country isn't planning to go down that route so I can sell all my stuff and move out of the way.

Having worked as a contractor for other European Institutions, I know absolutely nothing gets in the way of the Commission once it decided something. After all, it's not like they have to be re-elected or anything.

Re:As a EU citizen...

[TheGratefulNet]

I would like to know which country isn't planning to go down that route so I can sell all my stuff and move out of the way.

dream on. power is addictive. which government does NOT enjoy power?

the terrorists have ruined us, truly. what a shame. I'm old enough to remember when privacy EXISTED. pity my future kids won't have a shred of info (other than what they read in history books) about what true individual dignity and privacy is all about.

horse has left the barn, never to return. RIP.

Re:As a EU citizen...

[Opportunist]

Re-elected? They don't even have to be elected. It's one of the most disgraceful and anti-democratic constructs in the EU.

Re:As a EU citizen...

[EvilAlphonso]

My point exactly ;)

And this is exactly why so many politicians were happy when the EU constitution was shot down. One of the most important bits in the constitution was redistributing the power between the Commission and the Parliament.

Re:As a EU citizen...

[32771]

I love all those "* International" organizations. Some while ago Transparency International has sprung up and today I have found Privacy International. I suppose this can help you find your privacy sanctuary.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

I for one would look somewhere where people haven't changed their lifestyle much since oil has been introduced as the best thing since sliced bread, or where size of population, bureaucrazy, and tax income haven't changed much since the introduction of oil. You don't want to live there ? Damn.

While I don't feel comfortable with any fear mongering perpetrated by the peak oil crowd, I have to admit that I think peak oil will happen some day and we will have to adjust. Given that there will be many more people around who have nothing to lose when oil costs a fortune and won't seem to get cheaper anymore, security measures will have to be increased and that by governments strapped for cash.

I would also look for a country which will be able to adjust its economy quickly.

Some fellow posted three nice bbc streams some time ago explaining the current state and possible future of our society.

Actually I just found it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)

I'm still digesting this though. This lack of trust in society as the bbc report explains it to me seems not only be caused by cold war thinking but I could also imagine through increased urbanization and resulting lack of social bonds with your fellow citizens.

Unlike the BBC report I just don't think that society is controlled through psychiatrists.

So after all I would look for a non-western
society with a democratic attitude which wasn't involved in the cold war and isn't a first world country. Once you have found one tell me how you are planning to live there.

Re:As a EU citizen...

[Opportunist]

The constitution wouldn't have changed much. All it would have accomplished was to "legalize" what's currently practiced.

I do agree in one thing, we do need a constitution for the EU. Direly. But, have you read the paper they wanted to sign?

This is merely outsourcing

[petes_PoV]

Have a problem that costs a lot to solve - for very little apparent gain?

Find some other country/organisation that has an interest in the outcome and let them do it for you.

Strictly speaking, the phrase for this is "having an axe to grind[1]", although the meaning of this phrase is frequently mutated into ranting on about something.

[1] Having an axe to grind: a task you want performed, but don't fancy doing yourself. Persuade, deceive or con some other person into doing it for you.

Re:This is merely outsourcing

[nacturation]

[1] Having an axe to grind: a task you want performed, but don't fancy doing yourself. Persuade, deceive or con some other person into doing it for you.

If you meant this ironically (and my irony-o-meter is off) then you can stop reading now. Otherwise, I think you have the definition incorrect.

From: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/174000.html

"Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive/ to have private ends to serve."
 

Already happened

[benwiggy]

Returning to the UK from holiday recently, the lady at Passport control laughed when she looked at my place of birth in my passport, saying "Oh, our American colleagues can never pronounce that place properly."
At which point, I said "What are you doing discussing my place of birth with Americans....?"
Then she got officious and moved me along.

Re:Already happened

[The End Of Days]

I'm not sure I get your point at all. Unless you've skipped some vital detail, it seems like small talk.

The upside

[ShiningSomething]

The upside to this agreement is that basically doubling the people they are "monitoring" will mean said monitoring will be much less effective. Americans and Europeans will have potentially less privacy, but in reality there will be no change.

Re:The upside

[jps25]

The upside to this agreement is that basically doubling the people they are "monitoring" will mean said monitoring will be much less effective. Americans and Europeans will have potentially less privacy, but in reality there will be no change.

Are you really that naive? I don't even have the words to come up with a polite answer to such a dense comment.

accurate summary ..

