Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government News Your Rights Online

US To Get EU Private Citizen Data 290

Posted by CowboyNeal
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US To Get EU Private Citizen Data

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sumdumass (711423)

            Lol.. "I don't agree" != "troll". Let me translate that, Not agreeing with something doesn't make it a troll.

            If you disagree with the premise, then state it. Labeling it troll only causes me to respond like this which will have others view the the comment for perspective. Then on meta moderation, the troll mod will likely be removed which means you done no damage. Use your brain people, Words are far more powerful then arbitrary moderations.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by h4rm0ny (722443)

        I understand why you feel the way you do, but I disagree. The Us vs. Them is not Europeans vs. US citizens, it is both sets of citizens against both sets of authorities. Two natural allies (the citizens of both countries) selling each other out to their respective governments is a sad thing. Best thing to do is keep the US as the extremist in as many areas such as this as possible. Don't give them the benefit of justifying it further.
    • European governments keep more detailed information about people who are in EU countries, so they need to get less information when you enter.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Zemran (3101)

      So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

      Why would they want it? So the US wants to horde lots of personal data that serves no other purpose other than to violate basic human rights, why should any one else want to be as stupid? It will waste money keeping and attempting to process this data to no worthwhile end except the jobs that it will create for the friends of those that pass these stupid laws.

      It makes us all feel warm and fuzzy at night, knowing tha

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sumdumass (711423)

        Because if they didn't, it was going to become a situation where passengers and planes couldn't land in the US or even fly through US airspace unless the information was taken and passed on. A visiter from the EU would have to take a flight to a country that does the fingerprinting and then fly into the US. Evidently, there is or was enough people in the EU who saw this as a problem and the rules were changed. For people not going to or through the US, this doesn't effect them so their opinions sort of matt

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Archtech (159117)

      So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

      When it wants to get bombed.

  • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Leaders maybe... But we sure as hell didn't get to vote for any of the European Parliament. They're not democratically elected.
      • Sig reply (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jonaskoelker (922170) <jonaskoelker&gnu,org> on Saturday June 28, 2008 @12:00PM (#23982491) Homepage

        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.

      • American leaders, EU leaders... all serving at the mandate of vast numbers of people utterly petrified at the thought of ethnic stereotypes lurking around every corner, waiting to launch unspeakable horrors.

        The majority has spoken. Congratulations.

      • Yeah, we could have voted differently.

        The US ain't the only country where the "I voted for Kodos" meme applies. It's not like calling any other party to the helm would have changed a thing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rwxrwx (1310115)

        Hey, it's your leaders that are agreeing to this shit. Put the blame on their shoulders ... they could have said "no".

        If you had any idea as to how the EU Officials get into office you wouldnt have posted that half ass comment.

        Most European citizens do not even get to vote for country officials or representatives. Most EU Officials or governing body positions are appointed positions, from either voted politicians , or other appointed politicians.

        In some EU Countries citizens are not even allowed to vote on most EU policies and laws.

  • Fabulous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Instine (963303) on Saturday June 28, 2008 @10:44AM (#23981523)
    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.

      • by intx13 (808988)

        I wouldn't say that. The "terrorists" don't really get much out of this (whoever they are) - this is just going to create more identity theft problems for our European neighbors.

        It's stupid, yes, and it's invariably going to create a whole host of headaches, and I have no idea why any EU official would possibly think this is a good thing... but this is typical government nonsense, not terrorism.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417)

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          and I have no idea why any EU official would possibly think this is a good thing..

          deals. its all about closed-door deals. you scratch my back and I'll tattle on your neighbor.

          follow the money, as they say. or the motivation. its about 'making an offer you can't refuse. I honestly do believe that. when the US comes knocking, you CANNOT say no. and that's a goddamn SCARY thought, albeit a true one.

          why do you think the riaa/mpaa have so much international power? they're a US entity, afterall. but when

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And so have shady politicians and the war profiteers.
    • 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.

      • And that's what bothers me about this practice to no end.

        First, they issue the EU guideline (read: something you have to make a law in your country), then they come and say they're so awefully sorry that they have to implement that, but the EU forces them.

