Slashdot Mirror


EU Overturns Agreement With US On Banking Data

Following the lead of the civil liberties committee which last week recommended dropping it (against the wishes of the US), qmaqdk writes "The EU parliament overturned the previous agreement with the US which allowed US intelligence agencies to access EU banking data."

214 comments

  1. Well done! by N3tRunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good for them, way to grow a spine, Europe! Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.

    1. Re:Well done! by _merlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they're on the same side, and they get their buddies into plum jobs - just look at how good Henry Paulson was for them. Why would American banks argue with the American government? Everyone would benefit more if they just agreed to scratch each others' backs. (Well, except for the customers, but who cares about them, right?)

    2. Re:Well done! by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      It's not like America needs special privileges for a lot of that information right now anyways.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    3. Re:Well done! by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they're on the same side

      There is no such thing in politics and finances.

    4. Re:Well done! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.

      The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US. The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:Well done! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      > The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US.

      There is such a thing as state chartered banks.

      > The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.

      And here I thought the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OTS and state regulatory agencies regulated banks.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    6. Re:Well done! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.

      I think they're more motivated by Uncle Sam's moneybags.

      If you're a friend of the government, the government will cover your risky losses. You get to be Goldman Sachs. If you're not, then you get to play as Wachovia. In other words, being a friend of the government is the optimal place to be, since it lets you gamble as wildly as you like - you pocket any upside, and if your gamble doesn't pay off you just get a job as Treasury Secretary and write a blank check to your former place of employment.

    7. Re:Well done! by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      British courts did the right thing this week too- they ruled against the British government/US attempts to cover up US intelligence handed to the UK proving that one of our citizens was tortured before being moved to Guantanamo before being eventually released with no charges.

      Turns out British intelligence was aware of the torture, which is why most people assumed our foreign office had such an interest in keeping it covered up in the first place.

      Despite American threats to withdraw intelligence sharing if the data was released, our courts ruled that the data should be released, so it's a bit of a double win this week in standing up to oppressive American strong arm tactics of threatening to put us at risk from terrorists if we don't do what they say.

    8. Re:Well done! by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they're on the same side

      There is no such thing in politics and finances.

      I think you are confusing the act they play for public consumption with the real thing.

      It's like lawyers: in court they will fight for their side (it's their job), but outside they might go out together for golfing on weekends.

      The main difference is that lawyers have constraints which for example make it unlawfull to get together and screw one of the sides in a case for personal benefit.

      Politicians and the "masters of the universe" on the other hand have no real constraints with regards to screwing the side they "represent".

    9. Re:Well done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh...

    10. Re:Well done! by germ!nation · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With regards to the torture thing, we do tend to get these unusual rulings in the UK around election time when there are points to score. I wonder if the ruling would have gone the same way had it happened in June when everyone was still waiting to see which way the wind was blowing.

    11. Re:Well done! by Captain+Hook · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it's not quite as good of a decision as was being made out once you get past the headlines.

      The decision in question was specific to a few paragraphs in a report which the UK government had said had to be censored because the US asked us to keep out of the public - so we did.

      At some point, a report in the US publically quoted those paragraphs and so UK courts ruled that since the information was now in the public domain there was no reason not to publish the censored paragraphs ourselves

      The decision did however go against the UK governments continued wish to keep the paragraphs censored since those paragraphs basically said the UK knew about and supported torture of a UK citizen.

      [It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

      v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

      vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.

      vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

      viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

      ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

      x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities]"

      Source: FCO Website : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=21733568

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    12. Re:Well done! by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's been a bit hit and miss all along really this one though, it's been a fine line- first off the details were going to be released, then they weren't, then they were, then we had to wait for a home office appeal, now the home office finally lost the appeal and they were released.

      So to be fair, this one has been swaying either way so long, I don't think that's it.

      The oink ruling was a bit more of a pleasant suprise though, although that was trial by jury so I suspect even that ended as it did for different reasons- i.e. the fact that statistically, 3 people in the jury were likely file sharers, and that again, statistically, everyone in the jury knew at least one file sharer. In this respect, the IFPI probably didn't have the benefit of jury ignorance of file sharing on their side.

      In this respect, jury trials probably don't bode well for the music industry.

    13. Re:Well done! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      And here I thought the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OTS and state regulatory agencies regulated banks.

      "Oh you need to wire 250,000 dollars, well we never received your 'Know your customer.' paperwork, so we're going to delay the transfer until you get us new copies. Have to make sure you're not banking with terrorists. What? You say you sent us the originals? Well, we're going to need you to get us some new originals, signed in triplicate.'

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    14. Re:Well done! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is run out of the Treasury Dept, not the FBI.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    15. Re:Well done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'agency' has shown to be incapable of protecting it's own citizen's privacy.
      The 'agency' has demonstrated multiple times utter contempt for their own declaration of independence and it's ammendments, human rights declarations, geneva conventions, ...
      They've also demonstrated they don't have any scrupules to getting the data they need without any form of consent (they used the data covertly for 6 years)
      These are the kind of people that simply need a deal to hush up public opinion about the topic, they'll never stick to the conditions necessary to preserve privacy.
      And tbh the rest of the world had already said NO before they started their war, if you're neck deep in the shit you've created don't come whining when everyone else told you it wasn't a good idea.

    16. Re:Well done! by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Didn't this only happen because it turned out that the "secret" information had already been made public by a US court? So the whole "we don't want to upset the Americans" thing was kind of moot, and made it an easy decision. If that hadn't been the case, I'm not certain which way it would've gone!

    17. Re:Well done! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You don't really believe that there is that much separation between the various tentacles of the Federal Government, do you?

      The Department of Justice(FBI) has been known to work with the Department of Treasury(BATF) on occasion (Waco, Ruby Ridge).

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    18. Re:Well done! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I wonder why the US authorities continued to threaten Britain over it after it was already public?

      I assume they would claim it was the principle of it?

    19. Re:Well done! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the FBI is used on tax raids as well. The OP stated that we'll never have banking secrecy because "banks are Federally chartered" and "...the FBI can make life difficult..."

      I'm not saying banks can keep secrets from the government, I'm just saying that sounds like a 5-year old's view of the world.

      Beyond the fact that it's completely factually incorrect, it's also just silly. It's like saying you can't drive 100 MPH because the FTC will put pressure on auto makers. You can't drive 100 MPH because it's the law. We don't have banking secrecy in this country because we have laws that forbid it, not because "the FBI is putting pressure on banking charters."

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    20. Re:Well done! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Do you work in academia by chance? You're exhibiting the behavior of someone to has an academic knowledge of the structure of government, but no real world experience with how things really happen.

      I'm just saying that sounds like a 5-year old's view of the world.

      More like the world view of someone who has actually been the target of a federal investigation. I was not involved with the crime that they were investigating, but investigate me they did.

      It's like saying you can't drive 100 MPH because the FTC will put pressure on auto makers. You can't drive 100 MPH because it's the law.

      You suck at analogies. I clearly can drive 100 MPH, because I have. I've been up to 120 a time or two.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    21. Re:Well done! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      I don't work in academia and I do have real-world knowledge of banking regulation.

      Just because you were investigated doesn't mean you know what was going in the minds of those doing the investigating. And, FYI, sometimes "investigators" need to "investigate" before they know what happened. That's how they attempt to find out what happened.

      And yes, I realize it's possible to drive over the speed limit and not get caught. It's also possible to launder money and not get caught. In fact, people have even robbed banks (something the FBI does have primary jurisdiction over) and not get caught. Getting away with a crime doesn't make it legal. And it still doesn't mean that the FTC is in charge of speed limits any more than your idea that the FBI is a banking regulator.

      I don't agree with all these laws, but I'm just explaining to you that financial privacy is not legal in this country because the Congress has passed laws and the president has signed them (and yes, in some cases just because the president said it was "an emergency").

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    22. Re:Well done! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      And it still doesn't mean that the FTC is in charge of speed limits any more than your idea that the FBI is a banking regulator.

      Where did I say "In charge"?

      They have influence with other federal agencies. Refuse a "request" from the FBI and find out just how much influence they have.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    23. Re:Well done! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      First, you implied that the FBI had influence because "banks are federally chartered". which is just wrong. Second, you implied that we don't have bank secrecy because the FBI would "put pressure" on anyone that didn't comply. But that's silly. Banks are required to cooperate BY LAW, not because some G-man in DC will put the muscle on their charter if they don't buckle under. They don't NEED to do that, Congress gave the Treasury Department that authority.

      If Congress rescinded Know Your Customer today, we'd have a lot more privacy. In that scenario, even if an FBI agent tried to muscle a few banks, it wouldn't really have that great of an effect. The value of Know Your Customer is the massive data mine that it provides. FinCEN isn't poking around one account at a time, it's looking at everything at once. It works because it has ALL transactions, not just suspicious ones. It is, to be sure, a massive invasion of privacy with global reach.

      But it doesn't exist because some FBI agent threatened some small-town banker who wasn't cooperating. It exists because Congress created it.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    24. Re:Well done! by shnull · · Score: 1

      Yea, also, what previous agreement ??!? And also, i don't like the way it says 'against the wishes of the US' ? We really have no need for an extension of your patriot act towards us. I think this is one of the worst pr-moves Obama has made so far. That, and the blunt refusel to go against the nuclear threat of Iran. Other than tha

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    25. Re:Well done! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      It exists because Congress created it.

      How do laws work? By magic? Or because there is someone with the authority to enforce them?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Damn by countertrolling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now they'll just have to go back to the old fashioned way.

