Slashdot Mirror


EU Privacy Watchdogs Seek Assurances on US Data Transfer Pact (reuters.com)

European Union data privacy watchdogs will seek assurances from U.S. authorities that a move by U.S. President Donald Trump to crack down on illegal immigration will not undermine a transatlantic pact protecting the privacy of Europeans' data. From a report: European concerns have been raised by an executive order signed by Trump on Jan. 25 aiming to toughen enforcement of U.S. immigration law. The order directs U.S. agencies to "exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information." The exemption of foreigners from the U.S. law governing how federal agencies collect and use information about people has stoked worries across the Atlantic about the new administration's approach to privacy and its impact on cross-border data flows.

36 comments

  1. Isn't that legislative? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    If the law says these people are included, the President does not have the legal authority to exclude them. As the Executive, his job is to execute the law. Executive orders to exclude execution of the law in specific cases is legislating from the Executive, which is a breach of Presidential power.

    On the other hand, if the law currently specifies US Citizens and Permanent Residents and does not specifically exclude others, the Executive is within his discretion to incorporate all lawful visitors to the US in the protections put forth. That is up for debate; however, in the absence of circumstances activating any law requiring the specific action, the Executive can order those protections extended by reasoning that nothing has provided the Executive branch the power or responsibility to carry out those specific actions against which the law protects. The Judiciary has the final say, and typically gives standing to those who are targets of action or loss by lack of action.

    1. Re:Isn't that legislative? by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They need assurances because the executive branch has a history of holding "unconventional interpretations" of our own laws, then avoiding judicial oversight by slapping gag orders on all potential defendants so no one has standing in court. The also invented a parallel court system for these cases, where no judge ever says no to anything.

      Then they're shocked when one or two operatives grow a conscience and find a way to shine a light on the situation - so they pursue them to the ends of the earth and threaten them with the death penalty.

    2. Re: Isn't that legislative? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Every fucking day with this shit. Don't you have anything better to do? For real, how do fit it all in? Between cross-burning, beating your wife, and fucking your cousin, you still have time to shitpost so fast it's in every story? Your time management skills must be legendary. How will you make time for all that monkey job T is setting you up for?

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    3. Re: Isn't that legislative? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Don't you have anything better to do?

      Ding ding. That's precisely it.

      No. He doesn't.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Isn't that legislative? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      If the law says these people are included, the President does not have the legal authority to exclude them.

      You mean, like your 4th Amendment?

      George W. said the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. Barrack H. expanded those violations to an enormous level. And your newest Dear Leader apparently wants to drop any remaining lip service to rule of law.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re: Isn't that legislative? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Every fucking day with this shit. Don't you have anything better to do?

      Yet he succeeded in trolling you, so you and Maritz both responded with Score:2 posts to a no-cost AC.

      (I recognize the irony in adding to a troll-initiated thread, but by pointing this out once in a while you might become aware of the problem.)

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re: Isn't that legislative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody was inviting you here. Go back to butt-fucking your goats and mules, and finish evolving, sand n1gger.

    7. Re:Isn't that legislative? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US legal system is working. Congress gave a lot of power to search and question anyone with or without paperwork entering the USA.
      Most readers know the original of the NSA and CIA and who they report to and what data they like to collect in the EU.

      The problem for the EU is they did a lot of passport and privacy deals with the USA over the years.
      That was when nations in the EU still had some control over who got EU nation passports.
      With the illegal immigration into the EU area, the offer of citizenship to anyone with no papers and some "story", EU are passports are now not useful to the USA as documents.
      Dual citizens, no standards results in the US having to examine every EU passport as if it is work of fiction. Who is the person really, what are their origins and real intentions once in the USA. Bureaucrats in EU area nations might be happy to issue such passports, the US can still ask for more information.
      So the US attempts to ask the EU a bit more about each person wanting to enter the USA from EU nations.
      What can EU nations say? That same person got a free EU area passport a few years ago with a name and other details the person submitted on the day of application?
      The EU nations have no way of knowing who the person is but the US has to trust the fictional EU nations travel documents due to privacy laws?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re: Isn't that legislative? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I cracked. I'm not proud of it.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    9. Re: Isn't that legislative? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, it's probably some little underage shitlord sitting in their parent's basement in an upscale suburban/urban neighborhood and you have managed to place blame on precisely the group he wished you to with his trolling..