        Who the fuck made that guideline in the first place?

        If there is anyone to blame for the EU to have a bad name and getting people irate over its "senseless" guidelines, it's the member countries ruling parties that abuse the EU as a scapegoat for unpopular

      • Re:Fabulous (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Richard W.M. Jones (591125) <rich@anne[ ].org ['xia' in gap]> 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?
    • by WK2 (1072560)

      No, but they'll happily give your governments our private citizen data. You'll have to pay more for it, though, since there's more of us.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)
      That would never happen as it is against EU privacy laws. And in the EU, the rule of law is pretty much respected. Unfortunately it seems less and less so on the other side of the pond. Especially when "terrorism" enters the argument.
    • by HalAtWork (926717)
      But the president has enough power to pardon and influence their way out of any trouble their information lands them in. They also can spread disinformation campaigns... and in the case of Bush, looks like he can just ignore a problem, even ignore his own illegal actions and other politicians will follow, and the citizens and media will just take it.
  • Is there a copy of TFA anywhere that does not require registration?
  • 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 game kid (805301)

      Don't worry.

      We can quickly destroy the evidence (and the forum servers, and you too, you traitorous alien of America) with our unmanned drones and shredders. No hassles for you!

      --The White House

    • by Znork (31774)

      I doubt it.

      Now, if you have a name like some suspect, or look like some other suspect, or if they need a scapegoat, that's another thing. If they can get the profiles in advance, it's much easier to pick the appropriate scapegoats, and they can even be waiting for them on arrival. Nothing personal, but the government needs to be looking like it's doing something.

      Of course, you'd know if you were guilty of being an reasonable scapegoat, right?

      I said goodbye to the US last time I was there. The country's just

      • by damburger (981828)
        I've already got to fill in some homeland security forms just to be let off the plane. It is a very intimidating environment for a visitor, and I am going to be concerned that MI5 is going to casually pass my name as a possible subversive to them, and suddenly I'm classed as a threat.
    • 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 .. :)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Reziac (43301) *

        The difference is that the spectre of Communism generally aided us in preserving our freedoms (at least once we got past the McCarthy scare), by providing a well-defined example of what we DON'T want to be like.

        The current nebulous "terrorism" bogeyman is not sufficiently defined to use as a bad example. Apparently this means we need to make our own bad example, so we know exactly what to look for should such a bogeyman actually appear.

    • by n dot l (1099033)

      Meh. You could be saying all sorts of good things about the US and they'd hassle you. If the list of random evil people's names doesn't get you, the poor, uneducated morons on a power trip that run airport security will (imagine Heathrow, only worse). That's just the nature of travelling to (and within?) the USA these days, and likely will remain so until some future president declares victory on terror and gets around to the next big issue (like, say, fixing their economy).

  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      They generally seem to [wired.com] not like it [cato.org]. But ten to one if someone consistently delivered this kind of retribution against privacy-violating politicians, they'd find themselves in jail, because that's one of those things they'll make sure is written into the law: they can do it, but you can't. Since we're all "working together to end terrorism" now, anybody actively opposing such good-willed spying will be classified as a terrorist and silenced in one way or another.

      By Odin's beard, I sure am cynical today.

    • In Austria, someone already does it [platterwatch.at].

      Though they have to find a new target now, he's no longer the Interior Minister. At least they can surrender their spot when they get fed up with being under constant surveillance.

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

    Did the editors just allow the entire thread to be trolled?

  • the US wants to become the global police?

    This could be made into a great cartoon, no wait ...

    -------------

    The Jewish Dilemma - Free Pork

  • 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)
    • by Adambomb (118938)

      However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening"

      The point of recent actions isn't to rule an increasingly larger part of the world. If that was the agenda, they've accomplished the exact opposite in terms of global influence.

      In fact if that is really your concern, you should be grinning like a maniac at how much LESS influence the US has since the clinton or bush sr eras.

      There's concerns to be had, but i do not consider this to be one of them at this time. They can influence europe less than before, even less so for russia or india, and even less if not

  • 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 causality (777677)

      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.