    In case of emergency, break law

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  3. We already know how this works by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    1. Re:We already know how this works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or if that fails..

      US: Hello there small child can I see your private parts?
      EU Banks: No, my parents said I'm not allowed to show those to anyone.
      US: Thats ok, lets keep it a secret between us.

    2. Re:We already know how this works by skine · · Score: 2, Funny

      slut

  4. Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.

      Right, so to stop a few corrupt individuals and companies in the US avoiding paying tax in the US by banking in Europe, every banking transaction that passes through Europe (or the EU, with 27 countries and over 500m people - that's more than all of North America) should be reported to the US... Something about setting ones own house in order before messing with other people's springs to mind.

      Moving on, it is nice to see that the (democratically elected) European Parliament is finally able to stand up to the (appointed) Council of Ministers (and the US); the Lisbon Treaty does have its good points (even if it was pushed through in a rather undemocratic way). Now if only the rest of it could get implemented and the Swedish Pirate Party could get their second MEP into office.

    2. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Ziekheid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, AGAIN, it's not like the US always had the right to see EU banking data.
      Furthermore the world is a bit bigger than only the US and the EU, there'll always be opportunities.
      They'll still be able to see the cashflow going out of the country though, unless it's foreign money.
      In short: not a valid argument and props to the EU for finally deciding that they will not kiss American ass any longer.

    3. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.

      Nope. Sorry. This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection. This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens. The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with). Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    4. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by horza · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Americans tax their citizens on their world-wide income, no matter where they live. The reverse isn't true. So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system? Though I may sound a little harsh on your system, you under-estimate your fellow Americans. My job is to sell luxury real estate to the wealthy, and I also arrange private banking in Monaco. Virtually none of my American clients are eager to avoid paying taxes.I won't name other nationalities, for fear of being accused of stereotyping, but I will say that in my experience Americans are in the very top percentile of honest tax payers. Though you may have problems with corporations, where every tax dodge is purely for the benefit of the shareholder, you should have more faith in your fellow citizens. Overall you can be proud of them.

      Phillip.

    5. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. I used a false name.
      The US will never check the name Osama Bin Laden because they'll assume hes using an alias.

    6. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmmm, I was going to tear you an new one crying BS on high taxes & unemployment (the US & EU have essentially the same unemployment)...then I saw why everyone wants to claim residence in Monaco.

      http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Monaco/Taxes-and-Costs

      Personal income tax: 0%.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      This ain't about tax avoidance at all.

      It has always been the case that those Americans who want to avoid taxes can do so in the US easily -- simply setup up a non-profit for the purpose, and be done with it, safely and legally. I know quite a few Americans who do just that, and don't bother with offshore accounts.

      Shipping data wholesale to the US authorities is a legal problem in Europe mostly because there privacy protection still has some limited meaning.

    8. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why is this bad? It's a simple matter of "path of least resistance". Monaco offers 0% income tax. However, some nations stipulate proof of living there. So, Monaco pulls in revenue from their citizens taxes whom in turn charges their clients (foreigners) a fee of residency. It's a bloody brilliant ruse! In the end, both Monaco and their "clients" win.

      As the ol saying goes...."Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.

      If they earn their money in US, then transfer to a European bank would originate in US, ultimately, and can be monitored.

      If they didn't earn their money in US, and they don't reside there, then why is it any business of US government in the first place?

      (I understand you may have that written in your laws, but it's not like that would the the first silly American law, and the world at large has no obligation to help you enforce such laws - no more so than it has any obligations to help you enforce your online gambling ban.)

      If they earned their money abroad, come there to pick it up, and then enter US, then your customs should be trained to deal with it.

    10. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1

      This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens.

      Uhhh, no; it does not. You may want to look up what SWIFT actually does:

      The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ("SWIFT") operates a worldwide financial messaging network which exchanges messages between banks and other financial institutions. SWIFT also markets software and services to financial institutions, much of it for use on the SWIFTNet Network, and ISO 9362 bank identifier codes (BICs) are popularly known as "SWIFT codes".

      So what the intelligence services could access up to now where payments, or more precisely, messages that where trasnmitted via SWIFT. The dodgy money changer, around the corner, doesn't use SWIFT for transfers and SWIFT wouldn't know about your banking relationships, unless you're the final beneficiary from a payment via them. And there's no point for them to store data on an end-customer level, since it's a messaging service between financial institutions, exclusively.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    11. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      This is about the SWIFT database that catalogs international transactions, not the contents of your Swiss bank account.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by MemoryDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah something was denied to the US the US defense trigger some have comes out automatically without thinking. You have to be aware of that this treaty was a mutual spy upon you treaty. The US could not legally spy on the transactions of its own citizense but they could more or less spy upon the europeans, and vice versa, so what happens is that the data gets exchanged (all friend countries so why even doing some spying?) and then suddenly the US government has "YOUR" data (as well as all european governments and foreign agencies).

      Before wishing us evil, think twice that the EU government has basically stopped a blatant spy attack of the US government against its own citizens and vice versa. Besides shifting banking data also opens the door to industry espionage especially in the banking sector.
      Kicking all this was a good thing for both sides.

      I hope the same will happen to whatever the dreaded Acta group currently negotiates. The EU parliament already is pretty pissed that they do not get any information as well there is a very high chance that the Acta groups treaties never will make it through the parliament no matter what is in there, they already made a significant number of people angry so that they vote against it automatically.

    13. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by zoney_ie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Undemocratic? We got not one, but two votes on the Lisbon Treaty here in Ireland :)

      In fairness, the Treaty was signed by people's elected governments (democracy - you vote in a government to run your country as they see fit), and in countries other than Ireland, was not in conflict with the constitution (despite scrutiny in a number of countries it was found not to be a problem). Even in Ireland, if the government had wanted to, they could have passed almost all of Lisbon without a constitutional amendment (the amendment was only necessary for certain items). As far as I know, the main difference with Ireland is that the constitution is very detailed, and a previous amendment pretty much meant all European treaties had to be appended by constitutional amendment.

      Besides, direct democracy isn't very sensible - Switzerland is an example (or indeed the history of constitutional amendments in Ireland). The majority can hold up essential reform (like not letting women have the vote till late 60s/early 70s) or pass dubious votes (e.g. the minarets vote) where a government, despite having to keep an eye on what voters want, does have some freedom to enact unpopular measures that may nevertheless be needed.

      Anyone who thought Lisbon was a bad idea should have come here to Ireland to see the appalling scaremongering tactics by the opponents (Lisbon will mean your foetuses aborted, your sons conscripted, the elderly euthanised) as well as negative campaigning (the unpopular ruling government want you to vote Yes, fat cats want the gravy train to continue, etc.). These are tactics that political parties have refrained from using in general elections etc. as they just lead to a vicious downward spiral. The proponents used standard political tactics based on generalisation of arguments (so "Vote Yes for Recovery", "Vote Yes for Jobs", etc.). These kind of tactics are acceptable enough and the public are familiar enough with them. You do have to sum up your arguments snappily on election posters. And all you need is some clever brainstorming to get your point across this way - no need to resort to dirty tactics.

      Besides, as cynical as people are about politicians and the establishment - when *all* main political parties, opposition and government are speaking together - surely it should suggest that they may be right? Admittedly losing the first vote also showed they were incompetent.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    14. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm just happy that the guys I helped elect to represent me in the EU are doing their job.

      The EU Parliament is the only directly elected EU institution (the members of the European Comission are nominated by countries' governments - and many are in the pockets of some lobbyist or other - and the Council of Europe is made up of representatives from each EU countries' governments) and it is the most consistent defender of things like consumer rights and the privacy of the EU citizens.

      I would like to remind every EU Slashdotter that if you are an EU citizen, no mater where you live in the EU (even outside your home country) you can vote for the EU Parliament - most people in the EU are not exercising this right so your vote will be even weightier.

    15. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      erm. That's like saying that BACS is a messaging service between financial institutions, exclusively.

      Sure, SWIFT is used for bank to bank payments, but it's also used for customer to customer payments.

      That most individuals don't transfer funds large enough to justify the expense of SWIFT messages don't mean that they can't - I've done it myself before now (not for a particularly high value transfer, just one that I didn't want to go through multi-day clearing cycles on).

      At the 'tax avoidance' or 'terrorist activity' level, and for inter-country cash transfers, SWIFT is definitely a mechanism that would be used by individuals, and so it's very understandable that someone trying to monitor the flow of funds would want to know what's passing over it.

      I'm also delighted that the EU have said that the US can't monitor the use of SWIFT in Europe. Obviously various EU countries will have their own intelligence services doing nefarious things but (in theory) they're subject to EU law.

      Net impact on security is minimal, because of that domestic coverage. Anything found by an EU security service can be shared with the US, and if the US want to find the destination of a specific transfer they can ask an EU agency to help them (which generally they'll do, but under the auspices of EU law, which means they wont trawl the transactions of every EU citizen, including the ones that aren't acting illegally).

    16. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system?

      Well perhaps it's a navigational mistake that so many well educated and (moderately) wealthy Europeans move to the US - they meant to go to Switzerland but took the wrong plane or something similar. I would however propose a different theory. Let's break down you claims:

      1) Taxes: I, as a small business owner pay a net of about 60% taxes. That's not including the 25% value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase. In the US I would pay about 30%, probably less.
      2) High unemployment: The EU unemployment rate is about 10%. US unemployment rate is about 10%. Not that it matters for the wealthy category.
      3) Gun crime: Sure it's higher in the US, but again not something that is a great problem for the rich or for the upper middle class.
      4) Health care: The US has the best health care system in the world as far as medicine goes. Nearly all medical research comes from the US. The best doctors from all over the world move to the US - both for professional and economic reasons. The health care in Europe is "free" (i.e. you pay it through taxes) which is good for people with low incomes. For the middle class and the wealthy paying for insurance and medical costs isn't a problem. They would prefer getting better quality.

