Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Committee Says No To Bank Data Sharing

Posted by kdawson on from the over-here-we-still-have-privacy dept.

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.

25 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Who let US out of the playground again? by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by rvw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?!)

      I totally agree. This is another reason that we cannot trust the US anymore. Their only interest is their own interest, and everything else they do and say is hypocrisy. They sold out on all of their values. And I mean the US government, including the whole political system, but not all people living there. US business is a very bad factor in the world as well (think of banks), but the US state makes this possible.

    2. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by lordholm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The European governments already approved the deal in the Council. It is the the Union itself that is fighting to protect the citizens in this case.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    3. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a funny conspiracy theory for you: :)

      You may know that in Islamic countries, banks have to follow special rules of morale. The stuff that did happen in the US, is highly illegal in e.g. UAE.
      So the theories goes like this:
      The banking crisis did not really affect Islamic banks.
      Which means that the whole banking crisis was the biggest and most successful terrorist attack by Islamic “leaders” yet.
      And it was teamwork with China, who sold you crap that you don’t need, so you buy it with lend money that you don’t have... and is also coming from China.

      Now all we have to find out, is how Islamic banks control China. ;))

      P.S.: Protip: If you took this seriously: *whoooosh* ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I totally agree. This is another reason that we cannot trust the US anymore. Their only interest is their own interest, and everything else they do and say is hypocrisy. They sold out on all of their values. And I mean the US government, including the whole political system, but not all people living there. US business is a very bad factor in the world as well (think of banks), but the US state makes this possible.

      Everyone puts their own interests first. The EU is likely reject this treaty because doing so is in their own interests.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    5. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by beh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like the fact 'the US has threatened to withhold cooperation on terrorist intelligence if the bank data deal now in place is cancelled'.

      At the Munich security conference today they stated that this data is important and it already helped stopping attacks...

      EU politicians would like some evidence of this... ...since the 'US cooperation' so far has never led to them actually give any indication of this.

      Strange kind of cooperation...

      I'm kind of siding with EU politicians who say that this has already opened the door to some degree of industrial espionage, when the US can trace what kind of money flows exist between various companies.

    6. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I recommend moving to Switzerland. As long as you can limit the alcohol drinking... ;)
      They are not in the EU, it’s warmer, the food is better, the scenery is beautiful, they have a great air force, and nobody is going to put the country under pressure, that has all his money, anyway. ^^
      Plus, you get a (partially?) direct democracy with referenda. Which is the most valuable of all properties.

      Yeah, I hear it's a great place to live if you're a white, christian, non-slavic person of northern european descent with a lot of money.

    7. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      The thing that amazes me is that the EU denies because of privacy concerns and then the US tries to negotiate (sometimes called 'blackmail') the deal by withholding intelligence on terrorism!

      And so the issue is quite clear. Give up your privacy else the US will not try to help prevent terrorism despite the US's declaration of a war on terror and its facade of integrity to 'do its best' in that effort.

      I am sincerely bothered that a nation so 'right' about terrorism and its purposes of fighting terrorism, would not do everything possible to prevent it, and would deliberately NOT fight terrorism for petty political purposes.

      And the US wonders why people around the world hate them... It's scary that the rest of the world sees the difference between the words and the actions but the democratic voters of the US are largely unaware. I guess this is partially due to the fact that American Politics are so bipartisan that the focus of questions is on the party and not of the sum of the whole. Thus they have news that relates to how one candidate might be wrong, or another might be corrupt, but none that truly reflects upon or questions the actions of the nation as a whole.

      It isn't a conspiracy theory to say that major media in the US is in cooperation with its corporations and lobbies to make more money; the connections are clear and publicly available. It isn't any stretch of imagination to think that a corporate news source that is directly connected to other forms of business would skew its facts and present information that in ways that would benefit its business. Such wide-scope congolmerate-corporations are complete enemies to truth and competition; the extended shame of it being that the GOP, the party whose members vote to retain small government and market competition continually elects leaders/lawmakers that do not do so and bend over quite easily to corporations.

    8. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by poena.dare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This US citizen agrees whole-heartedly.

      "The US has threatened to withhold cooperation on terrorist intelligence if the bank data deal now in place is canceled..."

      One would think that if combating terrorism was truly a US priority, the administration would continue to share terrorist intelligence regardless of what the EU does and instead threaten to withhold chicken wings, or iPhones, or Big Macs, or something else NOT security related.

    9. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is a damned shame how we won the cold war only to become that which we fought against. Might as well change the meme now. Oh well I'll start "In Soviet Amerika bank shares YOU!"

