Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Politics

EU Wants Air Passenger Data Collected 151

Posted by kdawson
from the you-can-leave-your-hat-on dept.
An anonymous reader sends news of the EU following in the footsteps of the US in that they are contemplating requiring all 27 member states to collect data on airline passengers and to retain it for up to 13 years. No centralized database would be created; instead states would be encouraged to store and to share their own data as needed. All states would have to pass enabling laws before the measure could come into effect. The rules would not apply to flights entirely within the EU. The proposal is part of an anti-terrorism package that also includes tighter laws to control hate speech and bomb-making instructions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Wants Air Passenger Data Collected

Comments Filter:
  • Damnit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Corporate Troll (537873) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @08:57AM (#21265547) Homepage Journal
    Damnit! Now we EUers can't feel smug anymore and belittle our less free friends in the US ;-))
    • Yes but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:02AM (#21265577)
      ...at least they'll never be able to take away from us the fact we never elected George Bush.

      Well, at least unless there's a major change in international politics sometime soon I hope not ;)
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by m2943 (1140797)
        Europe has a whole gaggle of Mini Me's taking Bush's place. Or do you really want to argue that people like Berlusconi are any better?
        • It's a good thing terrorists never fly between countries in the EU, only between the EU and non-EU countries!
      • by N3WBI3 (595976) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @12:22PM (#21268141) Homepage
        Right... Germans elected Hitler, you sure got us beat there..
        • by Torvaldo (979741)
          Hitler never won a democratic election.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Pseudonym (62607)

          Godwin's Law. You lose.

          • If what I did violated goodwins law then I move we include references to Bush (whom many view as badly) fall under that law as well. All I was doing is pointing out that the Euros have elected leaders as bad, if not worse, than bush during the past century so to come off all smug about how upright they are is somewhat disingenuous.. How am I to accomplish that without pointing out some of the piss poor leaders that European powers have put into power? If pointing that out violates goodwins law then I guess
      • by ncc74656 (45571) *

        ...at least they'll never be able to take away from us the fact we never elected George Bush.

        You can't blame us for Chirac and Schröder...they were all you. I wouldn't be too proud of that if I were you.

        (To your credit, you finally kicked them to the curb where they belong. Hillary (or whoever the Democrats end up nominating...but she's most likely) needs to join them there.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cavac (640390)
      I don't mean to sound rude, but i've given up traverling to the US, i don't like to be viewed as a "stupid foreigner" by the authorities.

      Last time i was in NY (pre 2001, though), it was "US citizens and greencard holders first, europeans last". Maybe we should have something similar at EU airports, to make us EU citizens feel smug and let US citizens stand around for long hours for a change...

      All in the name of "security", 'couse, naturally, non-EU-citizens will have to fill in pointless imigration forms, a
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sayfawa (1099071)
        Last time i was in NY (pre 2001, though), it was "US citizens and greencard holders first, europeans last". Maybe we should have something similar at EU airports, to make us EU citizens feel smug and let US citizens stand around for long hours for a change...

        You don't have to wish for it, that already exists. At every European airport I've been to I had to stand in a longer, slower moving line because I'm not an EU citizen.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by IANAAC (692242)

        All in the name of "security", 'couse, naturally, non-EU-citizens will have to fill in pointless imigration forms, answer stupid questions like "Are you a terrorist" to armed security guards while everybody is watching and generally made of fool of yourself. After all, the EU has to bring up its security standard to US levels...

        Sounds like my last pass through Dublin. Of course it was the day after a bomb scare. Still not as bad as Heathrow though.

        Many don't want to admit it, but it's just as bad i

      • Actually, to be honest... I also said I wouldn't go to the US anymore. I've been there pre and post 9/11, and was always treated as a criminal. However, my wife want to go to the US and I think I'll give in. Why? Because with the USD to EUR conversion, it might turn out to be a damned cheap vacation.

        Also have to think of my wallet, you know ;-)

      • by nnull (1148259)
        They already do that at European airports. Non-European citizens have to stand around in long lines. Granted it's not as bad as the US's photographing and finger printing, but don't worry, it's getting there.
      • by FredDC (1048502)
        I've given up no flying altogether... No matter what the destination is... It'd have to be pretty important if I'm going to deal with airports again!

        The way you get treated at airports these days is simply amazing, you are considered a criminal just because you are boarding an airplane. What possible other reason except terrorism could one possibly have for flying?