      The bottom line is that Europe has a stronger social protection grid - something that benefits unemployed and people with low incomes. For the rest it just means that you pay more for bad quality of services. So if you are in the upper middle class, the US is a far better choice. You get to keep more of your money, stuff is a lot cheaper and you can get better quality of service. As for the super rich, well, it doesn't matter one way or the other. They live in a different sphere where issues of tax and health care are trivial.

    17. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Judging by the terrorists who tried to mix an explosive that takes 7 hours to produce with no vibrations, on a 5 hour flight, and the terrorist who set fire to his trousers, I think the US intelligence services would be well advised not to place an upper limit on the stupidity of Al Quaeda members.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not including the 25% value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase

      25% VAT? Where do you live in the EU then? VAT is 15% in most of the EU. Also, for a 'small business owner' you seem to completely fail to understand how VAT works. Value Added Tax is a tax on value added. You charge VAT on things that you sell, deduct from that the amount of VAT that you paid on things that you bought, and only pay the remainder to the government. If you're paying the full VAT amount on stuff that you're buying, then it means that you're not producing anything.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by geegel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Small correction. The EU commission is named in the following way: The EU Parliament votes for the EU Commission chief (in this case Barroso), the chief assembles his team and after that the team must be validated by the Parliament again.

      --
      right...
    20. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Yup, the campaigning here would have been funny if the situation hadn't been a serious one. Coir (a front for a militant pro-life Catholic fundie group) were particularly dishonest in their scaremongering. My favourite was the one in which we were threatened with the minimum wage coming down to around 2. Of course, when asked, the people producing those posters couldn't provide any source for that.

      Yup, I was rather relieved to see it go through on the second vote. We're too bogged down in deference to the Catholic church, and corruption in Ireland is as common as Saturday morning hangovers.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    21. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by selven · · Score: 1

      Isn't it illegal for the US government to ask someone else, whether it's a foreign government or a telecom company or a 13 year old Russian hacker, to spy on someone if it's illegal for them to do the spying themselves? From what I recall, this is what happened with the telecoms a while back.

    22. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by seasunset · · Score: 1

      VAT 15% in the EU?

      How such a misleading and uniformed post can be rated (as of now) "3, Informative"?

    23. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by geegel · · Score: 1

      The rates you posted are a bit outdated. Now I hate Wikipedia links, but they do have an up to date list. As you will see the average VAT rate sits at about 20%.

      --
      right...
    24. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Don't think that will work. There is a tax information sharing agreement, and as data flows both ways on that one, it isn't affected. SWIFT does international wire transfers and doesn't know what happens to the money once it has been transferred.

      Anyway, if you want to avoid tax, you put your money in Switzerland or Leichtenstein, or maybe Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands. Those countries are not in the EU.

    25. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It isn't just the EU. If you wire money from India to China for example, that most likely goes through SWIFT, and that gets reported to the US.

    26. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until recently, the SWIFT backup server has been located in the US. So the US had unrestricted and unmonitored access to all that data, no matter if there's an agreement or not.

    27. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by seasunset · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that is precisely my point: 15% is not the average, it is the minimum (Canary Islands being an exception).

      In fact the 15% in Luxenbourg has been subject of hot political debate because of sales tax evasion through there.

      The GP post is dead wrong.

      And in the near future VAT in Europe will go up, as it will be the easiest way to tackle the now very famous deficits...

    28. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Denmark - 25%
      Hungary - 25%
      Sweden - 25%

      There are only one country, Luxemburg, that only charges 15%

    29. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Since when is the US high tax or high unemployment?

      I think the far easier answer to why Europeans donät hide their money in the U.S. is that it's much convenient to hide it in Switzerland, Luxemburg, or Lichtenstein.

    30. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
      BACS is a bit more then a messaging service between banks, it's a clearing house, implying that it handles settlement between counterparties. SWIFT doesn't do that.

      In addition: I was very specifically replying to this statement:

      This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens.

      .

      This is very inaccurate at the minimum, or could - by less tolerant dudes then me - be construed as a whacked out conspiracy theory.

      At the 'tax avoidance' or 'terrorist activity' level, and for inter-country cash transfers, SWIFT is definitely a mechanism that would be used by individuals

      No it wouldn't. An individual might be part of a SWIFT message, but this is absolutiely not necessarily the case. This doesn't discount the fact that intercepting SWIFT may prove useful to intelligence outfits. But it is certainyl not so that SWIFT enables prying into actual bank accounts, which the original quote implied.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    31. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      SWIFT messages contain destination bank account details. Anybody monitoring those messages can thus see any funds being transferred to specific bank accounts over the SWIFT network.

      Although SWIFT itself isn't a clearing house, it's used by CHAPS, by TIPAnet, by others (I can't remember if SEPA use it) as a transport mechanism. Between those uses and foreign payments, SWIFT messages definitely contain person-to-person payment transactions.

      Sure, they also contain company to company transactions, settlement transactions between clearing banks and clearing houses, and other payments, but that's like saying that all bittorrent traffic is legal because some of it is for Linux distros.

      However, re-reading your initial message, I think I'm now in agreement with you. SWIFT wont track individuals as a customer, it's merely a transport mechanism over which some transactions will occur.

      In that context, BACS is actually little different; the counterparty positions for BACS are at the financial institution or 'very large corporation' level, not at individual levels. But the counterparty positions can be derived within SWIFT if you're analysing all of the messages anyway (albeit by interpreting all of the payment requests, reversals, rejections and other traffic, which across the whole of SWIFT would require enough hardware to make me jealous).

    32. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think you misread me.

      0% income tax is good for individuals. If you can afford to live there.

      http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Monaco/Living-There
      Note the residency requirements - deposit about $100,000 in a local bank.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    33. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by centuren · · Score: 1

      You have to be aware of that this treaty was a mutual spy upon you treaty. The US could not legally spy on the transactions of its own citizense but they could more or less spy upon the europeans, and vice versa, so what happens is that the data gets exchanged (all friend countries so why even doing some spying?) and then suddenly the US government has "YOUR" data (as well as all european governments and foreign agencies).

      The USA doesn't have much call for "mutual spy upon" treaties anymore. The US gov't has been actively spying on it's own citizens for years now, and openly admitted to it, legal or not. They might not have the same access to ISPs and phone companies in the EU, but I'm sure active monitoring is fully implemented across Europe as well. I don't know what anyone can do about either situation. There's no real incentive for Americans not to spy.
      There's been enough put out in the open (like confirming warrant-less wiretapping in the US) without seeing the legal or political consequences that are meant to prevent such things.

    34. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by centuren · · Score: 1

      Since when is the US high tax or high unemployment?

      Ever since it was turned into a socialist regime sometime around 2008 or 2009, I think. Or so I've heard, anyway.

    35. Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      You forgot the other complaint about the US, that we refuse to raise taxes so we just print more money.

  5. A good start! by newcastlejon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a shame that similar action won't be forthcoming when it comes to the lopsided extradition treaties though.

    N.B. These don't apply to all EU member states but are particularly bad with our spineless foreign office.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  6. Can someone please explain to me ... by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How's Obama any different than Bush?

    The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.

    Nothing has changed.

    1. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Obama is more intelligent and is also a better speaker.

    2. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Who, besides the fanbois, said he was?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by spiffmastercow · · Score: 0, Troll

      Um, he's black? Duh.

    4. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For starters, we don't seem to be bombarded with "with us or against us" rhetoric.

      Also, current administration has at least enough tact to not encourage negative attitued towards, say, France; or "Old Europe".

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      Yeah - that's exactly the problem nowadays - it's all "politically correct".

      But under the hood - same old, same old.

    6. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How's Obama any different than Bush?

      The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.

      Nothing has changed.

      Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.

    7. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Funny

      How's Obama any different than Bush?

      Bush was honest about what he believes.

      Bush's agenda was all about maintaining the physical safety of Americans, even if privacy had to suffer. (I disagree with this too BTW)
      Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Are you talking about Obama or the teleprompter? If you do not know what I'm talking about, just catch him speaking when the teleprompter is down or out of action. In that regard, Bush seems about equal or better then Obama.

    9. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about Obama or the teleprompter? If you do not know what I'm talking about, just catch him speaking when the teleprompter is down or out of action. In that regard, Bush seems about equal or better then Obama.

      That's interesting, I was unaware of that (I don't live in the US, though).
      Do you have any video with a good example of what you claim?

    10. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by keeboo · · Score: 1

      How's Obama any different than Bush?

      Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.

    11. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by rve · · Score: 0

      Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.

      That was only a stated 'intention' beforehand.

      After one round of foreign diplomacy, the Obama administration scratched their heads and went "huh, I don't get it, now we asked them nicely and those foreign governments still want to put their own interests before American interests. Oh well, it's back to thinly veiled threats then"

      I don't know what exactly goes on in the mind of a world power leader who somehow expected foreign leaders suddenly to stop doing their job (which is putting the interests of their own countries first) and start putting American interests first, with nothing to gain in return, purely on the basis of a more handsome face and more eloquently phrased thinly veiled threats.

      It's hardly a secret that, despite his popularity (compared to his predecessor at least) among the people, the Obama administration seems to be getting along poorly with the European governments, and now they seem to be picking fights with allies in Asia.

