Slashdot Mirror


MEPs Vote To Suspend Data Sharing With US

New submitter mrspoonsi writes with this news, excerpted from the BBC: "The European Parliament has voted to suspend the sharing of financial data with the U.S., following allegations that citizens' data was spied on....The European Parliament voted to suspend its Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) agreement with the US, in response to the alleged tapping of EU citizens' bank data held by the Belgian company SWIFT. The agreement granted the U.S. authorities access to bank data for terror-related investigations but leaked documents made public by whistleblower Edward Snowden allege that the global bank transfer network was the target of wider U.S. surveillance."

18 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. So, let the USA ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... cut off the reciprocal data sharing agreements with EU authorities. The ones where their intelligence agencies can hoover up all financial data from any US organization associated with any EU citizen.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:So, let the USA ... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... cut off the reciprocal data sharing agreements with EU authorities. The ones where their intelligence agencies can hoover up all financial data from any US organization associated with any EU citizen.

      I think that's the issue (and why this sharing has been a bit controversial over here), is that those reciprocal agreements don't exist. The US have been given a view into EU data, and the same sharing doesn't come in the other direction. (whether it was sought... I don't know, but one-sided arrangements are troublesome in and of themselves)

  2. Re:Oh no! by gsslay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously? The US is in the middle of seriously pissing off all its allies, and your response is simply "We don't care! We'll do what we want and you can't stop us!"

    And people use to wonder why the Middle Eastern countries hated America. This is Europe getting some of the same treatment.

  3. Re:Good luck by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are talking about a specific program where the EU hands over financial data on suspected terrorists to the US. They will no longer be handing that data over willfully.

  4. Re:The NSA did what they were chartered to do ... by some+old+guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, we're surprised that shills keep posting "we already knew this" and thinking they're clever.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  5. Re:Good luck by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do they need to even bother to stop it? If the US are doing things that we don't want them to do anyway, why go to ANY effort to help them do them legally? This is about removing our assistance that we give them to do it, not stopping them being able to do it.

    Let them take the administrative burden (and I highly doubt they are monitoring every flight and every person on every flight, or else the agreement wouldn't have existed in the first place anyway), let them take the fall when the data is released by accident, and let it look to EU citizens like you're not caving in to the US (which is what we all accused them of when this agreement first appeared).

    Nobody expects it to STOP the US stealing the data, but why should we help them do so at enormous expense to us? It's like piracy - the data is going to be stolen anyway, so why bother putting in a system of controls, contracts and everything else to our cost?

    But, to be honest, this is nothing to do with data leaks or agreements. If you're not already reading this as the first step to broken EU/US relations, then you haven't been paying attention. That this happened is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what's actually happened. No more easy rides for the US when they want something from us. (As it should be, because they never play ball when we ask for something).

    Even Anglo-US relations are tenuous nowadays. You've just pissed off the French and the Germans. That's pretty much the three biggest economies/countries in the EU. There's not much of a step left until the whole of the EU has problems with the way you do things.

    And then you can say bye-bye to us lending a hand for things like extraditions and terrorist bug-hunts. The EU followed the US into a pointless, long and very, very expensive "war" that never was (you can say what you want - it was NOT a war, legally or ethically - it's was a criminal hunt with guns in foreign countries), in the middle of massive economic troubles, and what did we see from it? Much stricter airport controls for ourselves, giving the US all our data (and getting nothing back), and lots and lots of expensive military action.

    And what do we get back for our assistance? The US spied on us and then couldn't even be bothered to keep the information properly secret (Note: A whistleblower running around the world telling people all these things is TEN TIMES more damning than the fact that you spied them in the first place - it's just amateur). That's not how you treat an ally.

    The biggest thing here is that the EU no longer wants to play ball with the US. If more things emerge, that distrust will deepen. You can play the "most important country in the world" card all you like, the fact is that the EU has more money in trade, and a much greater influence over other countries. It's going to hurt if the US continue to piss off the EU, and there aren't that many people in the EU who would care.

    It's a question of how long before this affects US trade and before we're the ones imposing sanctions and forcing agreements on the US. Because, seriously guys, you might be big, but without the co-operation of your allies, you're in serious trouble.

  6. Re:Good luck by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Informative

    And more specifically, they're talking about a program that undermines SWIFT. As a reminder, in the wake of 9/11 the Bush administration concluded that it could find terrorists through financial transaction tracking. The problem - global wire transfers and other financial messaging is controlled by a Belgian company. The CIA apparently had to be almost restrained from just immediately hacking them outright. Instead the US Treasury got involved and SWIFT were forced to hand over data by virtue of them having a US based datacenter (as a backup for their EU datacenter).

    SWIFT have said, several times and on the record, that they are not happy about being abused for political purposes and immediately began constructing a second backup datacenter also in the EU. The USA, seeing that their leverage over SWIFT was starting to disappear, decided to apply heavy pressure the EU in order to avoid losing access to this data source even after the US datacenter was decommissioned. The result was the EU data sharing agreement.

    The EU parliament was never particularly happy about this arrangement and insisted on there being auditing, etc, which turned out to be a worthless rubber-stamping exercise in which the EU appointed inspectors tried to visit the US Treasury and get reliable documentation on what the data was being used for, but were told to go fuck themselves and that the information they needed was classified. So basically the EU folded under pressure and was then abused, to nobodies surprise at all.

    Now that the TFTP data sharing agreement is suspended, and SWIFT no longer need their US datacenter, the only way back in is hacking. And I'm sure the people at SWIFT know that, and will do their best to stop it.

    Anyway, this is a very good thing. Next up - airline passenger data!

  7. Business as usual by qbast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From article "The vote is non-binding but illustrates MEPs' growing unease [...]" . So parliament showed right amount of outrage, won some brownie points among electorate and managed to do it without pissing off USA. Good job.