        In the near future I will have to travel between Belgium and the UK quite frequently and I've already decided to take the Eurostar. Sitting on th
        • by wikinerd (809585)

          I've given up no flying altogether... No matter what the destination is...

          +1, I also do not fly primarily because of stupid security measures. Whereever there are stupid security measures, I vote with my euros

      • by Nimey (114278)
        When I came back from Scotland last year, O'Hare had a line for returning Americans and another for foreign visitors.

        That's about the only nice thing I can say about O'Hare, though.
      • Re:Damnit! (Score:4, Informative)

        by krlynch (158571) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @11:54AM (#21267721) Homepage

        Last time i was in NY (pre 2001, though), it was "US citizens and greencard holders first, europeans last".

        Watch where you're throwing those stones, buddy :-)

        I travel to Europe regularly on business. At EVERY European airport I've been too, there's an "EU passport holders" line (and Switzerland, usually) and an "everyone else" line.

        • Ah, but we're us and you're you. And that makes all the difference. See the current article about Yahoo's dealings with China for support.... :-}
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eebra82 (907996)
      What exactly makes you think we're not heading the same way? EU has stood for a tightened control of its citizens. Not too long ago, they forced telecom operators to store data in order to fight terrorism and such.
      • I *do* think we're heading that way anyway. There isn't much we can do about it, right? The purpose of my original post was to be funny, with exactly the bitter aftertaste that we aren't any better off. I thought everyone would get that.

    • by delt0r (999393)
      There are more "data" collection laws here (Passports to check into hotels). But they can't sell the data to corporations and for the police to use the data they need a warrant. Personal data in the EU is protected by law in most member states and by the EU itself.

      The odd thing with this law is this. What about trains? I recently visited Italy, Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia all on the train. I can get a train to any major city in the EU and most are within the overnight train distance from central
      • by badfish99 (826052)
        I remember visiting Italy, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria by train during the cold war. No queues for passport checks then either! It was much easier than the train from England to France is now.
    • by owlnation (858981)

      Damnit! Now we EUers can't feel smug anymore and belittle our less free friends in the US ;-))
      Those of us in the UK never could. We look to China and Soviet Russia as lands of Freedom and Ambrosia. I'm sure the UK is already storing the security camera image of everyone boarding a plane indefinitely. I don't think they even do that in North Korea.
  • Cut to the chase (Score:4, Insightful)

    by locster (1140121) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:06AM (#21265593)
    [Sarcasm mode on]
    Heck, let's just cut to the chase and have an international law that everything and anything has to be logged and stored for all eternity. That should save a few decades of protesting against dumb legislature that will eventually get in through the back door anyway.

    Presumably if storage capacity where unlimited we'd be seeing calls to log the position of every atom in the world!
    [Sarcasm mode off]
    • OK. (Score:3, Funny)

      by iknownuttin (1099999)
      ...let's just cut to the chase and have an international law that everything and anything has to be logged and stored for all eternity.

      OK! Let'em choke on all that data! There's no way that they could keep it all straight - and that's assuming there's no errors!

      The genie is out of the bottle, let's give them what they want to the 666 power!

    • Presumably if storage capacity where unlimited we'd be seeing calls to log the position of every atom in the world!

      The atoms hate our freedoms!

    • by Zelos (1050172)
      The next step being to pass legislation outlawing the Uncertainty Principle because only a terrorist wouldn't want you to know where they are *and* where they're going.
    • by vegiVamp (518171)
      > Presumably if storage capacity where unlimited we'd be seeing calls to log the position of every atom in the world!

      Well... If you're also going to store the direction of each atom's magnetic field, your unlimited storage capacity isn't going to be sufficient. We need to fund research into off-universe storage.
    • by mgb (30386)
      Plus, if its made an international law then the US will probably resent its enforcement, opt out and stop gathering data
  • I spent some time in Italy this summer. It is a very lovely country with amazing food. One thing that struck me as strange was the extremely lax security at the airport. Me and my party literally walked through without anyone checking anything at any time. They didn't even LOOK at our passports. I wanted them to stamp mine so I would have the Italy stamp, but the man just waved us on past. I did notice though that all the people the men with machine guns where searching all where Arabic looking men.
    I had
    • by CmdrGravy (645153)
      It's always amusing coming back to Birmingham Airport ( UK ) the customs guys spend around 5 seconds scanning your passport and thats it.