[rs232]

"The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities"

My understanding of it is: that the US is going to monitor all activity on it's residents and will hand such information over to the US, without warrant or evidence of criminal or 'terrorist' activity. And we can't even sue you guys if you lose the data. Given the lack of controls over governmental abuse in your country, shouldn't we be monitoring you. And just because you guys want to turn this place into the front line against 'terrorism' doesn't necessarily mean that we want to go along with it. The text of the article:

"The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement .. to obtain private information -- like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits -- about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean."

"the two sides are still at odds on several other matters, including whether European citizens should be able to sue the United States government over its handling of their personal data, the report said"

'the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or "sexual life" may not be used by a government "unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards."'

As a European...

[WoollyMittens]

As a European who keeps up with politics I am shocked to read about this, massive sell-out of my privacy, here first. As far as I know, there has not even been a debate about this! Since using soft-drugs and downloading music is legal here, I can only imagine what would happen to tourists who visit the USA lured by the favourable dollar only to end up jailed in no-man's land for breaking US laws retroactively from Europe.

Ha-ha

[codeshack]

I think I speak for all US-EU dual citizens when I say that this is awesome. Because now I probably only have to pay to be spied on by *one* of my governments. Hellooooo tax rebate!

they don't have to

[speedtux]

European governments keep more detailed information about people who are in EU countries, so they need to get less information when you enter.

as a UK resident ..

[rs232]

I ain't a EU citizen, I'm a resident of the United Kingdom and a loyal subject of her Mag, don't need anyone monitoring me for subversive activity. I can remember when they told us the EEC was about a Common economic Market and was never about some United States of Europe. But I guess that was another heap of baloney, like the promise that they'll protect out privacy. Remember these are the same people that bugged the UN, or are we supposed to not remember that.

Re:as a UK resident ..

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm a resident of the United Kingdom and a loyal subject of her Mag, don't need anyone monitoring me for subversive activity.

so, you never leave home and avoid ALL the closed circuit TV cameras that the UK is so good at?

if anything, people in the UK are far far worse off then anything the US can and will do. when I get depressed about how bad things are in the US, at least I can say I don't live in the UK - aka, the nanny state!

your society has crashed and the cameras are just insult added to injury. our society is almost crashed - but not quiet yet; they're still working on it (its a work-in-progress).

Re:as a UK resident ..

[Alphager]

But I guess that was another heap of baloney, like the promise that they'll protect out privacy.

Said the citizen after passing roughly 300 CCTVs on his way to the interview booth.

Re:as a UK resident ..

[Zemran]

The UK's CCTV growth is as good as the US's war on terror. It does nothing to solve the problem but it does make the plebs feel warm and fuzzy in their beds at night. I used to work with both UK spooks and US spooks and for any given incident the FBI were always able to pull more CCTV footage from 'civilian' sources than Scotland Yard could get from the local councils that ran the CCTV in the UK.

I do not have a problem with cameras watching what I do in the street. How could I worry about privacy in a public place? It is all the other stuff that is far more of a problem and the US is far better at listening to your cell phone/internet etc. than the UK as the UK always farm such things out to useless bureaucrats. In the US they let the MAFIAA etc. take control. That is why the CCTV cameras in the UK are a waste of electricity, or rather they are not as most of them are not turned on.

And the circle goes round and round...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of thing has been going on for years, decades, and centuries. It's just that it's getting harder to flee to another location and start over fresh.

None of this will affect normal citizens, until they inconveniently find themselves on the wrong side of the law, or more accurately, the wrong side of some asshole's pet peeve. Then, all hell breaks loose. But, the rest of the masses will be assured through propaganda that this wasn't an average Joe, but a terrorist/criminal/whatnot. And all will feel "safe" again. Until they're on the wrong side of interested parties.

The short story is that those that aren't in the ruling class have never been really free, neither 1000 years ago, nor today. Governments change, the accepted political paradigm of the day changes, the "non-evil" social structure changes, but the rules stay the same. You have no rights. If things become inconvenient, rules change.

And I suspect it will stay that way, mainly because there are only 2 types of people. People that will complain but abide, which are the majority, and people that will fight to death even if the only reason for doing so is dignity, and these people are a minority, and that is exactly why rulers have always been able to get away with it.

Interesting enough, you can see this kind of behavior in other mammals that have a strong social structure.

I'm a fighter by nature, and will likely die doing so (my expected life span suggests that there will be many regime and governmental changes along with wars before my natural death occurs), but I have little hope that outrages on the /. and other internet forums will change anything. If anything, the internet is a great place for average citizens to blow off steam, get a sense that others also feel angry at the current situation of things, and then get on with their lives as if nothing ever happened. I'm positive that the internet has decreased the number of public demonstrations and violent uprisings.