      I'm not saying that this is wrong. Obama's job description is to look out for American interests only. It's obvious that if you want to get something for nothing, you're going to have to use threats, so that's what he'll be doing.

    12. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by keeboo · · Score: 1
      oops.. my bad, here again:

      How's Obama any different than Bush?

      Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.

      I'm not sure if there is a boundary between "diplomacy" and "veiled threats". Sometimes it seems that "veiled threats" is actually one of the tools of diplomacy.

      While I do not condone threat in foreign relations, I'm skeptical it is not part of the repertoire of the so-called diplomacy.

    13. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if Bush was as bad with a teleprompter than Obama is without one, then I'd say that it's still a definite improvement.

    14. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it actually matter?

      I want a president who surrounds himself with smart people and listens to them. That's a smart leader, not necessarily one who is the best at everything.

    15. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Well, if Bush was as bad with a teleprompter than Obama is without one, then I'd say that it's still a definite improvement.

      I'm not sure. In a way, I'd much rather he be less charismatic, less smooth.

    16. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would not be so harsh about Obama,he has to face an entirely different situation. Bush also was not honest about his believes, most of the Iraq war just was done to get a handful of US corporations to cash in. Cheneys company was one of the huge winners of this deal, the international soldiers the loosers.

      Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore. So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation. The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.

      For that I personally think Obama has been doing very well, but my personal opinion simply is you cannot rule the US anymore, there is too much greed selfishism and too much bribery (on legal level via donations) going on. I personally doubt anyone could do better than Obama did, I think 99% of all people in his position would even do worse.

    17. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      I forgot that is how I judge the situation as an outsider.

    18. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I want a president who surrounds himself with smart people and listens to them. That's a smart leader, not necessarily one who is the best at everything.

      It's very common for someone to have an over-inflated view of their own abilities. Such people will only perceive others to be smart if those others agree with everything they say.

      This is how you wind up with idiots surrounded by yes-men in charge.

    19. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Carl.E.Pierre · · Score: 1

      This is how you wind up with idiots surrounded by yes-men in charge.

      So just about every leading body and government ever?

    20. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.

      He certainly disappointed on the wiretapping issue - caving even before being elected.
      But from what I'm seeing its more of a case of being pushed back from his ideals.

      For example - the whole healthcare thing - he tried to do it 100% out in the open, tried to let congress do it while he was hands-off even. But after 6 months of pretty much nothing he really had no choice but to start trying to go the backroom way. And don't confuse me for a supporter - I think nationalized healthcare is the wrong way to go - the current system is fucked because of partial socialization - we need to go the other way and eliminate the health 'insurance' industry completely - return to real insurance (catastrophic coverage only, no HMOs, etc). But the way its played out seems as plain as day to me.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    21. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And the next President writes her script on the palm of her hand.

    22. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was about truly awful leaders and genocide, we'd have invaded Ethiopia. If it was about nuclear proliferation and providing arms to terrorists, we'd have invaded Pakistan. If it was about improving the safety of Americans, we'd have ended the "war on drugs" by switching from jail-terms to treatment, and stripped the Taliban of their heroin income in Afghanistan. (This is still one of their primary income sources.)

      No, Bush's concerns were about "proving himself" by finishing his daddy's war in Iraq, and about oil. Iraq is one of the largest petroleum suppliers in the world. Putting it directly under US control helps counter OPEC power to manipulate oil prices, and leaving its oil output low helps protect a vital reserve of oil for US use. (This is a subtle reason _not_ to invest heavily in protecting or expanding their existing oil pipelines, to extend the life of a critical economic and industrial resource.) Remember, this President Bush was an oilman before, and he's an oilman again now.

    23. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Look at the posts in this thread and tell me who has an "us vs. them" mentality. Bush didn't do anything to convince Americans to dislike Europe (rumors of Freedom Fries are greatly exaggerated), and he didn't need to do anything to convince Europeans to dislike the US.

    24. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Obama is just as beholden to special interests as Bush was, his record setting fund raising didnät come out of nowhere after all. The problem is that he promised change and even the parts that were well within his control have failed.

      1)More transparency such as putting health care reform documentation online before it was voted on OR even allowing the debates to be televised like everything else - Fail

      2) Promising not to hire lobbyists for his cabinets lasted all of week.

      This is not to say that he hasn't done some things correctly, but for most people living in the US his likability (which is very high) is staring to take a back seat to an honest evaluation of his accomplishments (which have been few because of his unability to organize his own party behind him) and that's why his popularity dips ever lower here. There's already backlash against at the level of elected officials and it's starting to look like the next round of elections wont be a fun one for the Democrats even this soon after Bush.

    25. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is bad without teleprompter? Somehow this meme has really stuck with some people. Yet in the recent Q&A session Obama had at Republican House conference he totally handed them their collective @$$es. Without a teleprompter.

      It's funny really - what did the Republicans think? They say the guy's "all talk", yet they set up an event which is just that. Epic Fail.

    26. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't see why anyone should care. I certainly don't, because:

      1. I'm not an American (though of course US policies are still of concern to me, as they are to anyone in the world).

      2. Appearance is what matters for things such as diplomacy. Obama doesn't appear to have the village idiot image that Bush projected merely by stepping in front of the cameras. How he achieves this is up to him (and his staff).

      3. Ultimately, what matters most are the actual policies, which are orthogonal to all this.

    27. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by centuren · · Score: 1

      How's Obama any different than Bush?

      Bush was honest about what he believes.

      Perhaps, but I find that doubtful. The primary thing that struck me about Bush was how amazingly long he went without admitting anything went wrong, even when it was clear that it did. It wasn't that he'd defend a course of action against negative information and critics, but rather that he'd talk about things going well. If we take the major example of justification for Iraq, I can concede that Bush believed Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat to the US. However, when it was clear how enormously wrong the WMD line was, his speeches smoothly morphed into "spreading freedom and democracy" and "fighting Al-Queda" without addressing, either vocally or administratively, that huge error.

    28. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by centuren · · Score: 1

      Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem because the entire parliament is just whores on the payroll of lobbyists anymore. So to get your agendas even remotely through you have to do some rearrangements with the current political situation. The situation of Bush was much easier because he just reigned for the payroll of the lobbyists and did not care about anything else.

      I think this is an interesting time for the American Executive branch, as Mr. Obama follows a President who consolidated a lot of power in the office. Illustrated especially with the Health Care Reform process, I am starting to see this time in American politics as the age of Congress (Legislative branch). Mr. Obama is getting a hard time from many for not getting enough done after promising so much, but I don't see much of it as his responsibility. The job has a lot that falls under his responsibility, and the broad term of "leader" is definitely a major component.

      However, he is a President not a Prime Minister, and so has much looser ties to Congress than the latter does with Parliament. As much as the public expects him to lead Congress, even the best shepherd will have trouble if his flock is, say, suffering from physically or mentally degenerative diseases. If the same political party has a massive majority in both the upper and lower houses, and STILL can't send finished bills off to the President to be signed into law, I see that as a major failing of Congress above and beyond anyone else. Mr. Obama is an easy political target as a result, but for the time being I think it's hurting the US to single him out. Whether or not Mr. Obama could be doing better, Congress DEFINITELY should be doing better, and I think public opinion and pundits alike should start targeting them as primary offenders.

    29. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by centuren · · Score: 1

      Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.

      He certainly disappointed on the wiretapping issue - caving even before being elected.
      But from what I'm seeing its more of a case of being pushed back from his ideals.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't large portions of addressing the wiretapping issue take place in Congress, via mechanisms like Senate oversight committees, and so on? If the executive branch implemented a widespread and unconstitutional program that violates privacy rights of huge numbers of Americans, isn't this a matter of checks and balances? True, as the new President he could use the executive branch to work to undo what it is in the process of doing, but why does the expectation of change stop there?

    30. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It was in his roll as a congressman that he caved on wiretapping. He signed off on a bill that attempted to legalize what had been happening.
      He could, at the very least, have done nothing. But he actively supported the bill after earlier comments saying that the practice needed to be halted - not just given official blessing by congress.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    31. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by centuren · · Score: 1

      It was in his roll as a congressman that he caved on wiretapping. He signed off on a bill that attempted to legalize what had been happening.
      He could, at the very least, have done nothing. But he actively supported the bill after earlier comments saying that the practice needed to be halted - not just given official blessing by congress.

      The point isn't what role he's played, it's the responsibility others have (not in the role they played, but their present lack of action as a branch of the government) that are seemingly being ignored.

    32. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The point isn't what role he's played, it's the responsibility others have (not in the role they played, but their present lack of action as a branch of the government) that are seemingly being ignored.

      Just because the other kids are jumping off the bridge doesn't mean he should too.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    33. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by centuren · · Score: 1

      The point isn't what role he's played, it's the responsibility others have (not in the role they played, but their present lack of action as a branch of the government) that are seemingly being ignored.

      Just because the other kids are jumping off the bridge doesn't mean he should too.

      Everyone sure is missing the point.

    34. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Everyone sure is missing the point.

      No. I think you are missing the point. You want to argue that more people than just Obama have responsibility.
      The point here is that in a subthread about Obama's responsibility, it is no surprise that Obama's responsibility is the topic of discussion.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    35. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by centuren · · Score: 1

      Everyone sure is missing the point.

      No. I think you are missing the point. You want to argue that more people than just Obama have responsibility.
      The point here is that in a subthread about Obama's responsibility, it is no surprise that Obama's responsibility is the topic of discussion.