      I flew back from Dublin once to Stanstead airport and in order to get through the barrier without going to customs you had to show your boarding card. Unfortunately I'd thrown mine away but the guy let me through on the strength of a reciept from a Burger King in Dublin which he reckoned proved I'd just come from Ireland right enough.

      French security are always nice, happy
    • by guruevi (827432)
      Well, from experience: the more south or east you go in Europe, the more lax security gets and the less stringent the rules. I went to Crete and the Czech Republic and they didn't even have a x-ray detector for our luggage. Just a metal detector that beeped when I went through it, they just waved me through.

      Germans and Austrians however still think they've won the war and can treat anybody as lesser than them. Especially their police and border forces but also the average tourist in Spain or wherever you go
    • by Fuzzums (250400)
      And the irony is last year they (morons) tried to blow up a train in Germany. Not in Italy.

      But anyway. We're being terrorized by our own governments right now. In the EU it's forbidden to take a normal bottle of water on board.

      Terrorism 2, Freedom 0 :(
    • Security on internal flights in Papua New Guinea is light (there is none)... however, when you get OFF the airplane in the Highlands, they check to make sure you haven't brought any guns or liquor.
    • by vertinox (846076)
      Me and my party literally walked through without anyone checking anything at any time. They didn't even LOOK at our passports. I wanted them to stamp mine so I would have the Italy stamp, but the man just waved us on past.

      Why not?

      When has airport security ever stopped a real threat?

      All the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID and passed all criteria that raised no flags. Even the "do not fly list" would not have stopped them. Its just a waste of time and better methods of security are needed other than the current
    • by wikinerd (809585)
      Yes, that's true, there is no security in Mediterranean countries, but if there were how could tourists spend their monies enjoying the seaside without spending their valuable time in security stoppoints etc? No security is not necessarily a bad thing!
    • Funnily enough, I was on holiday in Italy earlier this year, too. When we arrived, we too were waved right through passport control, and the only visible security in evidence was a guy with a sniffer dog as people came off the plane. We collected our baggage and headed right out into the sunshine. Welcome to Italy!

      When we got back to Stansted, we stopped at passport control. Didn't have much choice, actually, since the queues were half an hour long. Everyone had to wait behind a line while the person at t

  • by mikael (484) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:09AM (#21265625)
  • Say what you want about the U.S., but we don't outlaw 'hate speech' here. We have outlawed bomb-making instructions since 1997 (Thanks, Diane Feinstein!), but only those with that give instructions for the purposes of violating federal law. You can still read about the basic chemistry, and for that you just need to go to your local library or read any of a number of articles publicly available on the Internet.

    • Say what you want about the U.S., but we don't outlaw 'hate speech' here. We have outlawed bomb-making instructions since 1997

      Alright I will. In the US, you outlaw chemical formulae, but allow people to call for "infidels" to be burned at the stake. Do you regard this as a laudable state of affairs?
      • No, we don't outlaw chemical formulae. Only bomb-making instructions that specifically mention how to break the law, i.e., to make a pipe-bomb, do a, b and c. Publishing the chemical formula for cyclonite, OTOH, is not a violation of the law.
      • Alright I will. In the US, you outlaw chemical formulae, but allow people to call for "infidels" to be burned at the stake. Do you regard this as a laudable state of affairs?

        Good job cutting off the rest of the quote, which changes the meaning of the sentence: "We have outlawed bomb-making instructions since 1997 (Thanks, Diane Feinstein!), but only those with that give instructions for the purposes of violating federal law." Even the butchered quote wouldn't have banned chemical formulae, by the way.

        Terror

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PjotrP (593817)
      The hate speech thing always is an easy way to put europeans in their place. Then again it usually only works when you don't go into the details about just how free speech works in practice. In practice for example it might be that the freedom of the press somehow is in a much better shape in europe than in the united states.

      The US might not have a law to limit free speech, but in reality it seems the free speech of journalists is more limited than in europe. If you use a law to limit it, or just use patrio

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        The US might not have a law to limit free speech, but in reality it seems the free speech of journalists is more limited than in europe.
        Give an example. There aren't any laws, other than slander and libel, specifically on the books in the U.S. limiting the free speech of journalists. Protection of sources, reporter's privelege, whatever -- these are decided on a case-by-case basis in the U.S., as is true for most of Europe.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PjotrP (593817)
          the point is that having a law one way or another, doesn't necessarily mean that the actual practice and reality is so.
          I'm no expert about how free speech works in practice in the US, but I refer to an index of the freedom of press. As I'm no expert I can't judge the index, but the way the index is compiled seems fair enough.

          about the US they said:
          "There were slightly fewer press freedom violations in the United States [than last year] (48th) and blogger Josh Wolf was freed after 224 days in prison. But the
  • by segedunum (883035) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:13AM (#21265651)
    How exactly does one define 'hate speech', and separate it from freedom of speech (one man's free speech is another's hate speech), and how exactly does one separate home chemistry sets from bomb making equipment, and mere discussions on bombs and explosives (they're not exactly secrets) from people who are actually going to use them?

