Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

US To Get EU Private Citizen Data

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:38 AM
from the no-one-is-safe dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In a case of 'all your data are belong to us,' the US government is close to coming to an agreement with the EU that allows it to get private citizen data on EU citizens to 'look for suspicious activity.' So, now we know what step three is: set up a security agency in the US to resell otherwise unavailable data."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by dlb1 (1170591) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:40AM (#23981465)
    So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.

      Seriously though, when are we the people going to say enough is enough. We do not need any more surveilance and invasions of our privacy. If we keep on this path then the so called war on terror will be lost not by the efforts of terrorists but by our own governments. Perhaps moving to Zimbabwe is not such a bad idea after all.

      • by wvmarle (1070040) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:37AM (#23982191)

        We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.

        While I really understand the feeling, I totally disagree with it, as it is the wrong thing to do. Fingerprinting and photographing people at the border is wrong. It should not be done. It doesn't stop terrorists, it may make it a bit less convenient for them to do their thing, but that inconvenience is limited to the crossing of borders. When a would-be terrorist has crossed the border, it's kinda too late already. Fingerprinting is no deterrent after the border has been crossed. It's just stupid to believe otherwise.

        There are great systems in place to keep unwanted persons out of the country: normal police work, and exchange of information on criminals between governments. Osama bin Laden would not have much of a chance to enter the USA, unless he manages to get a very well done fake passport.

        The EU gives a great example on how it can be done. Traveling within the EU, crossing state borders, is often so easy you don't notice it. If you miss the sign next to the road, that is. There is often not more than that to crossing a national border. And for foreigners entering the EU as visitor, that is generally also easy.

        But does that make the EU borders more transparent than US borders? I truly doubt it. People from some nationalities have to apply for visa before entering - that of course includes a more thorough screening. And then of course there exists a black-list of unwanted individuals, those people trying to cross the border will likely be arrested and/or sent back.

        And all this does not make the EU more susceptible to terrorism by foreigners - on the contrary. Most if not all serious attacks in the EU were all done by nationals or residents, the greatest threat comes from the inside as always.

        • by sumdumass (711423) on Saturday June 28 2008, @01:46PM (#23983597) Journal

          While your right in that Fingerprinting people when they enter a country doesn't necessarily stop terrorism, it does go a long way to finding those responsible and possible stopping future acts.

          If we had records and proof of all the countries the 9/11 hijackers visited and were able to discern who they traveled with before the events on 9/11, it would have lead a clear trail to other conspirators and perhaps information pertaining to future planned events. I know it is a bit like treating people guilty until proven innocent but that is being done without an accusation of wrong doing so there isn't an immediate harm to a person. Something as basic as knowing who is entering and leaving a country is a right of sovereignty which might actually surpass any or most rights to privacy. That is at least how the supreme court reconciles the searches at the border with the 4th and other constitutional amendments. OF course the constitution would be useless if we didn't have sovereignty, it restricts our government, not others.

        • by anonieuweling (536832) on Saturday June 28 2008, @12:36PM (#23982891)
          Democracy on a national level is already very indirect and very vague and *you* trust even farther away EU politicians (who you'll rarely see, get to know, etc) to decide on a treaty that might very radically change the world around you? What you can eat? What you can do? Where you can go? Yes, all that kind of stuff. Exactly because it is a constitution we need a vote. And if it is too complex it is to be explained *WAY* better before, and not after, accepting it. It's not a matter of trust. They, who work for us, simply shouldn't push ahead with something that was voted down thrice. (yes that is what they will do after a slight break because of the Irish no...)
        • by drsquare (530038) on Saturday June 28 2008, @12:52PM (#23983097)

          The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well.

          Great, so EU politicians living a thousand miles away who don't even speak your language can make decisions like this data sharing, and you have no say in it whatsoever. The way the EU is acting recently, it's becoming less like a democratic organisation, and more like a giant, unaccountable fascist beaurocracy.

          The reaction to the Irish vote just sums it up: the people have rejected it, but they're going through with it anyway, because they're in charge and 'they know best'. Most of the arrogant politicans in favour of the constitution haven't even fucking read it. In fact the document is purposefully long and complicated so no-one can understand what it's actually about.

          Personally I don't see why the EU can't just be a trade zone, and fuck off all this federal superstate crap. Thank god we're not in the Euro, the last thing we need is these jokers running our economy.