    1. Re:Business as usual by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's non-binding because the EU Parliament is not a real Parliament. It's very weak and has limited influence, the real power at the EU level is in the European Commission which is sort of like an executive branch that is directed by national governments. The EU Commission may still decide to ignore the Parliament on this one, but I guess that wouldn't do a great deal for their legitimacy, which is at any rate already heavily weakened after years of sustained attacks on their decision making ...

  8. Re:Oh no! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well SWIFT is based in Belgium. Now their failover datacenter is not in America anymore the US theoretically doesn't have much political leverage left, and will have to rely on hacking. How good their IT security is anyones guess, but they've been around a while and more importantly will be on the alert. A lot of this hacking was invisible for so long because nobody was looking for it. You'll notice that once Snowden started leaking the GCHQ operation against Belgacom was busted, Merkel's phone being tapped got busted by German intelligence, etc. Belgian counter-intelligence will probably be a part of defending SWIFT. They know 5 Eyes are coming for them, and when you know an attack is coming it's much easier to fight it off.

  9. Re:The NSA did what they were chartered to do ... by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There's no way our government would do that."
    "There's no way we wouldnt already know if they were doing that."
    And from the last several years,
    "Obama is going to fix all the abuses of the warmongering Republicans. So whatever evils were there they will be going away."

    In the end we have purchased what has befallen us, but not through informed consent. It's simply been done through willful ignorance and denial. It takes minimal awareness to recognize how clueless most Americans are, wholly consumed with the mind-rot like Jersey Shore or Facebook.

    So yes, most are/were surprised.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  10. Re:The NSA did what they were chartered to do ... by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In theory we did. The US/UK NATO crypto offers for friendly embassy use was junk from the 1950-90's. It kept the Soviets out but let the NSA and GCHQ in. The UK and US press often hinted at plain text from embassy intercepts over many years. How far back do you want to go:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection 1960?
    ..."practices the United States uses in gathering intelligence information ... deliberately violating the airspace of other nations ... intercepting and deciphering the secret communications of its own allies ..."
    Thanks to Snowden we have the history needed for the dreamy sock puppets. I saw one offer that the US does not really 'use' the info for finance or domestic political needs.
    A huge change from its not possible, would never work, would be found out, the data sets are too large, the US brands would never help, the political and legal protections ...:)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Re:Good luck by mythix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a EU citizen, I can only agree. We're increasingly seeing the US (government) as the actual terrorists, which is the only truth as far as i'm concered. I'm happy these economic and data sharing relations are crumbling down. Maybe it will knock some sense into the US government.

    It's a pity for the social and human aspect though, I've been twice and love the country and people.

  12. Re:The laws! They do nothing! by no_go · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The amount of information obtained in the "french affair" isn't attainable via "tapping cables".
    It entails access to switching equipment, call detail records, etc.

    This access is via either of two ways:
    - Backdoors
    - Agents in place that have access to those systems.
    It also entails some very fat "pipes" connecting to those systems.

    These aren't new issues regarding security (and I don't mean "cyber security").

    Maybe the powers that be need to start mandating more security to that part of the infra-structure.

    That, and :
    - Auditing of software and hardware (and not just rubber-stamping)
    - Increased security for physical assets (data-centers, overland cables, etc...)
    - And active enforcment of anti-espionage laws
    will mitigate the problem.

    What won't solve it, and will certeanly lead to more abuse and friction between states, is just shrugging
    it of or brushing it under the carpet.

  13. Re:The NSA did what they were chartered to do ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course you are going to spy on your allies. They can be much more dangerous than your enemies ever could.

    Yes, take America for example.

    America is currently as much of a threat to the rights and freedoms of everyone else in the world as the people they purport to be watching for.

    Why would anybody continue to trust the US when they're acting like a bunch of self entitled assholes who think their rights trump ours?

  14. Re:Cuts both ways by qbast · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't seem to get it. TFTP is one direction only - there is no reciprocal program which gives EU authorities access to transactions within USA (at least nobody heard about one). So USA gets great amount of data particularly useful for industrial espionage (I am sure Boeing would just love to know how much money Airbus is getting, from where, how much it is paying subcontractors,etc.) and Europe gets nothing.

  15. Re:Next up. by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Funny

    How long before we hear calls to declare the whole EU as terrorist sympathisers? As more of this comes out, I hope others join the EU and we start looking at a embargo on sharing information with the US until it learns.

    I think Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News are already doing that.

  16. Not everything has to be about violence by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are they going to do? We have far more military might than the EU combined

    As surprising as it apparently is to a certain kind of American, not everything in international relations has to be resolved with violence.

    The US is committing hostile acts against EU member states, and measures like withdrawing cooperation in these programmes are a reasonable and proportionate response. Trade sanctions would be a more serious step up: no-one would win in the short term if that happened, but the US would probably lose a lot more. There would be direct costs, of course, but also probably irreparable damage to the United States' wider international credibility and reduced cooperation from other nations who were already less predisposed to support the US on matters of mutual interest.

    From the outside, it seems very strange that so many people in the US are so proud of their vast military-industrial complex and security services. Here in the UK, the most damaging coverage of the US recently had nothing to do with spying or wars, not that those are winning many friends here. The really sad stuff was shots of pathetic posturing from the political leadership of both the main US parties, juxtaposed with footage of federal workers in DC holding banners saying "Please do your jobs so we can get on with ours", and stories of couples whose wedding days were spoiled, and descriptions of children with very serious health problems who weren't getting experimental drugs that were their only hope because the programmes to trial them were suspended. The idea that such a dysfunctional government, run by politicians so completely out of touch with the basic needs of their own people, should be trusted with anything of significance, security-related or otherwise, just seems bizarre at this point.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.