Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Politics

EU May Allow US To Keep Snooping On European Bank Data 206

Posted by kdawson
from the security-one-privacy-zero dept.
zaphod2 alerts us to a storm brewing in Europe over access by US intelligence agencies to EU banking data. There is considerable opposition in Europe to extending this access. The submitter adds, "I wonder how long it takes until gambling, online games, or non-RIAA-approved music shops are considered supporters of terrorism." "US anti-terror officials want to be able to continue examining Europeans' financial transactions, and it appears likely that the European Union is going to comply. ... The US has been examining transactions handled by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transactions (SWIFT) since the 9/11 attacks... However, SWIFT, which is located in Belgium, is planning to move its servers and database — which is currently located in the US — to Europe. With data privacy laws far stricter in Europe, the US would then need permission from the EU before it could gain access to this sensitive information."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU May Allow US To Keep Snooping On European Bank Data

Comments Filter:
  • by Gravedigger3 (888675) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:23AM (#28849161)

    because it is absolutely necessary in order to fight the terrorists!! If we don't police the world then WHO WILL!?

    • by delt0r (999393) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:36AM (#28849235)
      We are Team America, &*%$ yeah!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:14AM (#28849411)

        "We are Team America..."

        There is no "we". The violence of the U.S. government has not benefited U.S. citizens. If you got in the way of the controlling groups, they would kill you, delt0r, and your family.

        "US anti-terror officials"

        The "anti-terror" is only a smokescreen. The U.S. government spends more money on surveillance and war than any country in the history of the world. That taxpayer money partly helps some people profit, for example: House of Bush, House of Saud [amazon.com], and hurts U.S. taxpayers.

        The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the 2nd world war [evergreen.edu]. Most or all of the interference was for profit. Quote: '... although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites' The dictators pay the corrupters, of course.

        U.S. citizens don't want to believe that their government is as corrupt as it is, even though the recent financial corruption has made many of them poor.

        • by marcello_dl (667940) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @06:23AM (#28849793) Homepage Journal

          Whatever the US did earlier, which is interesting in itself, something does not compute right now.
          When 9/11 attacks happened, the US let terrorists profit from the future they had subscribed in abnormal quantity. Then US come to EU monitoring our activity? Medice, cura te ipsum.
          We are monitoring ordinary citizens and let corporations make business in fiscal paradises. This is a joke.

        • by Jurily (900488)

          That taxpayer money partly helps some people profit

          What do you mean by taxpayer money [brillig.com]?

          • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @06:47AM (#28849919) Journal

            Someday U.S. taxpayers will have to pay-off that enormous debt, which is now the equivalent of $105,000 hanging over every home.

            It would be nice if our politicians would grow-up, stop acting like teenagers with credit cards, and reduce spending. But no, instead they want to saddle us with a giant Uncle Sam healthcare program that we can not afford. By the end of Obama's term, that debt will have risen to ~$150,000 per home.

            Pretty soon the entire U.S. will be like bankrupt California.

        • by Fred_A (10934)

          "We are Team America..."

          There is no "we". The violence of the U.S. government has not benefited U.S. citizens. If you got in the way of the controlling groups, they would kill you, delt0r, and your family.

          > google delt0r
          > Your search - delt0r - did not match any documents.

          Damn, too late !

          The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the 2nd world war [evergreen.edu]. Most or all of the interference was for profit. Quote: '... although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites' The dictators pay the corrupters, of course.

          Shuddup ! What's wrong with you ?

          I don't know this guy anyway. I'm not even from the US ! Honest I was just passing by ! I don't even come here that often !

          Yes officer, whatever you say... I'm on my way, no I didn't see anything, shutting up right now... if you could just get the M1's main gun pointing elsewhere.

        • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

          Dude, Woooosh etc,

          If he's quoting Team America I'd guess that you're "lecturing to the choir" so to speak.

