Slashdot Mirror
EU Committee Says No To Bank Data Sharing
krupert writes to let us know that the civil liberties committee of the European Parliament has voted to revoke the data-sharing arrangement by which US intelligence agencies have access to EU banking data via the SWIFT system. The US has threatened to withhold cooperation on terrorist intelligence if the bank data deal now in place is canceled, which it will be next week if the full European Parliament votes in line with the committee's recommendation. US intelligence agencies clandestinely tapped the SWIFT interbank clearing data from just after 9/11 until 2006, when the secret arrangement was made public. After that, Belgium-based SWIFT pulled their servers from the US and set up shop in Brussels, and the US had to negotiate with the EU to keep tapping the data.
This is a great thing. US has no fucking business to our banking data or any other thing. The fact that US also did this secretly against a Belgian company is just outstanding and shows the level of hypocrisy going on (just like China secretly accessing Google's data anyone?!)
Now if they just would get UK out of EU it would actually be quite an intelligent organization.
I think we are finally beginning to see some of the endings to the technology euphoria that have developed over the past 20 years. As technology and the internet improved and people discovered all of these extra amazing ways to make different processes more efficient, it's becoming more and more obvious that certain processes simply should not be efficient. This includes government ability to collect data as well as corporate ability to do the same. When it's harder to do, it's fine because it doesn't have as strong of an effect and the mere difficult limits its use. The easier it gets the more often it will be abused or over-used because it's possible.
Essentially, just because we can build this network, doesn't mean we should. I'm giving a big nod of the head to the EU over this one.
If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
Not that I trust my government but at least they are my government. It's obvious that the EU does not really care about data from European citizens going to the US but our international firms do. And further it's quite simple: not one bankrecord from the US went to Europe while all bankrecords from Europe went to the US. And that has to get even now.
I think we are finally beginning to see some of the endings to the technology euphoria that have developed over the past 20 year.
Frankly, I think the political and other events of the last decade have vndicated technophoria completely. Our democracy, in the United States, is stronger than it has ever been in our lifetimes. This is a golden age for the people to have a voice and it should be held up in history as such.
We are living through the best of times, and the choices we have before us, about increasing spying and all the other police state crap, serve only to make those choices worse, not better.
I mean, right now, I can get online and ask, or rather, argue, with anyone who either shares my beliefs or disagrees with them. I can take the whole pulse of the whole nation directly from the communities anywhere, without having to have a middle man of media telling me, honestly, what I want to hear, so they can sell newspapers. Sure, there are times when this polarizes, but I think as people get older, as I have, you learn to keep your own blood pressure down and then come to appreciate all the people, regardless of affilitation, and can, at times, glimpse pieces of the world in its most honest glory, for what it is.
It's excellent.
60 years ago, the US government was able to marshall the building of an entire atomic bomb in secret. Could the USA do that today? Could we build something like that today, in secret? I don't think so. The most sinister abuse of our present war, the pictures from Abu Ghraib, went round the internet, all over the place, as did documents leaked and what not. There's just so many things that we can share, and we can know, that we didn't know before. Breakthroughs in communications technologies have always lead to conflicts and wars - the invention of the printing press sparked a number of wars in Europe and the USA, and arguably lead to the reign of terror in France, the American civil war and US Spanish American war, but, the internet is a different sort of animal, and maybe, we can live through or learn to cope with the polarization, and, see the promise of all of this stuff.
Maybe humanity as a whole, is not so bad after all.
Maybe, we as a people, are a bit less evil than we or the critics among us, judge ourselves to be.
Maybe, just maybe, the human race will do just fine.
I wouldn't trade the internet and computers for anything else, for even a second.
The hope is worth the angst.
This is my sig.
Well... Yes, frankly.
We have stronger data protection and personal privacy laws in the EU than those in the US seem to have, and just as important, people here seem to be generally more aware of the need for data protection and privacy after a string of high profile screw-ups. Both governments and businesses do get slapped down from time to time for trying to go too far.
The balance is still too far in favour of the data miners, and I think as time passes and the consequences become more apparent we will see popular opinion sway further toward protecting privacy. But even today, it's paradise here compared to the US, where even if there are legal safeguards, the executive and intelligence agencies are demonstrably willing to ignore them and then invoke special privilege crap to cover themselves after the fact.