            • by polar red (215081) on Saturday June 28 2008, @03:39PM (#23984603)

              Personally I don't see why the EU can't just be a trade zone

              I suggest you read some history, count the number of wars in europe BEFORE and AFTER the foundation of the EU (the European Coal and Steel Community, 1951). The rest is 'filler'.

              • by muffel (42979) on Saturday June 28 2008, @07:56PM (#23986415)

                I suggest you read some history, count the number of wars in europe BEFORE and AFTER the foundation of the EU (the European Coal and Steel Community, 1951). The rest is 'filler'.

                Why not count the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the introduction of color TV?
                Or the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the assassination of JFK?
                Or the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the Berlin Wall was built?

                Were you actually trying to indicate some sort of proof with your statement?

            • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Saturday June 28 2008, @04:14PM (#23984963)

              The masses are too apathetic to do anything

              Actually, when the masses have actually been asked in a referendum, they have generally rejected the various EU constitution/superstate treaties. It's just that this time around with the Lisbon treaty, only one government has so far had the courage to go to its people and ask (well, actually their constitution required it). Despite widespread criticism, other leaders have ratified the treaty againt popular opinion. The masses aren't apathetic, they just aren't being given the choice, in one of the most flagrant violations of democracy in recent history.

              And for the avoidance of doubt, we don't get to elect the people with real power in the EU framework, who are apparently behind this particular affront to privacy, either.

        • by Fjandr (66656) on Saturday June 28 2008, @01:15PM (#23983303) Homepage Journal

          Politicians are people too. If ordinary people cannot understand what a treaty or constitution is designed to do, there is something wrong with either the people or the document.

          When you vote for someone, you should be voting for someone competent (heh, wonder how often that actually happens), but how do you have the slightest chance of determining their competence and how they will respond to an issue like a treaty if you are completely incapable of understanding the impact of said treaty?

          If it's really that complex, the politicians need to break down what it's going to do so that the general public understands it. Note, this would be in a perfect world. More likely is that they'll lie and say what people want to hear in order to get votes...

          When you vote for people, and "trust" that they will do the right or competent thing, without understanding the issues yourself, things will go wrong, corrupt politicians will be elected, and the public will get exactly the government they deserve.

          • by Fred_A (10934) <fred.fredshome@org> on Saturday June 28 2008, @01:42PM (#23983539) Homepage

            Politicians are people too. If ordinary people cannot understand what a treaty or constitution is designed to do, there is something wrong with either the people or the document.

            The problem is that this so called "constitution", now renamed "treaty" is more or less a sum of all the inter state treaties that have been agreed upon since the 1950s. And it's now something like 300 pages long and an absolute mess despite some apparent attempts at organising the whole thing.

            This has nothing whatsoever to do with a constitution (which is merely the topmost law), or a treaty, it's *all* the treaties at once. No wonder nobody could read it. Only people who have made a career of studying European laws and agreements can navigate through it.

            I have the published version commented by the designed committee of the original version (the one that failed to pass the first time, supposedly pretty much the same as the current one) and I have to say that the comments didn't help much.

            A proper constitution would be a good start in making the eurofolks feel they're part of the same thing though. I'd vote for a properly written one.

        • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Saturday June 28 2008, @01:17PM (#23983321) Journal

          The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well. Not everything is suitable for referendum.

          The problem is with the document itself. It should be a real constitution, like the US and many other countries have. A document that delimits Europe's influence over its member states and its people, and clearly states what they can and cannot do, and how they do it. It does not have to be more than a few pages in very simple language that anyone can understand. Then we'll have something meaningful to vote on... and I think it'd good and right that we actually get to vote on it, too.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:44AM (#23981511)


    fuck you America

    signed, Europe

    • by brxndxn (461473) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:49AM (#23981569)

      fuck you America

      signed, America

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:51AM (#23981597)
      Hey, it's your leaders that are agreeing to this shit. Put the blame on their shoulders ... they could have said "no".
      • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        We don't want to put anything on their shoulders.

        We do want to remove something though.

      • Sig reply (Score:4, Interesting)

        Here's a reply to your signature:

        All Americans suck because all European politicians are just as bad as their American counterparts.

        Fuck the EU politicians.