    10. Re:Isn't that legislative? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      EU citizenship is not offered to anyone with no papers. Please stop lying. Your entire argument is based on nonsense.

    11. Re:Isn't that legislative? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Re citizenship in different parts of the EU is not that difficult to understand...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      has a nice list of what asylum laws offer, years of residence, what is on offer for refugees and stateless persons or the need to take some integration course.
      That an interesting person can turn up in some EU nation, get some new EU nations travel document years later and attempt to enter the USA on that new passport is not unexpected.
      To counter such nation shopping by interesting people, the US has to be sure of who is trying to enter from any EU nation.
      The origins of the Safe Harbour directives back in the 1980-90's should not now work as a cover for people who are of interest to the US gov.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re: Isn't that legislative? by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Even worse, Slashdot's comment system effectively removed the troll from the thread, but the result is that the troll responses now look like they are responses to my post. It actually took me a bit to figure out why it seemed like someone was so angry with me.

  2. Assurances from U.S. officials by sasparillascott · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because prior assurrances from U.S. officials, whether to foreign governments (Germany and spying on their Chancellor) or their own citizens, have turned out to be so trustworthy. Give me a break. E.U. officials should assume when it comes to privacy related commitments like this, they cannot trust anything the U.S. government says.

    1. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think you understand. Europe has always been a great ally, our president is going there to have dinner with their Queen.

      Then again I assume you're trolling because Chancellors are a Star Wars thing.

    2. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To update the Gipper, "Don't trust, and independent third-party verify."

    3. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by sit1963nz · · Score: 2

      The Brits KNOW that Brexit is NOT going to go well with the EU, its NOT going to be "keep calm and carry on" , so the Theresa May government is desperate to ensure trade with the USA does not suffer under Trump. So what she has done is appeal to Trumps petty vanity, and whore out the royal family, I wonder even if some minor royal will be sacrificed so Trump can say he "Bagged a Royal".

    4. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by munch117 · · Score: 0

      I totally trust POTUS 45 on this: When he says fuck everyone else, me first, umm I mean America first, I really believe he means it.

    5. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by GrooveNeedle · · Score: 2

      I don't think you understand. Europe has always been a great ally, our president is going there to have dinner with their Queen.

      Then again I assume you're trolling because Chancellors are a Star Wars thing.

      You are the real troll, but I'll bite...

      Europe is not a country, it is a continent.
      Europe does not have a Queen, but England does.
      Chancellors are not just a "Star Wars thing", because Angela Merkel is currently the Chancellor of Germany.

    6. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Well but think of all the money. We need to go for the money not for human rights. That is why the EU signed that treaty again, after EU courts eliminated the previous agreement and they will again.

    7. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Germany used to be a federal republic. Now it's a state in the EU, and has surprisingly limited sovereignty. So, Europe is not a country, but the EU has seized sovereignty over the states. If you don't believe me, note that Ireland doesn't have enough remaining sovereignty to set tax rates.

    8. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You eloquently show the ignorance of the general USA populace.
      Europe doesn't have a queen, it has and un-elected president.
      Chancellor Angela Merkel is the prime minister of Germany.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    9. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, we've got more royals than we know what to do with. We'd give him Princess Eugenie for a good trade deal!

    10. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does drivel like this get upmodded? Not a single claim in it is true.

    11. Re:Assurances from U.S. officials by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If you don't believe me, note that Ireland doesn't have enough remaining sovereignty to set tax rates.

      This is so thoroughly and debunked and so thoroughly untrue that it's simply an outright lie.

      Ireland is sovereign and can set whatever taxes they want. They can't however keep getting all the cool stuff from the EU while doing it. It's generally considered polite, but unnecessary, to invoke Article 50 first.