Bottom line: Why the hell should EU-level bureaucrats kissing US ass give away sensitive data to the US when our laws would normally prohibit such action? Answer: because the unelected guys pushed it through literally within their final hours with that authority, knowing that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty took effect and elected MEPs started to get more power they wouldn't get away with it. The MEPs are now doing their job and fixing this problem.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
At the moment, only a committee of the European Parliament voted against it in a test ballot. The real ballot is on Thursday next week. Up to then, the US American administration (including the US ambassador to the EU and Hillary Clinton) put pressure (including various legal and illegal threats) on the Members of the European Parliament to change their mind. They were already successful insofar that the ballot was moved from Wednesday to Thursday. And as I consider the European politicians as corrupt and ready to betray the basic rights of the European people in order to gain more control over them, I guess the Americans will be successful in getting their SWIFT treaty exactly as they want it.
It is reasonable that individual requests for banking data in the EU can be done by the US, but as should always be the case, this should go through proper channels, which means a court decision with human beings taking decisions. Secondly, if a person is investigated and not found to be involved in anything, he should be notified and given compensation. Further, if the US should be given access to EU banking data, then the US should grant the EU authorities access to US data (hah... that will never happen...). From a procedural point of view, this was one of the few real fuckups by the Swedish presidency of the Union. The deal was approved by the Council the day before the Lisbon treaty went into effect. This meant that the Parliament could not have anything to say in the contents (which they would have had if it had been passed the day after). Now, the Parliament cannot amend it, but they can reject it which I think the Council did not think of, now they get what they deserve :)
And for all those who dislike Lisbon, can you tell me what is the problem with parliamentary influence over the additional areas given in the treaty?
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
So lets see if I grasp this correctly. The US is willing to hold hostage certain bits of terrorist information over banking data. Hm.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
--- Problem ---
--- Process ---
---- Scenarios and options ----
A rejection is currently likely. See the debate and voting timetable at Seance en direct.
---- Documents ----
Council Decision 2010/16/CFSP/JHA of 30 November 2009 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program - Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
In the mean time don't be a moron, Europe has just as much to gain by effective anti terrorist intelligence as the rest of the civilised world.
But there was nothing civilised or intelligent about the SWIFT treaty as it stood, it was utterly one-sided.
We cannot avoid having learned from the stupidities in international politics the Bush-era has bestowed on the world, there were no safeguards what-so-ever the data was going to be used for purpose.
When the US government can make a case sharing of European banking data is going to help all sides in our joint fight against violent and criminal zealots of any description I'm sure they could win the support of Europe.
Because the UN includes some rather nasty members I won't go so far as to suggest a UN institute should do the intelligence but an international body is the only reliable way to handle such sensitive data.
We all remember what happened when a European delegation was in China to sign off on an important Airbus contract and a US company could out of the blue undercut the price.
Banking information is sensitive!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
They were all appointed by democratically elected governments.
So whoever has issues with the action taken should go to their own national representative.
Or do you want to have an election for every clown in office?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I wonder whether the Federal Reserve + CHIPS systems, through which similar transfers are cleared in the US, share pertinent data with EU governments?
"The US has threatened to withhold cooperation on terrorist intelligence if the bank data deal now in place is cancelled" - US threatening Europe. Now, someone's crazy here. And it's not Europe (see also: software patents).
So, the US government has terrorist intelligence in its power, demands access to European bank data and threatens to cut off the cooperation on terrorist intelligence (which may result in death of many people*) if its demands are not meat.
This is a well-known tactics used by several smaller organizations and groups around the globe. Can't recall the name of a prominent one though... Al-Qsomething...
* I don't believe that US' intelligence is useful (e.g. WMD), nor do I believe in terrorism fear-mongering, nor do I want to give up my rights for this -- free society has a price which I am ready to accept.
The problem is, this doesn't just work against politicians. It also works against countries. The USA claim to have informations about terrorists, which they are unwilling to share with the Eurpean Union unless we hand over the data. Let's see what kind of headlines we can come up with based on that.
Generic newspapers:
USA Hold Free World at Gunpoint, Demand Bank Data for Continued Safety
USA Withholding Terrorism Data Until Demands are Met
Big, reputable papers:
America's Deadly Game - how Uncle Sam trades our safety for his convenience
Give Freely or Die - how Washington uses terrorists as leverage against our privacy
From the Land of the Free to the land of the spies - a timeline
Sensationalist rags:
ARE THE USA PART OF THE AXIS OF EVIL?
HOW AMERICA IS PROTECTING THE TERRORISTS
OBAMA BIN LADEN WANTS TO MESS WITH YOUR BANK ACCOUNT
CAN THE USA SUPPORT TERRORISTS? "YES, WE CAN!"