      It seems that a sub-thread about the Presidents' responsibilities (Bush and Obama) is an appropriate place to suggest that Congress has its share. It's not about Obama vs other people, it's about blaming the President as an easy target. You yourself pointed out Obama's role in the problems of today when he was a member of Congress. In those days, Bush was blamed for things like the prolonged war in Iraq, when obviously it couldn't have played out the way it did without the aid of Congress.

      The point isn't Obama at all, or Bush, or either political party. The point is that purely using whomever is President as a scape goat falls far short of addressing any problems the country is facing, when so much of it is facilitated or enabled by Congress. It's arguably redundant here to point out the President's role at all in such things, when it's already such a strong and obvious focus for American political pundits and public advocacy groups.

      In this sub-sub-thread, I asked about Congressional roles in whatever oversight or investigation needs to be done to address the unconstitutionality of warrant-less wiretapping, and your response was pointing out Obama's complicit actions when he was in Congress, which seems to support my supposition that Congress has direct responsibility in this matter. However, I don't care which politicians were involved, or if they are now President. The issue is that Congress didn't stop it then, and they aren't doing anything to stop it now.

      As you say, I'm arguing that more people than Obama (or more accurately, the person holding office as President) have responsibility. So far your responses to this have been 1) Obama did indeed share responsibility when he was in Congress, implying that Congressional responsibility exists here, and then 2) Obama shouldn't "jump off a bridge" if everyone else does, also implying that other people are participating in the same negative actions.

      I say you missed the point because I'm not denying Obama's role in any of this, I'm pointing out his role is only part of it, and primarily it's the part that is targeted for blame. As he has and is playing a role, he deserves his share of blame, but singling him out as a figure head for Congressional failings as as wrong with this President as it was with the last President. Congress should be blamed for its failings, the President for his failings. It seems like the American political/media system hasn't figured out how to effectively do the former.

    36. Re:Can someone please explain to me ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It seems that a sub-thread about the Presidents' responsibilities (Bush and Obama) is an appropriate place to suggest that Congress has its share.

      To you it does. Got your original point, didn't care. tl;dr

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. As a US Citizen all I can say is... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About time the EU showed some backbone and told the US where to stick it. The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long. Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.

    1. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by OnlineAlias · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI, the Euro is tanking against the dollar right now, as investor's fear of a crash of the Euro due to the PIGS. And that is against an already heavily devalued dollar. Now would not be a good time to deny European banks access to the American market. Your plan would pretty much ensure the demise of the Euro as European countries end up pulling out of the Eurozone so they don't have to bail out the PIGS. If they don't figure out some way to devalue the Euro even further for the countries that are in deep trouble (Greece), people are going to have to start cleaning the crap off the walls....

    2. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      That's called diplomacy :-)

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by evilviper · · Score: 0

      The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long.

      Umm... No. Not at all really.

      Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had

      The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007. The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession... Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightest. The risk of Greece defaulting on it's loans is forcing down the Euro right this minute, despite stronger EU countries making guarantees on Greece's behalf...

      Much like China, the EU looks like a great economy, if you don't look too deeply, and you're not forced to see what is going to happen when the first speed-bump comes along.

      the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.

      I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do... Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made, when nobody has economic interests on the line... For all the money, for all the pot-shots at the US, for all the bluster, nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide, until the US stepped in... This in not just my opinion, for the record, there's no shortage of Europeans who hang their head in shame when forced to recognize their leaders lack the backbone to backup their own stated morals.

      Sadly, we saw this repeated again in Darfur. The US was tied-up in two all-out wars, so the most flagrant example of genocide in decades in left unopposed. No Europe, no China, no Russia. Nobody. It took the US to make a big deal about it, politically, and pledge a large chunk of money towards the effort, before anything happened, and it was still a pathetic effort, which left many thousands to be raped and murdered long into the effort, such as it was. Contrast this with Kosovo.

      I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer... Frankly, we'd all better hope and pray that the US's "hay day" isn't over, by a long shot, because it's clear there's nobody out there willing to take over the tough and unrewarding roles the US has performed for several decades... When the pirates are taking over the oceans, making trade impossible, and China is doing really nasty stuff with it's clout, everyone will long for the days when the worst we had to deal with was "ham-fisted foreign policy" we all whined about... Not that it shouldn't be whined about, but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on /. so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...

       

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      Frankly, we'd all better hope and pray that the US's "hay day" isn't over

      Does "we" include Iraqis and Palestinians ?

    5. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes. Americans bombed Serbia to the ground and right after that Albania funds a rebellion in Macedonia - a dream of Great Albania nearly came true. Thanks a bunch, Merkins.

    6. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      That's media frenzy. There is no Plan B, countries leaving Eurozone, etc. There will be bailouts somehow (and there are already underhand mechanisms going on to replace what states used to be able to do - Ireland is buying bad bank assets with government bonds, and the European Central Bank will swap the banks cash for the bonds). Politicians have said as much and it is only fear and superstition that traders aren't just accepting that.

      On the other hand, the UK has been postponing big trouble (due to the impending general election), and it may be to their detriment that they manage their own currency if things finally tip over the edge. Quite a number of ratings put them right up there with PIGS (and in any case those countries are not all facing the same issues, in certain respects Ireland is out of that group already - the cutbacks, and there will be more, deal with the wobbling over deficit - with the banks dealt with by the aforementioned mechanism and other shenanigans, and Greece's difficulties are much worse than Portugal or Spain).

      The US in fact is also placed close to the PIGS by certain measures.

      This is why Euro, Pound and Dollar have all been going down (albeit by different relative amounts at different times). I'd still put my money on the Euro as it is essentially the new Deutschmark despite being weighed down by the peripheral countries. Even with a lack of growth, the main European countries are *stable*. The same cannot be said for the UK or US. Also despite different problems in different member states, Europe's eggs are not all in one basket due to the diversity of economies within the EU.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    7. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Of course a tanking currency isn't good for import but wouldn't a cheaper Euro actually help the Eurozone economy due to stronger export ability?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > nobody in the world stood up to put a stop to the genocide, until the US stepped in

      While that's true and embarrassing, it also has to be said that it's the US that has (via its proxies in the NATO, mainly its UK poodle) sabotaged all European attempts to build an EU force. The US doesn't want a strong Europe, unless under its control, so there is always only the NATO to step in. You reap what you sow.

    9. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA managed to *get* so strong in the first place through a strong reputation of diplomacy, cooperation, and fair play. It's just a question of going back to that winning strategy. :-)

    10. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by rve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007. The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession... Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightest

      The dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65

      I don't know what you base the idea on that any country could opt-out of it at any time. Such an operation would be purely theoretical, the actual process of leaving the EUR after having joined would take years, carry a staggering cost and would seriously harm the economic outlook of any country attempting it. It's unthinkable, joining the EUR is a one way path.

      I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do... Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made,

      It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue. I'd call it a difference in culture between the US and post WW2 Europe. In the US, there is still a strong belief in right vs wrong, good vs. evil. In a conflict, there must be one side that's right and another one that is wrong. Kosovo and Bosnia were solved very decisively by the US, by picking a side, obliterating the other side, and blaming the entire conflict on the obliterated party. It worked, the conflict is over. It no longer matters that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication, and that the good guys in Bosnia turned out to have been almost as nasty as the bad guys.

      I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer..
      (...) but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on /. so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...

      I say this as a half-yank, half-eurofag. In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media. Euros just tend to be more 'negative' in general, and many Americans experience any shimmer of doubt or negativity as anti-American. I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.

    11. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, since you are very clearly having no clue about europe at all;

      1. The European states have no tradition of acting like the world police. A lot of them were colonial powers in the past, and we all know how that ended. Once burned...

      2. Who'd do it? You talk about "Europe" like it's a single entity, but it's most definitely not. So, who'd do it?

          The Spaniards? Who haven't seen any serious fighting except among themselves since guns were loaded with powder, and ships were powered by sails? Not to mention that their economy is about to fail too, atm.
          The French? The country which gave us the word "chauvinism"? You want to send them on a humanitarian mission? Even if they could be bothered, they're already busy in africa.
          The Brits? Sorry, too busy being the US lapdog following the the americans like a shadow. For that matter they have their hands full of their own problems, social as well as economical.
          The Italians? Please god, tell me that's a joke.

      Or are you suggesting... the Germans? Probably the most capable but... I don't really think I need to explain the difficulties with this proposition.

      3. How about a joint-venture then? It has been done in small scale, but the integration is nowhere near what would be needed to do it on a larger scale, and without a very specific mission. Simple things like getting a working cooperation between different countries for transporting wonded etc, still takes months or even years to get going, etc, etc, and it only gets worse the more countries who get involved.

    12. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Almir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Bosnian, let me point out that neither Croats nor Muslims in Bosnia were nearly as bad as Serbs. Maybe if you took a bit of time from trying to fit everything into one tidy world view where your neat generalization applies to everything, you'd learn that Serbia went to war with Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia and finally Kosovo. This alone should make it blindingly obvious to anyone who the bad guy is

      Because, sometimes there really is a bad guy and someone needs to make him pay.

      My apologies if that ruins your neat little theory of Europe vs USA culture.

    13. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by rve · · Score: 0

      And Lincoln went to war with South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia etc when they seceded.

      But because you were personally involved, you don't need to see both sides of a conflict. In fact, you shouldn't, as that would be betrayal.

    14. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication

      [citation needed]

    15. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Almir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the other side of committing genocide? Please tell me, I'd love to hear you generalize that too.