      "waah waah give me stuff" is not the definition of sovereignty.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. Good news for EU data hosting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the executive order invalidates freshly wrought privacy/data protection agreements with the US, and given the recent ruling versus Google, EU companies will no longer find it legal to store customers data on US based multinational clouds. Shooting US tech companies in the foot, but then Trump didnt like them anyway?

  4. Now? Now?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they have the balls to bring up privacy issues?

    Where were all those cojones hiding for the last decade as we screamed about privacy violations and got no where.

    If Trump does nothing more than force the rest of the world to open their eyes and stand up to the US there should be a statue the size of lady liberty made in his honor.

  5. No need to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In order for the transatlantic protection pact to be undermined, it first has to actually protect anything. Since it is a placebo pact, it doesn't actually protect anything, it cannot be undermined.

    We should thank our dear European leaders for their foresight which allowed them to engage in such an incorruptible treaty.

  6. NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO!

    Just NO!

    Go away! Now! NO!

  7. No just no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President can't exclude sections of a law just to suit his own ideals. Excluding any category of people from privacy laws is immoral and should be unconstitutional. All men are created equal... unless you were born in another country? Our forefathers would be furious.

    1. Re:No just no by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      President can't exclude sections of a law just to suit his own ideals.

      I agree with you but consider the ramifications.

      Obama let federal laws go unenforced and some of those arent going to be enforced under Trump either. For instance Trump has said marijuana legalization is a State issue not a Federal issue and that he will continue to neglect to enforce Federal marijuana laws. Obama didnt enforce them for different reasons.

      On a Federal statute level, our laws rank the crime of possession of schedule 1 substances such as marijuana as worse than murder.

      The problem is far too many federal laws. At some point there are so many that the executive branch will have to pick and choose even if they dont want to. We are probably well past that point. I'm sitting in an apartment that probably isnt big enough to store a printed copy of our federal laws.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  8. What privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

    Blindly sending phone and internet logs, banking and income records, criminal records, travel and commuting records to the USA isn't so clever now, is it? If they truly want to protect their citizens, they will tell the US government to fuck-off. This is why "nothing to hide" doesn't work and neither does "trust this glorious leader".

  9. Verify, Don't Trust by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Fun fact: even though we have Data Privacy pacts with both the EU and Canada, we violate them each and every day.

    According to the pacts, privacy laws that are required in the EU and Canada are also supposed to apply to all nationals from those countries while they are in the US and its territories.

    But.

    They're not.

    We are spying on you.

    We just lie that we're not.

    (mind you, this is now being used the other way, so Deep State that, Golden Boy)

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  10. Soviet 'Murikastan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet 'Murikastan, EU data is in Trump.

  11. The President implements it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who implements the law? The President and his chosen cheerleaders. So whatever the law says, it's meaningless if he can get people loyal enough to lie for him. That's Trumps problem now, not enough people are loyal to him to hold, what would be, a dictatorship.

    Laws mean little with Trump in the office.

    Unless you've been in a hole the last few days, you'll have heard that multiple US governent sources have been confirming Trump teams constant contact with the Russias during the election. Flynn, Manasfort and others, in constant Russian contact. Despite lying otherwise.

    Hacking is a crime, hacking to take power over a country is an act of war, and helping them hack to get the Presidency is treason.

    And perhaps you recall, back in July when Manasfort lobbied the GOP on behalf of Team Trump to stop them giving "lethal weapons" to Ukraine (getting the wording changed to 'NON' lethal):
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.366153802c38

    So GOP were taking directions from a Putin agent on Ukraine legislation. And they changed their stance from "provide lethal weapons to Ukraine" to "provide non-lethal weapons to Ukraine" in response to an agent of Putin's lobbying on behalf of then candidate Trump.

    USA cannot protect it's *own* data, because it is leaking to Putin's men via now encrypted channels. Those two spies Putin arrested just after Trump put his team into the CIA, were American spies. What's happening is treason and espionage, and the Republicans are in mental 'team red' mode, unwilling to even investigate.