      Seriously though as an American I'd like to say I'm sorry. This really wasn't the country so many of my relatives bled and shed blood for across many a battlefield. Sadly there isn't much we can do since the media conglomerates now own more than 75% of all mainstream news sources and BOTH parties (for those non USA we only have two parties. The others aren't allowed airtime and have NO chance of winning) are all for more big government, more spying, and less freedom for all.The only real difference anymore between D and R is that the Ds kiss the booty of big media, and the Rs love to blow defense contractors, and that's about it.

      So sorry world, we are pretty much circling the drain ATM. Hey it was fun while it lasted, and thanks for all the oil.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by rve · · Score: 3, Funny

      the scenery is beautiful

      I'll give you that one.

      There aren't a lot of places where you can even see the scenery, with all these fucking claustrophobia inducing mountains blocking the view

    11. Re:Who let US out of the playground again? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Yes, it's quite bizarre that we're being protected from our own governments by the EU. And yet this is what is happening. Even in other areas this is the case such as Human Rights, Animal Welfare and Envrionmental Standards (I'm not talking global warming in the last one, I'm talking chemical emissions, water pollution, etc). I dislike large government on principle, yet for the EU, it's working out better than our national ones. I've been to the EU parliament as well. And quite frankly, even though its remit is larger, it comes across even in its architecture and fittings, as more in touch and open than the UK parliament and offices.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  2. End of Technology Euphoria by CyborgWarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:Much better that this data... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  4. Sorry, that is completely wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Sorry, that is completely wrong by lordholm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you undervalue the fury from the parliament on the fact that the Council snuck the deal through the day before Lisbon went into effect (had it been done the day after, the EP would have had the right to add their amendments to the deal). Lots of MEPs are really really pissed at the Council for this and they really want to flex their muscles against the Council (which I think is a good thing since the EP is accountable to the citizens).

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    2. Re:Sorry, that is completely wrong by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Member states are bound by EU law. They cannot legally enter into bilateral agreements instead. In any case a divide et impera won't happen, it is too complicated. Diplomates are bound by a code of conduct. Proliferation of financial data is espionage, for officials without a legal base treason. SWIFT is a private company.

      The procedure is wrongly depicted: "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." The responsible committee and the rapporteur discuss it and then submit their report to plenary for adoption. Their report says "sorry, we cannot accept the agreement."

      The European Parliament is pissed for another reason: The Council concluded the agreement one day before the entering into force of Lisbon. The Council adoption was an affront on Parliament competences.

      US administration directly lobbying the European Parliament members contravenes the diplomatic protocol.

  5. reasonable request, but... by lordholm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!"
  6. Trade ya some lives for a bank account. by Stumbles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  7. Not quite by Elektroschock · · Score: 5, Informative

    --- Problem ---

    • The current agreement is unacceptable for Europeans and would be interim anyway
    • The US embassador to the European Union, William Kennard blackmailed members of the European Parliament and the leaders of the groups. He has to abstain from interference into the inner affairs of the EU and violated the rules of diplomatic conduct. His black mail attempt was foolish because it is impossible for member states to enter bilateral agreements with the US and that would be an unbearable and illegal act of illoyality. His bluff: 'I am unsure whether Washington agencies would again decide to address this issue at EU level'
    • The European Commission thought they could ignore the European Parliament as the competent body. Currently a new Commission is put into office.
    • SWIFT data is toxic and European financial institutions are very sensitive about this. The use of the SWIFT data for anti-terrorism purposes is fishy.
    • Europeans get nothing in return for the transmission of their sensitive data

    --- Process ---

    Agreement between the EU and the USA 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, Rapporteur: Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (A7-0013/2010)

      ---- Scenarios and options ----

    • Restore the honour of the US diplomatic corps by a dismissal of the offender Kennard
    • Interinstitutional deal and adoption (Clinton)
    • Rejection by the European Parliament plenary and renewed referral.
    • Even stronger resolution by the European Parliament than what the Committee proposed, given the latest incidents.

    A rejection is currently likely. See the debate and voting timetable at Seance en direct.

      ---- Documents ----

  8. Re: withhold cooperation on terrorism!!!!?? WTF!!! by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah right, 9/11 is the only successful terrorist attack ever.
    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."
  9. Re:Technophoria vindicated. by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    Everyone has a voice, but nobody is heard. Our democracy amounts to the tiniest share of a choice between two similar groups of people who end up doing similar things. More and more laws are passed, resulting in an ever-narrowing box within which we have "freedom". Golden? I think not; gold does not tarnish.

  10. Familiar tactics by Erikderzweite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Technophoria vindicated. by VitaminB52 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our democracy, in the United States, is stronger than it has ever been in our lifetimes.

    I'm sorry to say you're wrong. Democracy is about one (wo)man one vote, not about one lobbyist one vote, or one corporation one vote.
    The US of A recently crossed the thin line between democracy and democrazy, read the NY Times article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/

  12. remember the Marshall Plan... by anechoic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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