        Signed, a citizen of Denmark.

        Interesting anecdote: "Junibevægelsen mod EU" (the june movement against EU, a quite small political party) did arrange a weekend trip to Bruxelles a good year ago, where we got to meet with a politician's advisor gave a talk about the market price of corn and agricultural subsidies, and a journalist who spoke (among other things) about telephony and roaming charges (the politicians wanted to offload their phone bill on the citizens; self-serving bastards). And of course some time off to goof off and eat dutch fries (you know, with fish and mayonnaise).

        Here's the punchline: what I learned from that trip is that although it is indeed possible to travel to Belgium, and if you prepare in advance you may be able to get the attention of a politician, citizens of pretty much anything other than Belgium have to spend a large amount of time doing so, plus they have to take off a sizable portion of their work week to meet the politicians when they're actually there. In short, regular citizens don't have any real access to a political body that governs non-trivial parts of their lives.

        • LIAR! (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2008, @12:29PM (#23982819)

          That's a lie, I read it in the paper. Ireland may have said no, but we can't know for sure that's what they REALLY meant. Obviously we need a new vote to see what people really think, and if it turns out to be a no again we should try again. For the sake of democracy. Until we get a yes. Then we can stop with the votes because then the people have decided! Long live our democracies!

        • by McDutchie (151611) on Saturday June 28 2008, @12:49PM (#23983065) Homepage

          Leaders maybe... But we sure as hell didn't get to vote for any of the European Parliament. They're not democratically elected.

          Actually, they're the only EU body that is democratically elected [wikipedia.org]! If you refused to vote in the 2004 EP elections, that's another matter; next year you'll have a chance to remedy that [wikipedia.org].

          (And of course the Lisbon treaty was supposed to give the EP more power, which would have increased democracy in the EU. Too bad.)

  • Fabulous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Instine (963303) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:44AM (#23981523) Homepage
    Just what I would have wanted my unelected EMPs to do on my behalf. Thanks guys. Keep up the good work.
    • Re:Fabulous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jo42 (227475) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:49AM (#23981567) Homepage

      The terrorists have won.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Ach, please don't say 'terrorist' like it's labels a group of people with a common cause.

        The terrorist moniker is a dumming down.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It's one of those "we gotta do something" things.

          Voters demand actions from their leaders when things go wrong. They can't just sit there and say "Ok. We can't do anything. Let's grab popcorn and watch the world come to an end". Even if that's the only thing to do. They wouldn't get reelected if they did. The media would rip them apart.

          So they do something. It doesn't solve the problem, actually, it pisses off a lot of people, but it appeases the masses who don't think but just demand action. They got actio

    • Re:Fabulous (Score:4, Informative)

      by wvmarle (1070040) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:26AM (#23982021)
      You could have voted, you know. There are elections for the European parliament. It's just that no-one shows up (typically 20-40% of registered voters actually votes).
    • Re:Fabulous (Score:5, Informative)

      by Halo1 (136547) <jonas.maebe@NoSpAm.elis.ugent.be> on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:31AM (#23982105) Homepage

      Just what I would have wanted my unelected EMPs to do on my behalf.

      The EMP's, who are actually directly elected, have nothing to do with this agreement (and if you'd read the article, you'd see they are more critical of it than anyone else).

      It's being negotiated by the Commission with a mandate of the EU Council of Ministers (who will later still have to, and probably will, approve it). The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

      • Re:Fabulous (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Richard W.M. Jones (591125) <rich@@@annexia...org> on Saturday June 28 2008, @01:44PM (#23983569) Homepage

        The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

        It's a real shame that Slashdot mods can't go over +5, because this needs to be modded up to +500 and every person living in the EU needs to understand exactly how this undemocratic process is working.

        The worst thing about the EU Constitution (erm, I mean Lisbon Treaty)? It enshrines this abuse. The worst thing about friend-of-Holywood Charlie McCreevy [europa.eu]? NO ONE can directly threaten to vote him out.

        Rich.

  • Gah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Realistic_Dragon (655151) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:52AM (#23981609) Homepage
    The EU is so good at selling us out they even take paypal.