    I'm also not sure how collecting data on all passengers will help them with the small minority they want to track.
    • Hell, it's easier than that. All you need are beauty products...

       
      • Just set up your own soap making plant in your house using fat from liposuction as one of your raw materials. Then use the explosives to blow up all the major US bank offices.
    • by NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:39AM (#21265833)
      <cynical bastard>
      Didn't you get the memo? It's not about laws making sense, or actually helping prevent terrorism. For a lot of these politicians and bureaucrats it's all about *looking* like you're doing something so you can get reelected and/or be perceived as somebody who's "doing something about it." Bonus points if you can work something in there that empowers the bureaucracy a little bit, extra bonus if you can limit any kind of pesky individualism or unmonitored behavior.
      </cynical bastard>
    • by mvdwege (243851)

      How exactly does one define 'hate speech'

      The problem is that Googling for any kind of terms throws up various right-wing blogs, instead of a working definition. Close as I can tell from the daily practice around me is that judges interpret actual criminal hate speech as outright incitement to acts of violence against population groups. Now, as incitement to violence is a crime in and of itself, hate speech laws are merely a way of more precisely defining what counts as incitement. I'd love to leave that d

  • by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:16AM (#21265671)
    I seriously think the Soviets covertly won the Cold War after the end was declared every time I hear crap like this. What's next? Are we all going to celebrate the October Revolution and call each other "Comrade" while the Secret Police read our mail and make people disappear?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by owlnation (858981)
      Every time I see stuff like this and I'm reminded of something Günter Grass said, about how once the Berlin wall came down the way was opened up for Fascism to have free reign again.

      Seems to be true. Red or Blue -- they both screw you.
  • Can't let the US take a lead on this issue. Freedom of movement is demonstrated by the fact they won't even consider imposing it on inter-union travel.
  • by ACK!! (10229) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:18AM (#21265681) Journal
    Shit that doesn't work here.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by M0nk-e (1104673)
      Sure it does, atleast phonetically: "In Soviet Russia, Passenger Data wants EU!" :)
  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:19AM (#21265693)
    I know it's Europe where the ideas of freedom of speech are a little different than on this side of the pond, but still every time I hear or read hate speech I shudder. Who gets to define what "hate speech" is?
    • by bhima (46039) <Bhima.PandavaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:32AM (#21265787) Journal
      I have lived in both Europe and in the US for years. I think that the American's idea of "freedom of speech" is dysfunctional. Most people have no idea what constitutes protected or unprotected speech. They think they can say just whatever the hell they want, whenever they want, in whatever forum they want (and in the case of political speech with as many dollars as they want). In reality speech in the US isn't like that, rather it is as legislated as it is Europe, albeit with different nuances.
      In answer to your question: They have laws made by parliaments in Europe which define protected or forbidden speech. Just like in America they have laws made by Congress which define protected or forbidden speech. It's just that in response to horrors of WWII, several European countries have enacted 'Don't make the same mistake twice' laws. Which forbid denial of the events or glorification of perpetrators in public events.

      I think you will find that the US has civil laws which can be used just as effectively end hate speech.
      • Bigots and the like may be arrested for other things, but there are no laws to outlaw "hate speech". All opinions, no matter how outrageous, are protected under the first amendment. There exists illegal speech such as child porn, credible threats of violence, etc. which can be dealt with by law enforcement. But the US has no national firewall like, say Germany. People there are literally cut off from "hate speech" at the network level.

        I am not familiar with this EU law details but to fight against restrict
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by faloi (738831)
      Who gets to define what "hate speech" is?

      The government, thankfully. They always know what's best for us. You'd have to be insane to say something negative about the government, because loosely defined enough hate speech laws might allow the government to jail opposition voices because they "could be seeking to disrupt public order or incite riots." We can't have riots, that would be double-plus ungood.
    • by 91degrees (207121)
      Who gets to define what "hate speech" is?