I used to teach a course

[TheGratefulNet]

in electronic mail (back at DEC in the 80's and early 90's). I regularly traveled to the UK and europe to teach my 1week course there. the same course was given in the US every 6 weeks or so.

one thing that I learned when I was attending the 'train the trainer' for this course was that euro privacy standards are (well, USED TO BE) very strict. in the course, we used to talk about PMF (personnel master files) and how LITTLE could be shared even in the same company (DEC) but between different countries. email for things like 'all-in-1 mail' (wow, anyone remember that?) used to depend on having access to personnel info (more or less) and yet we taught that very little could be shared between countries, mostly just the first and last name and country they were in and that's about it!

my my, how things have changed.

is this going to get me hassle: YES .. :)

[rs232]

"I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?"

Yes, and you'll be less likely to criticize the government the next time, which I suspect is the chief purpose of such legislation. You see, without the ever present specter of communism to protect up from, the US needed something else to scare us with. Step forward Al-Qaeda and the IslamoFascist bogyman.

"A watched population is a compliant one", Adam Suttler .. If he didn't say it, he thought it .. :)

Re:is this going to get me hassle: YES .. :)

[Reziac]

The difference is that the spectre of Communism generally aided us in preserving our freedoms (at least once we got past the McCarthy scare), by providing a well-defined example of what we DON'T want to be like.

The current nebulous "terrorism" bogeyman is not sufficiently defined to use as a bad example. Apparently this means we need to make our own bad example, so we know exactly what to look for should such a bogeyman actually appear.

does this mean ..

[rs232]

Does this mean that everyone in the European Union is a potential opponent of the USA, moms apple pie and all things goodness and niceness. If so, whatever would turn them against the worlds greatest democracy. I mean it's the place everyone wants to go to, isn't it, apart from me that is .. :)

We did say no

[edxwelch]

At least Ireland did

Re:We did say no

[Nefarious Wheel]

At least Ireland did

You're either for us or a Guiness.

Sig reply

[jonaskoelker]

Here's a reply to your signature:

All Americans suck because all European politicians are just as bad as their American counterparts.

Fuck the EU politicians.

Signed, a citizen of Denmark.

Interesting anecdote: "Junibevægelsen mod EU" (the june movement against EU, a quite small political party) did arrange a weekend trip to Bruxelles a good year ago, where we got to meet with a politician's advisor gave a talk about the market price of corn and agricultural subsidies, and a journalist who spoke (among other things) about telephony and roaming charges (the politicians wanted to offload their phone bill on the citizens; self-serving bastards). And of course some time off to goof off and eat dutch fries (you know, with fish and mayonnaise).

Here's the punchline: what I learned from that trip is that although it is indeed possible to travel to Belgium, and if you prepare in advance you may be able to get the attention of a politician, citizens of pretty much anything other than Belgium have to spend a large amount of time doing so, plus they have to take off a sizable portion of their work week to meet the politicians when they're actually there. In short, regular citizens don't have any real access to a political body that governs non-trivial parts of their lives.

Re:Sig reply

[flnca]

Hey, why is Denmark no part of the Eurozone? Come, share our misery! ;-)

They're supposed to say "yes."

[StreetStealth]

American leaders, EU leaders... all serving at the mandate of vast numbers of people utterly petrified at the thought of ethnic stereotypes lurking around every corner, waiting to launch unspeakable horrors.

The majority has spoken. Congratulations.

Re:One word for you USA...

[MyLongNickName]

You should be more pissed at the EU than the US. I mean your own folks are selling you out.

Commercial Echelon?

[bill-dozer]

How is this different from echelon? Why does the US need this? Aren't we already doing this?

LIAR!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lie, I read it in the paper. Ireland may have said no, but we can't know for sure that's what they REALLY meant. Obviously we need a new vote to see what people really think, and if it turns out to be a no again we should try again. For the sake of democracy. Until we get a yes. Then we can stop with the votes because then the people have decided! Long live our democracies!

Re:LIAR!

[aevan]

Quebec, is that you?

Too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

> fuck you America

We're already screwed, man. Already screwed. :-(

Will the USA please go back to isolationism

[Richard_J_N]

As a Eurpoean (who used to believe in the "American Dream"), I'm thoroughly sick of the way the US behaves, and I'm disgusted that none of our leaders have the nerve to tell the regime to get lost. The EU should cease all co-operation with the USA until the USA starts behaving like a free country. Guantanamo alone is such a blot that the EU should have imposed trade sanctions over it (like we did to apartheid South-Africa).