    The right standard for decisions about handing private data over to the US should be; will the President and the members of congress submit to having the same data about them printed in European papers?
  • How bad is this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by damburger (981828) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:57AM (#23981683)
    I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?
    • by oldhack (1037484) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:25AM (#23982013)
      Where you visiting? Gitmo?
    • by rs232 (849320) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:49AM (#23982363)
      "I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?"

      Yes, and you'll be less likely to criticize the government the next time, which I suspect is the chief purpose of such legislation. You see, without the ever present specter of communism to protect up from, the US needed something else to scare us with. Step forward Al-Qaeda and the IslamoFascist bogyman.

      "A watched population is a compliant one", Adam Suttler .. If he didn't say it, he thought it .. :)
  • Reciprocity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by camperdave (969942) on Saturday June 28 2008, @10:57AM (#23981687) Journal
    I think it's time we start publishing data on our politicians and the heads of corporations that deal with the government and see how they like it.
  • Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:03AM (#23981749) Homepage
    I really don't have a problem with a country messing with its citizens and even its geographical neighbors -- I think that's well within every countries right even if I don't like the specifics of what they are up to (China for eg.). However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening. How about they stick to spying on their own citizens, that's much more fair (since it is a democratic nation)
  • Reciprocity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by denoir (960304) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:07AM (#23981789)
    Well, this goes hand in hand with another law proposed in the EU. If it passes all blogs of EU citizens will have to be registered with the government. So now the US can get private data on EU citizens and perhaps in return the EU can get a list of those criminal Europeans that have unregistered blogs on US servers.

    A quote from the MEP that was responsible for the proposal:

    I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.

    I may have to flee to China to keep some of my individual rights. Lovely.

  • Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aaron England (681534) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:07AM (#23981803)
    I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.
    • by Simon (S2) (600188) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:18AM (#23981929) Homepage

      I RTFA.

      I did.

      The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities.

      Actually,

      "The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information â" like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits â" about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean."

      to me, means exactly that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          As I understand it, that is one point they still have to agree on:

          "The negotiators are trying to agree on minimum standards to protect privacy rights, such as limiting access to the information to âoeauthorized individuals with an identified purposeâ for looking at it. If a governmentâ(TM)s policies are âoeeffectiveâ in meeting all standards, any transfer of personal data to that government would be presumed lawful."

          But that is just a technical point they have to discuss. The main p

  • What's next (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Qwavel (733416) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:11AM (#23981843)

    >> So, now we know what step three is: setup a security agency in US to resell otherwise unavailable data.

    No, step three is that they setup a security agency in Europe so they kidnap these suspicious looking people and put them on flights to Syria (or wherever) for torture.

  • As a EU citizen... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EvilAlphonso (809413) <meushi DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:15AM (#23981891)

    I would like to know which country isn't planning to go down that route so I can sell all my stuff and move out of the way.

    Having worked as a contractor for other European Institutions, I know absolutely nothing gets in the way of the Commission once it decided something. After all, it's not like they have to be re-elected or anything.

  • Ha-ha (Score:3, Funny)

    by codeshack (753630) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:28AM (#23982045)

    I think I speak for all US-EU dual citizens when I say that this is awesome. Because now I probably only have to pay to be spied on by *one* of my governments. Hellooooo tax rebate!

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Saturday June 28 2008, @11:48AM (#23982355)

    in electronic mail (back at DEC in the 80's and early 90's). I regularly traveled to the UK and europe to teach my 1week course there. the same course was given in the US every 6 weeks or so.

    one thing that I learned when I was attending the 'train the trainer' for this course was that euro privacy standards are (well, USED TO BE) very strict. in the course, we used to talk about PMF (personnel master files) and how LITTLE could be shared even in the same company (DEC) but between different countries. email for things like 'all-in-1 mail' (wow, anyone remember that?) used to depend on having access to personnel info (more or less) and yet we taught that very little could be shared between countries, mostly just the first and last name and country they were in and that's about it!

    my my, how things have changed.

  • by Richard_J_N (631241) on Saturday June 28 2008, @12:49PM (#23983059)

    As a Eurpoean (who used to believe in the "American Dream"), I'm thoroughly sick of the way the US behaves, and I'm disgusted that none of our leaders have the nerve to tell the regime to get lost. The EU should cease all co-operation with the USA until the USA starts behaving like a free country. Guantanamo alone is such a blot that the EU should have imposed trade sanctions over it (like we did to apartheid South-Africa).