      Depends on the country. Either a jury of your peers or whatever means the appropriate country chooses to determine the exact meaning of the law.
    • by mvdwege (243851)

      In the final reckoning, its judges that define hate speech. And they have tended to come down on the side of free expression. Outright Nazism has problems, but it's a bit hard to maintainn that an ideology that basically says 'gas all undesirables' is not inciting violence. Those that manage to cloak their Neo-Nazi sympathies a little better tend to get off though, even though judges may decide that calling them Neo-Nazis is not defamatory.

      It still sounds a slight bit better than 'Free Speech Zones' to thi

  • by Fenice (1156725)
    Terrorism is really begining to be an excuse for everything... What frighten me is to see that in France, the president talks about terrorism like an imminent threat against our country that nearly requiere martial law, while our last terrorism attemps go back 10 years ago and we have been livin peacefully since.
    • FWIW, there was a lull between the first world trade center bombing and the eventual successful one.

      With the outfits like the GIA and the AZF floating around in france, you should be thankful for a greater than 10 year lull in attack on the paris metro...

      If you read the propaganda from the other side of the pond, one wonders if it is because of this tightening of the law, france has been able to live "peacefully since"

      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html [time.com]
    • It should frighten you more that the population buys into crap like that. Sure terrorism is a concern but unlikely it really should be the #1 concern.
  • These particular terrorists are funded by oil producing nations, Iran and Saudi. They're doing it because they don't like the influence particularly the USA has within their nations. The US for instance is propping up the Saudi royal family, paying them with worthless bits of green paper and military aid. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, Osama bin Laden is Saudi. They see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting the great satan that is literally sucking their wealth dry, and, frankly, when Bernanke sw
  • Simply, this way EU can have the same data of US and use them if and when needed...
    • Wasn't the gringo super database project shutdown?
    • by mdwh2 (535323)
      Simply, this way EU can have the same data of US and use them if and when needed...

      Indeed, it is a "retaliation" where in both cases, we end up losing, and the Governments gain.
  • thats a mighty slippery slope we are approaching that skirts perilously close to that line that we should not be crossing.

    and so it begins.....
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      Yes indeed it begins. One small step at a time. Basic rights eaten away in the name of "security". The public thinks "its only a minor inconvenience" or "it makes me safer" each time losing a little freedom, handing the government more power. While we drive around in flashy cars, watch big screen HDTV with surround sound and our Mb/s rated internet connections obtaining free entertainment off bittorrent.

      Bread and circuses people.
    • and so it begins.....

      It begins?!

      My country (the UK) isn't at the top of the slippery slope, it's falling over at the bottom. We have the legal basis right now for detention without trial, suppression of peaceful protest, arbitrary restrictions on movement (under several different laws now, actually), criminalisation based on what books you read or Internet sites you visit, arbitrary stop and search by the police, and a database state with mandatory ID cards to help enforce it all.

      The only way they get away with it is beca

  • I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haeger (85819) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:39AM (#21265835)
    I really don't. How is this supposed to help? I don't see it.
    Also I don't understand the priorities. How many people were killed by terrorist actions last year in the EU? 100? 1000? And how many traffic deaths were there? How many died from obesity or diseases related to smoking?
    If they are concerned about protecting lives they should track how much candy or tobacco/alcohol people buy and use. If they monitor/forbid overconsumption of that it would probably save more lives.

    Yes, it would really suck to be blown up buy some nutter but the fact remains that I'm so much more likely to get killed in a car accident that the "terror threat" hardly deserves mentioning.

    I just don't get it. Why are people so dumb that they fall for these tricks.

    .haeger

    • I think I get it. This Franco Frattini jerk is trying to show he does some work to earn his salary. well, he is also of Berlusconi's party and apparently wants to gain some glory after the woman killed in Roma by an immigrant from Romania.
    • by dk90406 (797452) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:52AM (#21266037)
      all these measures make no sense security wise what so ever. They are only designed to make the average EU citizen feel safer.
      This is just another of the knee jerk reactions that we have seen during the last 6 years. Politicians make a show of "competence" in order to protect the safety of the people. Classic "cover your ass" reaction.

      And you are right. The amount of people killed by terror in EU is minimal compared to traffic accidents, workplace accidents, domestic violence, pollution related deaths etc. But we are used to the above, but *terror* is new and unpredictable, hence it *seems* more scary.