    • Re:Its OK though (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hammer (14284) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:42AM (#28849269) Journal

      And who decides what is terrorist acts?
      I for one would not want US government to access my financial activity. Not because I am a terrorist but simply because I do not want a foreign government to breach my privacy. A court order that allows MY government agencies to snoop is OK though.
      And as the post says. how long before US considers perfectly legal and reasonable acts to be terrorist acts?? Or for that matter simple petty crime to be terrorist acts.
      Furthermore... I am not so sure I want America to police the world unrestrained. Considering that it could easily be argued that US is not democratic (remember that GWB was appointed by a court that ordered the counting of votes stopped). Considering that it is a country that kills it's citizens. Considering that it holds prisoners without due court proceedings.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well, America is all about freedom, anyway; Freedom to spy foreign citizens & businesses; freedom to bear arms; freedom of markets; freedom to initiate preemptive wars; freedom to sue and be sued over petty annoyances; freedom to lobby... Lots of freedom.

        • Re:Its OK though (Score:5, Insightful)

          by noundi (1044080) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:40AM (#28849547)
          Alas, let's not neglect freedom to torture [wikipedia.org].
        • Re:Its OK though (Score:4, Insightful)

          by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @07:03AM (#28850023) Journal

          Actually America, as conceived, is not about freedom. It's about the individual and protection of his rights from overarching, overbearing politicians sick with power. That's why these individual rights (ownership of self, right to self-protection, right to privacy, et cetera) are encoded into the U.S. and 50 State Constitutions - to block the government and keep it under control, so the individual can live a life without being hassled at every turn.

          Unfortunately in their rush to control everything like petit-dictators, the Congresscritters have decided to ignore the Supreme Laws. The phrase "shall be secure in their persons and papers" means nothing if Congress can look at your bnk account whenever they feel like it. "The two worst diseases are avarice and ambition - love of money and love of power. Leaders suffer from both." - Benjamin Franklin

      • Re:Its OK though (Score:5, Insightful)

        by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @06:54AM (#28849967) Journal

        >>>how long before US considers perfectly legal and reasonable acts to be terrorist acts??

        If we deposit $10,000 or more in an account, the government makes a note of it and investigates. One local fellow was depositing $9900, $9500, $9600 in cash in order to avoid that requirement, but a suspicious Nazi... er, teller reported him anyway because he was "close enough". Then the stormtroopers... er, FBI arrested him for trying to avoid the $10,000 legel requirement.

        This is the kind of society that the scared American people have created. "Any who would give up Essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin. All these problems would disappear if we simply enforced the Constitution as written. No warrant; no search of people or their effects (papers/bank accounts).

        • If we deposit $10,000 or more in an account, the government makes a note of it and investigates.

          In cash. You forgot that key qualifier. Not sure I've ever had $10000 in cash, myself.

          Note also that that's some of the money-laundering rules that have been in effect for decades.

          And note finally that the $10000 has been lowered. I think it's $5000 now.

        • by fractalus (322043)

          Depositing money in such a way as to avoid the $10K limit is called "structuring" and it's also illegal, IIRC.

          The government does investigate large deposits, but primarily this is so that the IRS can make sure they get paid. I've had them send me a nastygram because I made a nice large deposit and they thought I didn't report it on my taxes; I had to respond and tell them exactly how they missed it. Not really very cool, but remember the primary reason is about money. Too many people deposit $10K or more pe

      • by b4upoo (166390)

        As much as I hate it there is a certain reality to economic crimes being terroristic in nature. One way to attack a nation is to destroy its economy and activities that cause economic harm to others do just that. For example drug money can wreck havoc with local housing markets when people who have large sums of money drive the cost of housing beyond the reach of more honest citizens.
        We also have a problem with a type of citizen in rebellion that is exemplified by ghetto cr

    • Having a central government of any kind monitoring this type of thing just won't work. The best we could probably do is set up an automated system which yells BEEP! when it sees a truly suspicious transaction; then amici curiae appointed by the PEOPLE in combination with a random system to prevent infiltrators - NOT the government - are allowed access and can check the records, and indicate action may be necessary. Then, every action these people must be logged and open to public scrutiny. The servers must

    • Re:Its OK though (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daem0n1x (748565) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:52AM (#28849617)

      It's funny that they have so much vigilance, but they can't stop billions of euros illegally leaving the US and European economies towards fiscal havens where they pay no taxes and there's no accountability whatsoever. Want to fight terrorism? End the fiscal havens.