      Again, you're trying to create a generalization that applies to both the American civil war and the war in ex-Yugoslavia. There is no common thread there. We were (five) different nationalities and cultures with different wishes for the futures of our countries. We split, and now we are different countries. I know even you can tell the difference in sides as you went for "almost as nasty" in your initial post. Though, you may want to learn, in a slightly more detailed way, the histories of our countries before playing expert on slashdot.

      Of course, none of this bears any similarity to the civil war in USA.

    16. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.

      Our economy is doing better than yours, EU-boy. Suck it down.

    17. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Does "we" include Iraqis and Palestinians ?

      Them most of all...

      While the US has supported Israel, it's also keeping them from completely bombing the shit out of everyone in the region at the slightest provocation.

      And Iraq? While also somewhat allied with them, at the same time, the US is really all that is keeping Saudi Arabia from taking over the rest of the middle-east. They're pretty quiet about it, but there's no question who the power in the region is.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65

      And? Yes, there was a very short love-affair with the Euro, causing it to get ridiculously inflated, as the US was quicker to show signs of the recession coming on...

      It's unthinkable

      Only while times are good... In times of real depression, all it takes is one country getting fed-up, maybe stationing a few divisions of soldiers on the border, and declaring they won't be playing any more. Even if you were flagrantly ignorant of the obvious before now, the problems with Greece have should have made it crystal clear how little central control the EU has, when it's not to the advantage of an individual member country. Again, if things got really bad, instead of offering to help, Germany & France could simply called-in control of their own currency.

      It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue.

      The intellectual dishonesty you've shown in your response is absolutely astonishing. The US did not arbitrarily pick a side. Europeans openly recognized, before the US did anything, that genocide was taking place, and that something needed to be done. The idea you could twist it into a "nuanced issue" just shows exactly how dishonest you're willing to be, to try and support your point.

      In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media.

      The US media hardly ever touches on the subject, so I don't know what you're talking about. /. OTOH, is a great example, where all the anti-Americanism is on display, front and center.

      I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.

      I might believe that, if you'd been honest about ANYTHING in the rest of your comment... And for the several Euro ex-pats with whom I've discussed the subject before.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    19. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      You are wrong; according to your logic...

      jolifanto bambla o falli bambla
      großiga m'pfa habla horem
      egiga goramen
      higo bloiko russula huju
      hollaka hollala
      anlogo bung
      blago bung blago bung
      bosso fataka
      ü üü ü
      schampa wulla wussa olobo

      but what really hapens in Palestine and Iraq in relation to the United States of America is (in relation to your logic again)

      hej tatta gorem
      eschige zunbada
      wulubu ssubudu uluwu ssubudu
      tumba ba-umf
      kusa gauma
      ba - umf

      I am sure you get the point. (Thanks to Hugo Ball and the Dada movement)

    20. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You've failed to point out any flaws in my logic, or my facts. Asserting that there MUST BE some, somewhere, lends no credibility to your assertions...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    21. Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      Just because you fail to understand my assertions, doesn't mean they don't exist. They exist and in fact they are much more coherent that your own.

  8. Not forgetting to ... by tobiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In case of ambivalence, create emergency

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:Not forgetting to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case of greed, create ambivalence?

    2. Re:Not forgetting to ... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      Well you know what they say....'We really hate to waste a good crisis'

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
  9. This isn't over by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    The same thing will come back again and again under a different name each time. And besides there are other ways. Somebody "accidentally" leaves a suitcase full of backup tapes of customer info in a taxi... No problem

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:This isn't over by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Doh. I was naively assuming that was just incompetence. Now you've triggered my innate cynicism.

  10. cryptic reasoning by tardis+owner · · Score: 1

    Of course the EU has no interest in the US gaining access to EU banking data. There is no way in Hell they would willingly give up this info. The US intelligence community probably is saying they are only looking for information for anti-terrorist data. The EU isn't refusing the providing individual pieces on information. They just don't want to submit to US supremacy. They don't even need to. However, information leads to power. Power leads to control. The EU is not looking to give the US that kind of control. In the "conspiracy theory" direction, the EU has several "families" that are collectively owed trillions in debt, owed by the people, collectively, of the US. Also, these families do not want any information (money trails), leading back to them, in any regards to their use of power and control in their day to day (behind the scenes) puppet mastering.

    1. Re:cryptic reasoning by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the EU loved sharing that data because the strong data protection laws in the EU make it hard for them to search that data, by sharing it to the US and having them share it back all that pesky privacy that the citizenry values so much could be ignored. Only by increasing the power of the elected parts of the EU government was this repealed. It was kicked because the people of the EU don't want that data shared, not because of some political independence talk.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  11. Foreign power in my bank account, no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is good, why should some foreign power be able to see my banking records?

  12. Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.

    The intelligence "sharing" is done precisely because each side could get in legal and/or political trouble for spying on its own citizens without good cause. On the other hand, if it's just foreign intelligence provided by a friendly state, well, that's OK, then. This is as much one in the eye for certain EU governments (whose appointed representatives previously forced this measure through at European level mere hours before the Lisbon Treaty kicked in and meant the elected MEPs would get a say, remember) as it is for the US.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a US citizen, the first thing that came to mind when I read this was "WHOO HOO!"

      About the only ones that are going "Oh no!" are the people in my government that feel that they should be able to get away with/do anything they damned well please, and that the rest of the world should just bend over, take it, and like it.

      Just to be perfectly clear on the matter, I am VERY much opposed to those tactics from my government.

      I am VERY pleased to see the power hungry hands and arms of my government get bitch slapped like this. VERY pleased. The concept of "Soveriegnty" when it is applied to "Foriegn nations" is apparently something my government has serious difficulties understanding.

    2. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by tobiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya, my "whoo hoo" was followed closely by patriot guilt, but I'm over it. Distrust of one's government has always been a key component of American patriotism.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    3. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.

      No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.

    4. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you sure you're not confusing this with other recent controversial agreements, such as the extradition of people like Gary McKinnon? That agreement has been controversial both for being asymmetric and for the low standard of evidence and poor guarantees of a fair trial.

      In this case, AIUI, the issue is data protection and privacy. The EU has much stricter rules on these things than the US, and normally the law prohibits exporting such data outside Europe without proper safeguards. The US in general does not provide those legal safeguards, and in this case, it's not even the legitimate users of the data who would be working with it outside the protections, it's a foreign government.

      There is simply no reason they should be entitled to claim that information in some unrestricted, open-ended fashion. With the lack of guarantees we have, they could just pass it back to European governments (who may or may not be legally allowed to demand access to that information en masse and without reasonable grounds themselves) or to US-based businesses to give a commercial advantage over their EU-based competitors.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, just to clarify my own post: yes, the SWIFT-related deal is inherently one-sided in terms of the US getting the information first, but that isn't the cause of the main complaints here in the UK, at least not those that have been widely reported in the media AFAICS. People aren't asking why the US isn't doing something reciprocal (what would that be, given the nature of SWIFT?), they are asking why this is allowed at all.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.

      No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.

      That is what the poster you responded to said. Since the agreement wasn't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned. The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time. They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by Savage650 · · Score: 1

      [..]. Distrust of one's government has always been a key component of American patriotism.

      Since when? Or do you make a distinction between "government" as an abstract entity ("they") and the actual person? ("Der Fuehrer", er, pardon, the "Commander-in-Chief").

    8. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by tobiah · · Score: 1
      A) July 4, 1775

      B) yes. sometimes. sigh not anymore

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    9. Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      I think you meant July 4th, 1776.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  13. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

    Wait a minute, you actually think Al-Qaeda is a country?
    Other than that you are right that there are still plenty of countries without these agreements, hence my previous post.

  14. Old Europe strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Putting their own petty concerns over the safety and security of American citizens.

    1. Re:Old Europe strikes again by ForMeToPoopOn · · Score: 1

      ABSOLUTELY

  15. Soon a new US law by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will soon be illegal for an American or any entity operating in the United States to use the SWIFT money transfer service.

    1. Re:Soon a new US law by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      It's not like the US wants to be part of the modern world (read: SWIFT) anyway... WTF is that $20 charge for transferring money?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Soon a new US law by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      While there is a charge for some bank transfers, most international e-banking transfers within the EU are charge-free. I have never had more than about a euro charge for a transfer outside the EU. If you get charged 20 dollars, talk to your bank, it seems to me they're the most likely culprit.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    3. Re:Soon a new US law by einar2 · · Score: 1

      It is a bit different. Due to the SEPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area) agreements, money transfers got cheaper inside the SEPA area, but they are not for free.
      Money transfers do cost money and they are suprisingly complicated for a bank. Worst case, a customer wants to transfer money to a bank with which the bank has no business relation. Then the bank has no accounts with the other bank which complicates things. Often such transfers are routed through half a dozen financial institutes to find a relation to the target bank. Nobody is doing this for free. Charging you 20 USD for such a service is a fair price.

      Disclaimer: I work for a bank.

    4. Re:Soon a new US law by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      That sounds needlessly complex, perhaps a result from evolving archaic methods. Perhaps there is a business opportunity a la bicycle couriers, to pick up physical money in one bank and deliver it to the destination bank. Attach a name and number, and voila, bank transfer established.

      That would work, of course, as long as banks do not overleverage their assets at all, i.e. if they actually serve as a place for storing valuables, and not as a place for making money. It may be a bit difficult to shift imaginary money around per courier.

      Or, you know, do something over the internet :).

      B.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    5. Re:Soon a new US law by einar2 · · Score: 1

      If you consider the difficulties involved in the transfer of 1 mio USD you might see why it is expensive.
      Clue: trust between business partners, cost distributed for the effort involved, every partner may go out of business at any moment

  16. The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by linuxhansl · · Score: 4, Insightful
    is to require reciprocity. That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data.