Yes, there's some horrible spin in there but I can really imagine seeing those headlines. It's really easy to spin this to make the USA look really bad and in a sense it's not even that wrong a viewpoint: The USA, who keep going on about how terrorism is the biggest problem of our generation, willingly keep terrorism-relevant information from others. Either they have been lying about how dangerous the terrorists are or their conduct is seriously unethical. Of course anyone with a bone to pick will have a ball going on from there.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
...which was merely a way for the US to quickly expand its markets into a war torn Europe while busting unions to keep labor cheap and subverting at all costs to keep capitalism expanding - not only did the US make money on WWII but it made even more by 'rebuilding' Europe and installing our corporations and military everywhere it could
The thing is, even with the bad areas here, at least we tend to tell our government and police/security services to shove it when they step over the line, and things usually get toned down to more reasonable levels once the initial hype behind the latest draconian measure has died down. See, for example, the way that ID cards have almost completely dropped off the political radar lately, recent public concern over the virtual strip searches being rolled out at airports, the actions of people in recording and circulating video of police abuses at peaceful demonstrations and the general concern over offensive tactics like kettling, and yes, the backlash that is building over the amount of CCTV we have now that its general lack of fitness for purpose and the frequency of abuse are becoming more widely understood.
Sadly, these things operate on political timescales measured in years, and it usually takes similar lengths of time to understand and fix the problems. Injustices do happen in between, and we do as a society put up with more crap than I would like for longer than I would prefer. But at least we still seem to have a healthy degree of scepticism both within significant chunks of the general population and within both the directly elected parts of our government and our judiciary.
Now, here's the kicker: even with all of these delays and the ever-present threats to basic rights, we still do better than the US, where it appears that any pretense of the federal government following even constitutional rules to protect the privacy and personal data of citizens is just a punchline (and God help anyone who isn't a US citizen and wants to have their basic rights respected, because the US legal system certainly won't).
Some of your other claims are simply untrue: you don't need electronic ID for any of the things you mentioned. You do need some basic ID to open financial accounts these days, as a basic precaution against money laundering, but the requirements are reasonable given the nature of financial accounts, and not onerous for the person doing the opening.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Of course the USA respectfully and nicely accepts this disappointing yet semi-democratic decision.
NOT!
They threaten Europe with not sharing terrorism related information.
So we expect a false flag soon?
I miss the apologies of the US for stealing data from a foreign, but friendly country!
I miss the clear statement that such data sharing is mandatory bidirectional!1
And I would like to have the same transparency about US state Delaware's mailbox-companies financial transactions!
I forgot who said it, but a politician once said "there are no friendly countries. Only countries whose interests are currently aligned."
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Reciprocity is easy to understand: it isn't there in the current agreements. As in: the US can look at any financial transaction in the EU it likes, the EU cannot do the same thing with financial transactions in the US. If I were on a EU committee like the one described, I'd nix any data-sharing agreement on that ground alone. Can you imagine the US allowing a foreign power to rifle through its citizen's private financial records without getting the same powers in return? No? Then why should the EU?
"Subsidiarity" is a code-word coined by the EU bureaucracy which basically means that responsibility for something should be put at the lowest possible level: if something can be handled at national level, the EU has no business with it. Sort of like the division of powers between individual states and federal government (guess where they found the inspiration for this one). The same idea applies between nations / states. If some state / nation is capable of fishing for terrorists, then it ought to do so instead of sending off the raw data to another entity for processing, analysis, and monitoring. So why not let the EU trawl through its own stuff (e.g. according to algorithms we provide) and put an agreement in place that they alert us the instant they find anything? That's how policing works (and often doesn't work).
The "trust" angle is what makes things difficult. Basically the US are developing ways of data-mining financial transactions for traces of unlawful activity (terrorist, drugs-related, or otherwise). That's currently a research area (not in the least because our opponents are very much moving targets and you therefore need to tweak such searches all the time) and it simply doesn't want to let 23 other parties (all EU member states, the EU commission, and one or two EU agencies) know the exact nature of its analyses. That makes absolute sense because with so many parties involved there are bound to be leaks, so the US might as well publish its algorithms on the web if it did. If it does, then any terrorist organization worth its salt will move quickly to hide the exact patterns the search is looking for, rendering the whole exercise rather pointless.
The next question of course is why the US doesn't want to make its internal financial transactions available to the EU on the same basis. That would remove the pain for the EU. Legal obstacles apart, it's not as if the EU and its members are likely to abuse that. The problem however is that if the EU gets such rights, then *every* other party that's ever approached with a request for data will demand the same. Would you like all your financial transactions to be visible to e.g. China, Russia, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, Indonesia and any other nation we need data from? No? You don't want China to know that you flew to Taipei or that your company sold stuff there? I wouldn't either. So it's best not to put anything like that on the table. Ever. Right?
So there's the catch-22. We can't afford to offer the EU reasonable (for them) terms for data-access, and if they grow a pair they won't just give us the data either (which they seem to be currently doing).
Anyone got any bright ideas?