      Fiscal havens played a very important part in creating the current economical crisis. Yet, the chicken shit governments of G8 and the world financial institutions haven't done shit to end this, besides a few cosmetic tricks.

      This is like people in a small town protesting against the local brothel, but they all go there on Saturday night.

      If I don't pay my taxes, the IRS will make my life miserable, they will come to my house and take my furniture, my car, etc. But Joe the CEO can transfer his savings to the Conga Bonga Islands through book manipulation and happily wait for retirement without paying a dime in taxes. And his money can be invested in drugs or weapons, there's no way to trace it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ArsenneLupin (766289)

        Fiscal havens played a very important part in creating the current economical crisis.

        Could you explain why do you think that?

        • by daem0n1x (748565)
          You could google it, but here it goes [ft.com].
          • Ok, I see it now. The article seems to imply (between much irrelevant filler...) that some of those highly speculative hedge funds also operate in tax havens. Therefore tax havens must be responsible for the crisis.

            But did you think about the baker's involvement in the crisis? Indeed, most hedge fund managers eat bread. So let's jail all the bakers!

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by daem0n1x (748565)

              Ok, I see it now. The article seems to imply (between much irrelevant filler...) that some of those highly speculative hedge funds also operate in tax havens.

              Yeah, it's just the Financial Times and the guy is only a professor, so it must be all bullshit.

              Therefore tax havens must be responsible for the crisis.

              Bombing me with strawman arguments may seem fun, but gets old pretty fast.

              • Yeah, it's just the Financial Times

                So what? Even the Financial Times does occasionally blunder...

                and the guy is only a professor

                ... and a senior adviser to the Tax Justice Network. Hardly an impartial source.

                Therefore tax havens must be responsible for the crisis.

                Bombing me with strawman arguments may seem fun, but gets old pretty fast.

                I admin, I may have misread (or misidentified?) his argument. Indeed his article seemed rather obfuscated, making it hard to make out his actual point. If you have further insight what his real argument actually was, could you please sum it up in a few short and concise sentences for those of us who are not emeritus professor?

          • Uuh, I don't really think it lends your argument credence to support it with an opinion piece.

            And it doesn't really matter if it's the FT. The Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal, for example, is pretty much a congregation of neocon rightwing wackos.

      • by JAlexoi (1085785)
        Chicken shit!?!?!? They are "appointed" by the same people that hold their money in those tax havens.
        Chicken are the electorate, that elect people based on how beautiful their campaign is. Who think that their voice does not matter. And who think that voting for a third party is throwing their vote away.
      • It's funny that they have so much vigilance, but they can't stop billions of euros illegally leaving the US and European economies towards fiscal havens where they pay no taxes and there's no accountability whatsoever.

        Legally. The correct word is "legally", not "illegally". Just because you disapprove of something doesn't make it a crime. Any more than GWB or BO disapproving of things makes those things crimes.

        • by daem0n1x (748565)

          A lot of money goes out illegally. And yes, I disapprove it and it is indeed a crime.

          Right now, a former minister is being investigated for having bought two ghost hi-tech companies in the Bahamas for millions of euros. That was an (allegedly) illegal way to transfer a shitload of money to a fiscal haven. This is only one item in a giant money laundering case that made an investment bank go bankrupt and a few high-placed executives jailed. It involved draining the bank dry using speculative operations th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Wowsers (1151731)

      The agenda is to track everyone, politicians are colluding to make the world a worse place to live.