    It seems to me the US is quick to access other countries' data, but it far less willing to provide equal access to internal data as well.
    Hence this would either level the playing ground or put a stop to US demands.

    1. Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by keeboo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is to require reciprocity. That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data.

      Though slowly, it seems that other countries are getting fed up with certain US policies.
      Your comment reminded me of this incident few years ago.

    2. Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always said, subject US citizens to the same scrutiny as they do with us.

      That includes treating them as criminals (finger prints, travel itineraries, personal information, etc.) when they enter the EU and of course all data they want has to come back here too under the same conditions; so our secret agencies can pass their corporations' banking data to their EU competitors.

      That would be the best way to stop all that nonsense.

    3. Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      You also have to be aware that you have to be in a certain position to make such demands, the US is slowly but surely loosing that position. The european countries have not had such a position for a long time. And I must say it is more cozy not to have it than to have it.
      But the US has to get used to it, and that transition is mentally hard for a lot of people!

    4. Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that worked really well when the US required travellers' details.
      Or when the US enforced flights to have body-scanned travellers on-board.

    5. Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not a good way. What if the US agrees to it? Then we Eurpoeans still have our privacy violated as well as the privacy of the American public. Two wrongs don't make a right.

      It is not so much that we do not want to share data about (potential) criminal activities. The problem is that we do not want to share the bulk.

      It is like listening in on phone calls. Not OOjk if you listen to them all. OK if you have a court order to listen to specific individuals to build a case against them.

      So not OK to see all my data. OK to see all the data from Osama Bin Laden if a court has decided that it is needed.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait a minute, you actually think Al-Qaeda is a country?

    They must be. We are at war with them.

    Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  18. Huh? by gggrrl · · Score: 0, Troll

    Huh? This bank service had servers in the USA, and then, after 911 the transactions were under a secret investigation, and then, the bank service moved their servers to Belgium, and then, the USA obtained a secret agreement at the EU to continue tracking transactions, and then, got found out, and then, EU officials say, no. This is supposed to be a big "win" for democracy? Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      well you have the white wash cover up version i thought up while using the john, the servers were in the US and the data was just picked off from the copper lines, the europeans found out and moved the servers to europe, and the US asked for the data, the eu agreed, some politics and certain dates made it possible, then it was voted on and the US lost the info, possible payback for the cia-italy and the boeing-airbus, oh and lichenstein

    2. Re:Huh? by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?

      I'm sorry, I don't see why that excuses a foreign Government monitoring the financial transactions of people, companies and financial institutions in my country.

    3. Re:Huh? by einar2 · · Score: 1

      I am even more sorry, I do not see why that excuses my own government monitoring the financial transactions of people, companies and financial institutions in my country.

  19. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea...

    EU members have their own intelligence agencies (presumably with reasonable access - subject to privacy laws and various checks - to all that banking data) that deal with al-Qaeda, Iranian and North Korean operatives should they operate in or through EU.

  20. parliament by Tom · · Score: 4, Informative

    The european government consists of two elements - the commission and the parliament.

    What you need to know in short:

    The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic, and holds most of the power and does most of the actual activity. It also bends over backwards whenever the US wants something. It was the commission who gave away our flight data, our personal data, our Internet data and now our banking data.

    The parliament is elected, is the democratic body, and has very limited powers (though they have shifted around a bit with the last reform). It isn't exactly a mecca of reason, but it more often than not stops the worst excesses of the commission.

    So once again, I applaud the parliament. They're fighting uphill battles against the commission all the time.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:parliament by MemoryDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the european parliament since the Lissabon treaties now are in place is more powerful than ever, which is a good thing, since the parliament is very democratically elected and thanks to the sheer number of fractions things like fraction alignments like it happens in some local parliaments never can happen.
      For some european countries now the EU parliament is the first parliament they have in history which really acts like a parliament and not like some whore following whatever the fraction alignment tells them to do just to stay on the payroll of someone.

      I would say since the Lissabon treatys the EU is closer to democracy than some EU countries are, we have the comission which can be axed by the parliament and every, absolutely every law which needs to be passed down to the countries have to be ratified and can be axed by the parliament (before it had advisory status, they could axe but in the end there were enough other ways to push the gutter down)

      The problem also never was the comission, the media just blew it out of proportion, in fact some parts of the comission really do an excellent job for instance the ones which handle the anti trust issues. Important things such as the Swift treaty mostly were carried on by the council of ministers, which is represented by ministers of the single countries, exactly those persons who voted yes in those gremia and then went home to their own countries blaming the EU for what again was passed down over the EU into the single countries. Speaking of lying the members of the council of ministers were the biggest liers and basically scapegoated the EU and Comission for everything they simply did themselves! I personally stopped blaming the comission for everything because most of the evil stuff simply came over the council of ministers down the last years (mostly the interior ministers which seem to have a habit of becoming assholes as soon as they are appointed, or have been the biggest ones before even being appointed)

    2. Re:parliament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic,

      The commission is appointed by the governments of the member states, and has to be approved by the EU parliament. Just in the recent weeks, a new commission was formed, and one of the candidates appointed by the national governments needed to be replaced because it became apparent that there was too much resistance against her in the parliament (which doubted her competence). Not saying it is perfect, a big point for criticism for example is that the parliament (AFAIK, still) can only accept or reject the proposed commission as a whole.

      It was the commission who gave away [...] now our banking data.

      But they needed the unanimous agreement of the 27 national governments. The commission alone could not decide that. I completely agree though that it is good that the parliament (and thus democracy) is strengthened in the EU now.

    3. Re:parliament by lordholm · · Score: 1

      "Not saying it is perfect, a big point for criticism for example is that the parliament (AFAIK, still) can only accept or reject the proposed commission as a whole." Legally yes, but de-facto, the parliament has the last two times said: If these individuals do not go, we will not approve. So, that is not really a big issue.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    4. Re:parliament by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      No, the commission is not quite as bad as you make out, as the commissioners are nominated by the elected governments in the European Union. This shouldn't be a surprise as much of Europe does not want a directly democratic federal model, but rather want their national governments to remain one of the main influences in Europe.

      A lot of the Euroskeptics want to have their cake and eat it - i.e. undemocratic when national governments set the agenda, and impinging on national sovereignty if the European Parliament was to have greater powers.

      But basically, the best way is what we have (especially post-Lisbon) of power divided between the two.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  21. Let the Light Shine by b4upoo · · Score: 0, Troll

    There is no valid reason for anyone to be able to have private bank data. Encouraging lies, cheating and tax fraud are not what nations should be about.

    1. Re: Let the Light Shine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "There is no valid reason for anyone to be able to have private bank data."

      Yes, US agencies should be able to "accidentally" pass all banking data of EU companies to their US competitors. After all, we are all friends, aren't we? Nobody would dare to abuse that.

      The US government would "never" tolerate industrial espionage ... no siree ... never ... starting tomorrow ... or maybe next year ... well definitely 2012 ... under certain conditions ... not.

    2. Re: Let the Light Shine by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      So you'd have no problem posting all your transaction records here then?

      --
      404: sig not found.
  22. It's not just the PIGS by rahvin112 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are the worst but not the least. Most of the countries in Europe have spending and Debt levels that (as a percentage of GDP) are double the US level everyone is worried about. What the PIGS are is a test, because if the PIGS collapse the entire Eurozone is going to go down. Greece is the first action and how the EU reacts will dictate how the financial community values things going forward. If Greece isn't fixed your probably going to see a BIG drop in the Euro as everyone runs away in fear of a Eurozone collapse. In fact that fear may cause the collapse as a self fulling myth as the currency devalues. Things are stable right now, but if the public backlash in Greece against the public spending cuts that are being implemented goes badly you better move all your money out of Euro's.

    If you don't think this is a big deal you are foolish (not responding to the OP, clarifying what you said). The account deficits and debt levels in the EU make the US look like we are fiscally frugal. All that spending is going to catch up some day, and the scary thing is the budgets in the EU don't have flexibility. 90% of EU spending is entitlements. Those are brutally hard to cut with massive public protests but at some point the rest of the world is going to stop loaning money for this spending and if it happens abruptly it could cause an economic collapse and run on the banks. The Euro is a fiat currency like the rest in the world, that basis of it's existence is trust that it's worth something. Economic collapse in the PIGS could trigger a massive run of devaluation on the Euro which would wipe out trillions in value overnight and destroy the economies of many of the EU nations. Ironically if such a collapse happens Germany and England are likely the only ones to survive it.

    1. Re:It's not just the PIGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, It's the UK not ENGLAND...

      We may survive the crash of the Euro not because of the strength of our economy (it is in deep do-do thanks to our PM) but simply because we are not in the Eurozone.
      Like a few other countries (eg Sweden) we have yet to be bullied into signing up for the Euro.
      Thankfully.
      If the value of the Euro tanks enough, I may be able to afford to buy that cottage in france and retire. I know it is small mercies but for me and my French wife, it is the only future we see for us.

    2. Re:It's not just the PIGS by rve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are the worst but not the least. Most of the countries in Europe have spending and Debt levels that (as a percentage of GDP) are double the US level everyone is worried about. ...

      Uhm, the US federal deficit stands at 10.64%, only slightly lower than the 12.5% of Greece, the worst performer in the Euro zone at this time. Portugal seems to have a deficit of 9.3%, Spain 11%. The I in PIGS is Ireland with 11%, not Italy. Mind you, these are the worst performers in the Euro zone, and relatively small economies, the average figures of of the entire Euro zone are looking a lot better than the US right now, and definitely better than the UK. The market doesn't only look at cold, hard figures though.