      Sadly, the governments (and mainstream media) are helping the terrorists, by fueling the fear for terror, by constantly talking about it and making senseless measures against it.

      ----

      An annoyed European

      • all these measures make no sense security wise what so ever. They are only designed to make the average EU politician feel safer.

        There fixed that for you.
    • by N3WBI3 (595976)
      **DISCLAIMER** I don't agree with intrusive government but I'm just going to play devils advocate to answer your question **END DISCLAIMER**

      "also I don't understand the priorities. How many people were killed by terrorist actions last year in the EU? 100? 1000? And how many traffic deaths were there? How many died from obesity or diseases related to smoking?"

      Car accidents are seldom performed intentionally and with the intention of establishing a theocracy over your people. Terrorism as a movement is about
  • by jonwil (467024) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:41AM (#21265863)
    Is there ANY evidence at all that if this stuff (privacy violations, ID checks, data collection, profiling etc) was in place in the US before 9/11 that it would have had any effect in stopping the attacks? Or would it have stopped the London Underground bombings? Or the Spanish train bombs? Or the Bali bombs? Or any of the other terrorist attacks of the past 50 years?

    Measures like reinforced cockpit doors are good. As are measures to make passports harder to forge (including measures requiring that the information on the passport be stored electronically as well as physically and that said information be digitally signed against tampering such that only the governments have the private keys to digitally sign the information) And the measures designed to stop bombs from being taken onto aircraft disguised as otherwise harmless looking objects.

    Unfortunatly, the world has turned into a mass of sheeple who only care about their bread (i.e. mass-produced consumer goods made by the lowest bidder and full of hidden unwanted stuff like lead paint and illicit drugs) and their circuses (i.e. mass-produced media content made by big corporations designed to keep you distracted whilst other big corporations ruin the planet in the name of the almighty Dollar/Euro/Pound/Yen/etc) and are unlikely to stand up to the crap the governments of the world want to inflict on them (especially since the few people who DO care enough to stand up to the governments end up in secret jails that make Auschwitz look like Club Med)
    • by aztektum (170569)
      It "works" to keep them in office come election time. "Look what laws we passed to help protect you from being called a mean name!"
  • Well I guess that's me signing up for a free email account next time I go flying - although it's a pain in that the airline might need to send me necessary information, and I forget to check that account.

    Sensitive information such as racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership as well as health and sexual orientation should not be revealed.

    Oh well that's something. To be honest, it scares me that anyone would even consider including that. Sexual o
  • England Prevails.
  • "All states would have to pass enabling laws before the measure could come into effect. "

    Does anyone else find it ironic that local legislation is required to implement data gathering and storage, yet the EU can ramrod a CONSTITUTION down people's throats (this would be a constitution that a couple of countries have already rejected) without any similar requirement?

    Congratulations Europe, you now have a massive overweening Federal government that sucks as hard as ours. Sorry that you didn't get the constit
  • by adnonsense (826530) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @01:18PM (#21269079) Homepage Journal

    Get it here! How To Make A Bomb [how-to-make-a-bomb.eu] .

    (My personal reaction after reading earlier comments by Mr. Frattini, who's not only the EU's anti-terrorism muppet but is also responsible for "Fundamental Rights and citizenship", hahaha.)

  • This communication Stepping up the fight against terrorism [ms word] also said: [euractiv.com]

    The internet is commonly used by terrorist for propaganda communication, training, indoctrination, recruitment, and fund-raising. Certain terrorist organisations also use the Internet to plan operations and publicize claimed attacks... internet service providers now have to retain their data, as a consequence of the Data Retention Directive. The principle of availability has made its first step with the Prüm Treaty: soon, al

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @03:48PM (#21271417)
    Why should the EU copy US procedures. I've always thought that most EU countries had tighter security surrounding air travel. Even after 9/11. I've been through airports in quite a few EU countries. Their security at entry points all appear to be trained (and armed) law enforcement personnel. In the US, it still appears to be minimum wage folks running the scanners. On the other hand, the US places its 'first string' people at customs. Sort of a stupid move if you want to catch someone blowing up an airplane (its too late) but not so stupid if your real motivation is to enforce economic restrictions and collect duties.

    This proposal seems odd for the same reasons. If you want to blow up an airplane, you find people with clean records and get them on board. Once the plane goes down, 13 years of archived records won't do you a bit of good. On the other hand, if you are trying to conduct espionage for other political or economic reasons, then this kind of data makes sense.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...