      Why did the EU roll over for the US over flight passenger information, and require no such data to flow back to Europe of US citizens so THEY know how it feels to be treated like a criminal on entry to a country? Why are the EU so hell bent on everyone in Europe having ID cards, there are countries like the UK that have no ID cards, but attempts to roll them out to everyone. Why are the EU so desperate to trac

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)

        Quite true. Until not so long ago, even after the year 2001, I spent about a month per year in the US. You know, visiting people, traveling around, meeting important folks I haven't seen, BlackHat LV being a corner point most of the time. I haven't been for about four years now. Instead I follow the VB con around, as long as it avoids the US.

        Reason? I don't want my laptop being searched, a collection of 0day trojans being found and, besides being questioned why those exist on there, possibly being held liab

    • by mcgrew (92797)

      The submitter adds, "I wonder how long it takes until gambling, online games, or non-RIAA-approved music shops are considered supporters of terrorism."

      I thought they already were? I especially don't understand the feds' stance on gambling; gambling is legal in many states. Here in Illinois we have horse racing, riverboat casinos, and other legal gambling (including the State lottery).

      What business is it of the feds?

    • by navygeek (1044768)
      The irony is, that is *exactly* why they'll continue to allow the US to monitor the data. Why do it themselves, then the US will do it for them, on their own dime and time, and take the 'big brother' stigma freely? "Well shit son, if you WANT to stick your head in the lion's mouth, okie dokie hoss, have at'er"
    • by Livius (318358)

      They don't care about terrorists. So why do they want other people's financial data? Hint: consider the incestuous relationship between the US government and Wall St.

  • by Tei (520358)

    There are rules on civilization, and one is privacy. Maybe it will be a good idea to let then see one bank account, If a judge able it, but not at random... that would be outlawdish!

      • Privacy is unfair
      • Private property is theft
      • Free speech is hate crime
      • The economy is George W. Bush's fault
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by freedom_india (780002)

        The economy is George W. Bush's fault

        You had me going till this.
        Tell me, do you work for Fox News?

        • by mcgrew (92797)

          The economy is George W. Bush's fault

          You had me going till this.
          Tell me, do you work for Fox News?

          Fox? Fox was squarely in Bush's corner; it's Rupert Murdoch's neocon network. The only network farther to the right is Sinclair.

  • by ami.one (897193) <amitabhr@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:26AM (#28849179)
    I think terrorism has fully achieved its objective. Majority of citizens in almost every country now face innumerable problems due to the 'anti terrorist' agenda of their governments. How worse can it be ? Success beyond Osama's wildest dreams !
    • by SoVeryTired (967875) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @06:09AM (#28849717)

      You know, the whole point behind those attacks was not to destroy the West, or wipe us off the map, or any of that rubbish.

      The main demands the Al Quaida originally made were that US forces withdraw from Saudi Arabia, and for Palestine to be recognised and given equal support to Israel. That was before every fundamentalist nutjob in Islam was invoking the name Al Quaida though ( PDF here [fas.org], for reference).

      I'm sorry to say, no matter what the media would have you believe, these guys aren't SPECTRE. They just want to be left alone. Throw rocks at a wasps' nest, and what do you expect to happen?

      • You make it sound like they were all reasonable before and now the US stuck its nose in the whole thing's gone tits up.
        What they say they want - the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and an Islamic caliphate - might have been achievable, eventually, through the political / religious process - tough going, but like for all us suckers eventually doable if enough people liked the idea; but they don't - maybe because their requirement would lead to total isolation of Islamic countries and effectively

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SoVeryTired (967875)

          My intention was not to make them sound reasonable, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was just trying to point out that in this situation, as in so many other things, there's no clearly defined good or evil. They're not trying to reign down destruction on our heads because of our decadent Western ways. But that's the sense you pick up from so many news reports and editorials.

          The GP had an element of that and I guess that's what I was objecting to.

          • Yeah, I get you. But you know there's Politics and there's Us and blowing up Us is a shitty thing to do whoever you are.