      About the Euro tanking vs the dollar, I remember almost a decade ago, the Euro was worth about $0.70, now it stands at twice that amount. Both those extreme values are unrealistic and harmful, it would be better to have a stable exchange rate close to 1:1

    3. Re:It's not just the PIGS by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Considering how much value the GBP lost already it'd take a gigantic drop.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:It's not just the PIGS by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Uhm, the US federal deficit

      The guy you were responding to used the word "debt", not "deficit". There is a difference.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:It's not just the PIGS by rve · · Score: 1

      Uhm, the US federal deficit

      The guy you were responding to used the word "debt", not "deficit". There is a difference.

      The story is the same when you look at national debt. The OP claimed the EU was at twice the levels of the US, but google disagrees with this claim.

      The national debt of the US approaches 100% of GDP, roughly the same as the UK.

      Greece meanwhile is struggling with a debt of 120% of the GDP. According to the wsj article linked above, Spain has a national debt below 70% of GDP. Portugal was above 75% last year, I didn't see figures for this moment. None of these amounts are anything close to twice the level of the USA, as the OP claimed. Only Japan and Zimbabwe seem to reach that level.

  23. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by tobiah · · Score: 1

    ha!

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  24. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Funny

    Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.

    So where would one apply for a visa to these countries? I can think of a few teenagers who'd love to go, and get off my lawn in the process. Win-win!

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  25. Warning - mentally ill people in US Gov. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in case you think I'm a troll - this is official!
    No wonder they come up with ideas like "let's make everyone give their banking data to US!"

    http://www.justice.gov/oarm/jobs/attorneyvotingoarm2010.htm

    The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division is seeking up
    to 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in the
    Voting Section in Washington, D.C.
    [...]
    The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with
    targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are
    [...]
    mental retardation, mental illness
    [...]

  26. Don't get your hopes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz MEP, said: "We want a new and better deal with proper safeguards for people's privacy."

    So there will be a new deal. It will just be less crappy than the old one. (How much less, that we will see.)

  27. Allow me to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Victory is ours!

  28. funniest AC I've seen in a while by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    That's a subtle hint to Mod Parent Up!

    Or don't. Whatever. Still funny.

  29. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by Sobrique · · Score: 1

    Why just teenagers? >:-)

  30. Will SWIFT stay in Europe? by houghi · · Score: 1

    One of the possibilaties is that SWIFT moves to Switserland where the EU has nothing to say. The banks do not really care, so it would be an easy solution for them. That would mean that new laws would be made (perhaps in each country individually) to avaoid the transfer of the information to Switserland (and then to the US).

    This will be a lot harder to avoid and could take several years if it would happen at all.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Will SWIFT stay in Europe? by einar2 · · Score: 1

      Switzerland is not sharing bank information with other countries; expect for defined cases of legal help. However, the crime which is the base for such a legal help request must be respected in Switzerland as well.

      Disclaimer, I am Swiss and I work for a Swiss bank

    2. Re:Will SWIFT stay in Europe? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Good to know. This was what was told as a possible outcome on the radio in Belgium.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  31. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.

    Where can I apply for a tourist visa?

  32. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.

    I remember when they were the same country.
    And a wonderful place it was, too!

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  33. Don't just vote, do something! by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Having spent a few years as a lobbyist in the European Parliament during the EU software patents directive, I can tell you that it's very easy to affect the MEPs.

        I learned that they're mostly lost, and the centre-left guy will vote your way just as quickly as the centre-right guy will, so which one you voted for doesn't make a huge difference, but talking to them does. (FWIW, the best party in there is clearly the Greens.) Tell them your concerns and show them your evidence. Showing evidence is essential so they can justify their vote.

  34. Yeah just for checking terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a business trip to US last year. At the customs i gave the security guy my passport. He was checking it for 10 secs, then he asked me "So you're working for a Swiss company?".
    I was stunned. I am actually working for a company in Italy and using a Swiss company as payroll company. Almost no one knows this. In all forms, I fill in my Italian company. I guess they tracked my swift transactions from my payroll company...

    Anyway, why isn't Europe allowed to track all American financial transactions?

  35. Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm moving to teenage sex NOW!

  36. And even... by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

    Assume any given case ambivalent?

    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  37. Ok, it's official ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    The EU grew something resembling a spine. Fine. Well done. You've got to start somewhere.

    Now the remaining question is: how do we make sure that EU banking data is adequately mined for leads and clues and that the US is warned the instant something is detected? Because it just so happens that the US is the party that's most at risk, and the EU is the party with porous borders to Islamic nations around the Mediterranean, and an indigenous Muslim population numbering several million which demonstrably contains radical elements. So it's fine if the EU wants to do the data-mining for itself, but it has to be done.

    The EU will now probably find that it needs a "federal" investigation agency because letting 23-odd governments in on what queries are run is a recipe for leakage. So it needs to be one agency that's capable of keeping a secret. In case they already had one, now is the time to give it some manpower and computers and let it cooperate with whoever is doing the profiling in the US, because sharing data on *suspect* individuals and *suspect* transactions is well within the scope of conventional police cooperation.

    As an interim measure we can probably agree on a few queries with at least one "bogus" query which, if leaked, will cause visible changes in shady people's banking. If the new hopefully-soon-to-be-operational "EU FBI" passes that test they may actually be a help.

  38. Incorrect - One direction only!!! by Frans+Faase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This deal was only about the US government being allowed to monitor all money transfers made by SWIFT and had noting to do with any European organisation being allowed to see money transfers inside the US. Please note that the US government was already monitorying all money transfers made by SWIFT secretly before the previous agreement (or the one before that). But as I understood it, there was some (gentlemen's) agreement that the US government would share their finding of terrorist activities after having analyzed the data.

    1. Re:Incorrect - One direction only!!! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You seem to be missing the point. It is in the interests of certain EU governments to allow this sort of deal, because it means they can spy on their own people indirectly (via intelligence shared by the US) without having to violate any local laws and with plausible deniability as far as any political fallout goes if they get caught.

      Why else do you think the appointed representatives of those governments tried to push through this measure while the still had the power to do so? It sure as hell wasn't for the good of the people they allegedly represent.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  39. This changes nothing - they'll still get your data by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    The German Chancellor has said that it's OK for her tax-collectors to buy & use bank data that was stolen...

    http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w6/data-german-laws.html

    Since most Western Govs are broke, they're going after any cash they can, whatever it takes.

    So don't worry about the intelligence guys being deprived; they'll just call their buddies in IRS, (who still have access to US accounts in the EU, I believe). Chinese walls, I hear you say? Know how to recognise one? It's got a grapevine growing over the top...

    Failing that, they'll steal the info, (directly or indirectly).

  40. The comission's problem were the heads of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comission's problem were the heads of it. It's shared out on terms but that means that when Tony Blair was in, he pushed the HRA he wanted the UK to have through as an EU directive. Therefore if it works lovely, he reaps credit. If, as was the case, it is hated, it's "those damn Eurocrats". win-win.

    When Ireland had the seat there was a massive push for software patents in the EU because Ireland don't tax patent revenue and so most EU companies of large size incorporate there and siphon off the license reveneues there to avoid taxes. This means they spend money influencing the politicians in Ireland. this means that politicians in Ireland want what those who they see want.

    EU software patents.

    Spain? IP rights for musicians. Guess why (or is Berliscone Italian?).

    The parliament has done wonders to remove some of the dumbest self-interested heads of the comission. But the attempt to pass the treaty to give power to the parliament before the Lisbon treaty included more power and independence to the commission too. That was a poison pill. And it worked.

  41. Come on! The joke! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The big joke here is that we Americans actually had the double think of publicly asking for permission to spy on everyone. Europeans, on the other hand, have known for centuries that spying is something that you do in secret and don't ask. Thus, while we Americans are like, "uh, we can't spy on Europeans because we are not allowed", the reality is, the British, French and Swiss intelligence services probably know from data mining what I'm going to eat for lunch before I will.

    --
    This is my sig.
  42. Not going to stop the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first reaction when I read this was: Yes! Finally!. And sure, it is a good move from EU MPs, but I dont think this will halt US agencies from getting their info as they want.
    They'll just break the law, and why wouldn't they? EU certainly isn't going to "punish" the US for breaking that law. EU, sadly, won't dare to do that. Besides, privacy in the EU itself is a bit shameful; all my phonecalls are stored into some EU data storage center, for what reason again????

  43. HA HA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up yours CIA/NSA/FBI!!! Some people in this world understand what FREEDOM means!!!

  44. Imagine the scene in the US Congress... by EWAdams · · Score: 1

    ... if Sarkozy insisted on the right to snoop into every American's bank transactions.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
  45. Monaco by alexo · · Score: 1

    http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Monaco/Living-There
    Note the residency requirements - deposit about $100,000 in a local bank.

    1st, it's 1e5 Euro, not $
    2nd, there's a profits tax at a rate rate of 33.33% (I have no idea how it is applied to individuals)

    1. Re:Monaco by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      1. Euro ~= Dollar so about $100,000 is about 100,000€. If you have that much cash, the currency rate won't bother you much.

      2. 33% profits tax is on corporations only. Individuals have 0% income tax.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Monaco by alexo · · Score: 1

      1. Euro ~= Dollar so about $100,000 is about 100,000. If you have that much cash, the currency rate won't bother you much.

      Currently, $100K ~= 136K. Around here, it's about the difference between a condo and a condo + 2 cars.
      It's not only cash but also the property that you can sell if and when you decide to immigrate.