      You say that as though you doubt the inevitability of it. My bet is that they're already doing this in a clandestine way and are seeking to retroactively legitimize i

      • I don't presume to know the "evitability" of it. I was simply toning down the sensationalism of the headline. Of course this will make it easier in the future for the EU to transfer information to the US and concerned EU citizens should be worried over this fact. But to state that the EU has decided to hand over private information and that some sort of agreement has been reached to permit this is misleading.
      • It seems obvious to me that our news services are compromised .

        It seems obvious to me that our news services are merged and owned by a select ruling class.

        there, FTFY.

        if you read it in the news, its likely more for ENTERTAINMENT (or control) purposes than actual information dissemination.

    • 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)

        by Aaron England (681534)
        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)

          by Simon (S2) (600188)

          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

        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          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.

          Does anyone expect anything other than the EU capitulating to American demands?
          I only ask because I can't see that America will ever agree to abide by European Union privacy standards.

          The ultimate question is can the EU (legally or politically) sign away their citizens rights to privacy through a treaty?

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

      My understanding of it is: that the US is going to monitor all activity on it's residents and will hand such information over to the US, without warrant or evidence of criminal or 'terrorist' activity. And we can't even sue you guys if you lose the data. Given the lack of controls over governmental abuse in your country, shouldn't we be monitoring you. And just because you guys want to turn this place into the
  • 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.slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday June 28, 2008 @11:15AM (#23981891) Journal

    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.

    • I ain't a EU citizen, I'm a resident of the United Kingdom and a loyal subject of her Mag, don't need anyone monitoring me for subversive activity. I can remember when they told us the EEC was about a Common economic Market and was never about some United States of Europe. But I guess that was another heap of baloney, like the promise that they'll protect out privacy. Remember these are the same people that bugged the UN, or are we supposed to not remember that.
      • I'm a resident of the United Kingdom and a loyal subject of her Mag, don't need anyone monitoring me for subversive activity.

        so, you never leave home and avoid ALL the closed circuit TV cameras that the UK is so good at?

        if anything, people in the UK are far far worse off then anything the US can and will do. when I get depressed about how bad things are in the US, at least I can say I don't live in the UK - aka, the nanny state!

        your society has crashed and the cameras are just insult added to injury. our

      • by Alphager (957739)

        But I guess that was another heap of baloney, like the promise that they'll protect out privacy.

        Said the citizen after passing roughly 300 CCTVs on his way to the interview booth.

    • 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.

      dream on. power is addictive. which government does NOT enjoy power?

      the terrorists have ruined us, truly. what a shame. I'm old enough to remember when privacy EXISTED. pity my future kids won't have a shred of info (other than what they read in history books) about what true individual dignity and privacy is all about.

      horse has left the barn, never to return. RIP.

    • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday June 28, 2008 @12:46PM (#23983023)

      Re-elected? They don't even have to be elected. It's one of the most disgraceful and anti-democratic constructs in the EU.

  • Have a problem that costs a lot to solve - for very little apparent gain?

    Find some other country/organisation that has an interest in the outcome and let them do it for you.

    Strictly speaking, the phrase for this is "having an axe to grind[1]", although the meaning of this phrase is frequently mutated into ranting on about something.

    [1] Having an axe to grind: a task you want performed, but don't fancy doing yourself. Persuade, deceive or con some other person into doing it for you.

    • [1] Having an axe to grind: a task you want performed, but don't fancy doing yourself. Persuade, deceive or con some other person into doing it for you.

      If you meant this ironically (and my irony-o-meter is off) then you can stop reading now. Otherwise, I think you have the definition incorrect.

      From: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/174000.html [phrases.org.uk]

      "Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive/ to have private ends to serve."

  • 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.

  • Does this mean that everyone in the European Union is a potential opponent of the USA, moms apple pie and all things goodness and niceness. If so, whatever would turn them against the worlds greatest democracy. I mean it's the place everyone wants to go to, isn't it, apart from me that is .. :)
  • 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).

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...