Vice Versa

[CougMerrik]

From the article:

"The pact would make clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the United States, and vice versa."

So it's an information sharing agreement. I guess the summary is true, but misleading.

And no, I don't want you Euro crazies getting a hold of my personal information either. Especially anyone around here with their blind hatred of Americans stoked up by bullshit like this.

To put it simply;

[JamesTRexx]

Politicians == terrorists.

I don't fear my Islamic neighbour, but I do fear what the government is doing to me.

EU = European lUsers

[slashdotinmyface]

Way to go my beloved EU. Keep taking it up your bum from the US.

Us Europeans just kick mothaf*ing butt.

T.A.

[widman]

America, fuck yeah!!1

Ironic

[BountyX]

It seems that we declared independance from England for the very purpose of escaping the grasp of a controlling government. A government that demanded to know everything about trade information and restrcited free trade. The irony is now that were buddy buddy with england, there old paranoid antics are slowly turning us into another version of them. Soon it will be the amerian citizens who run into space and declare independance for the sake of Free Information. Look at what we americans have become, fat, greedy (and cheap), wasteful, consumpution oriented, self-ish, ignorant sheep. In the furture we won't be able to tell our heads from our ass, but our government will. Excuse me for ranting, but seriously fuck the US government. I hate my government, I no longer want to be a US citizen, our country looks ugly as hell becuase we have shitty suburbs with telephone poles everywhere, we have psuedo democracy, a congress with drunks and sex offenders and an incompotent president who practicies disinformation and has a history of cocaine abuse which has lead to a lack of intellectual curiosity and an iq of a drunken sloth.

Re:Ironic

[largesnike]

way to go!

Why not to arrest known criminals first?

[Max_W]

There are several spam kings operating in the USA. Why not to arrest them first? They bring the real damage to the world economy.

Billions of people must read their messages about enlarging medicines, casinos online, etc. It takes working time, destroys work flow, and causes trillions of loses to the global economy.

Why they want information on us? Stop your well known criminals first and then we will see if you have the integrity to own information on us.

Suspicious activity?

[noidentity]

I think this qualifies as suspicious activity on the part of the government. How do I start an investigation of it?

EU Constitution

[falconwolf]

The problem with the EU Constitution was that it was several hundred pages. Even with all the amendments the Constitution of the USA fits on only a few pages. I can go down to Barnes and Noble and buy a pocket edition I can carry in my pocket, Ron Paul carries one. If someone legal can't be read and understood, within reason, in a few minutes by the average person there's something wrong with it.

The matter is way too complex to really understand

That's because it was soooo long.

I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place.

Democracy is soo inefficient, what's needed instead is a dictatorship.

Falcon

Facts, people, facts ;-)

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

...since there's more of us.

That should obviously be: ...since there's more of eu.

According to Wikipedia

• USA: 304,455,000
• European Union: 497,198,740

I mean, let's be honest with each other.

[falconwolf]

Eastern Europe, Asia, Western Europe, Africa, would ALL be better off had the USSA (as you so lovingly put it) had left all your affairs alone 1900 to 1970, right?

While some places may of been worse if the US didn't do anything in other places people have suffered gravely because of the US. For instance President Ford and Henry Kissinger gave the green light to Indonesia's Suharto to invade East Timer, and supported the invasion with firearms despite a congressional ban. About 200,000 East Timorese were massacred after the invasion, that's 1/3 of the population of East Timor. Or take Iran, in the 1950s the US supported an overthrow of a democratically elected government and replaced it with the Shah. At the same tyme Ford supported Suharto he also supported General Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's elected president after which tens of thousands of people disappeared.

Re:I mean, let's be honest with each other.

[Toll_Free]

While some places?

You mean, Europe, right? The entire continent. Twice.

Yes, our foreign policy sucks. But lately, so does the Eurotrash thumbing their nose at the people that actually fought for THEIR freedom and got them their rights to actually have the rights to talk shit to their own and our government.

Just really shortsighted, while this country is having problems, for the countries that have reaped the benefits of us fighting directly or indirectly for them.

1990 wasn't so fucking long ago. Neither was the Iron Curtain. You think Eastern Europe would like to return to the 70s or 80s?

--Toll_Free

Re:I mean, let's be honest with each other.

