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]

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

[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.

on behalf of Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you America

signed, Europe

Re:on behalf of Europe

[Opportunist]

To shorten things:

Fuck you, America

signed, world

Re:Registration required?

[socsoc]

NYTimes randomly requires free registration on popular stories.

Some bugmenot accounts

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: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: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.