[falconwolf]

But lately, so does the Eurotrash thumbing their nose at the people that actually fought for THEIR freedom and got them their rights to actually have the rights to talk shit to their own and our government.

No Europeans fought for their freedom? Which is it, Charles de Gaulle wasn't European or didn't fight for freedom. The Swing Kids weren't Germans and didn't fight the NAZIs? And there was no Warsaw Uprising.

Falcon

Re:I mean, let's be honest with each other.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have the idea that someone fought for someone else's freedom? America only joined in the fight against Hitler after Hitler declared war on America and was attacking shipping along the east coast of America. America was not helping out, it had left it too late for that. If they had helped out when help was needed the Russians would not have claimed so much of Europe. As it was Russia was the one that provided most of the help and demanded most of the reward.

Dear little Britain provided more help than America and they were no more threatened. They are closer but in the end the Germans had already lost due to normal stupid military mistakes (overstretched supply lines etc.) and the US came and helped with the clean up. The Russians really kicked arse but we do not like to give them any credit so the yanks claim it all.

By 'terrorist' you mean the American government

[falconwolf]

right? Any so called terrorists on the other side of the world were created by the US with their damn oppression!

The US also helped terrorists with finance and firearms. The US helped the Mujadeen fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and that includes the Taliban. When he came to office the current president, Bush, gave the Taliban $43 million of taxpayer money.

Falcon

Re:One word for you USA...

[Sobieski]

Its easier to get USA out of EU than to get EU out of itself.

If I had a nuke...

[Oktober Sunset]

I'd drop it on Washington DC from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

ISR

[SeaFox]

In paranoid America, the government watches EU!

Dear American Government,...

[Plugh]

Fuck you. Leave these people's data alone. Then crawl under a rock and die.

Love,
An American Taxpayer whose had enough of you basterds.

Re:One word for you USA...

[MyLongNickName]

Damn are you stupid.

Terrorists didn't win - the gov't did

[1800maxim]

Don't you understand that this has nothing to do with terrorists? The government is simply doing what it wanted to do all along. The terrorists didn't win - the government did, and a long time ago.

SWIFT anyone?

[cpghost]

Actually, all this is already taking place. If as a european, you sign up with an EU-based bank, you will often find in the small print a warning that all international transactions are being processed by the SWIFT network with two data centers, one of them in the EU and the other one in the US... and that US agencies are routinely monitoring all international inter-bank transactions for anti-terrorism purposes.

Well, since the US already knows all international money flows into and out of the EU (not just for individuals, but for all companies as well), they may as well know how many times a day each EU citizens goes to the restroom. There ain't no data privacy anymore. Anyone (esp. in Europe) living under the illusion of their data being "protected", wake up: it's "1984" in all its glory. This latest piece of news is nothing really innovative or new.

Internet browsing habits?

[Ninth Marion]

This one seems a little odd to me. How do they have the Internet history of a random EU citizen who chooses to travel to the US? Surely EU governments aren't actively monitoring and filing away their population's web activity en masse? I assume this is for 'persons of interest' who have been monitored, which is bad enough; but I'm so disturbed and outraged by the possibility of mass surveillance, I have to ask, even though it seems silly (and I'm Australian, so I may have missed something that happened over there).

Interesting data they want

[dave87656]

From the article:

For example, the two sides have agreed that information that reveals race, religion, political opinion, health or âoesexual lifeâ may not be used by a government âoeunless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards.â

So, they want data about your race, religion, political opinion, health and sex life. They just have to agree to provide safeguards about its user. Hmmm. Why do they want that information? I thought this was about terrorism.

Re:Interesting data they want

[piemcfly]

You clearly have not heard of the gay terror that is plaguing the USA. You probably missed the *cough*secret*/cough* nota.

Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a "credible threat" of terrorism

number of wars in europe AFTER the foundation

[threaded]

Well, there have been quite a few, there was the invasion of Checkoslovakia, then there's Bosnia, and all that trouble in Ireland.

Myself I often muse why so many mention this spurious EU propaganda point when it is so obviously wrong.

Step 2.5

[RockDoctor]

So, now we know what step three is: set up a security agency in the US to resell otherwise unavailable data.

Step three, selling the data, comes after step two.point.five, leaving the data on an open server at a credit card company, to ensure the free-est possible distribution.
Probably a Chinese credit card company, in deference to the Romanians behind me.

Re:counting votes

[Zarluk]

Well, I would say that, at least in Portugal, votes are counted by real people representing all parties involvolved... so far ;-)

*all your datum are belong to us

[dodecalogue]

n/t