    • Majority of citizens in almost every country now face innumerable problems due to the 'anti terrorist' agenda of their governments.

      Hate to break it to you, but the "majority of citizens" don't even notice the "anti terrorist agenda".

      Sure, a lot of people are inconvenienced when they get on airplanes. But that's not most of us - I've been on a plane maybe a dozen times in this century, my wife maybe twice, my daughter maybe once. My parents? Zero. My brothers and their wives? Zero. Ants, Uncles, Cousi

  • by tacarat (696339) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:29AM (#28849197) Journal
    ... but those other people? We'll spy on them like crazy to protect your rights. Terrorists and all that, you know? Oh, we may or may not be letting them spy on you. And don't ask if we'll be swapping notes with them behind closed doors. Only terrorist lovers ask questions like that.
    • by rolfwind (528248) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:53AM (#28849319)

      We protect the rights of our citizens...

      No we don't.

      FISA - Wiretapping. No longer was probable cause criminal wrongdoing suspicion, had to show special court that person was maybe foreign agent. Originally made so that evidence collected was not used in criminal prosecutions.
      Right to Financial Privacy Act (1978) - Transfers the ownership of financial records from person to the bank.
      National Security Letter (1978) - Self-written search warrant (no judge). Allows government to go to financial institutions, ie bank to get the records the bank now "owns". Also put a gag order on bank from telling you (although that was overturned in Doe vs Ashcroft in 2008). May have been circumvented by now (shrugs). Carter ordered it may not be used in criminal prosecution.
      US Patriot Act - Changes definition of Financial Institution to include Post Office, your lawyer, your doctor, etc. Anybody served a national security letter put under gag order.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Financial_Privacy_Act [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act [wikipedia.org]

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2659761702659115038&ei=tMZuSp_4CJXnlQffprFu&q=napolitano&hl=en [google.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PastaLover (704500)

      Ehm, doesn't SWIFT process international transactions by americans as well?

    • by rve (4436)

      The US already has access to all banking data in the EU by means of electronic espionage. It might be for the EU to formalize the transfer of private information to the US, so that they will at least be informed when the US makes use of it, rather than having them simply take the information without asking.

      • by AHuxley (892839)
        Yes the NSA had all this from day one, as they would had had connection rights/taps/system details to the data streams in the EU.
        They could never act on it in any direct legal way.
        Just pass it to the CIA or other teams to 'sort' out.
        Nothing changes, just as a US citizen, be very careful with the use of cash in the EU.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:39AM (#28849249)

    The sad thing is, things that invade our privacy and violate our basic rights are passed in a non-democratic way. The part of the EU government that is actually elected by the people, has absolutely no say in these matters. They are outraged but powerless.

    The EU is a "great" tool for oppression and more powerful governments. Basically everything that no national government would be able to put into a law, can be done in the EU. There is no such a thing as this annoying democratic process.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      The part of the EU government that is actually elected by the people, has absolutely no say in these matters.

      Yes, and isn't it ironic that the European Constitution, rejected by so many of the Europeans, was about to change that? (Linky [bbc.co.uk])

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lordholm (649770)

      You are partly right. But as soon as anyone tries to give the EP more power at the cost of the Council, the same people who scream about the "democratic deficit" start screaming about federalism (technically, I suppose this is correct, as a stronger EP will be at the cost of the member states, and thus federalism).

      I do sincerely now hope that the Lisbon treaty will be ratified by the Irish, since it will give more say to the EP, maybe the EP will be able to stop this if the ratification is done.

    • by tronicum (617382) * on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:36AM (#28849525)
      You are true about the current situation. There is a sign for hope though, if the Treaty of Lisbon [wikipedia.org] will be accepted by Ireland et al, EP will have the power to rule on security matters, too. It is a shame though that we just elected an parlament which voted against this snoop hole, which is ignored by the EU commision (that actually has the EU power at the moment).
    • Calling the council totalitarian is hyperbole. As you are well aware, it's a body recruited from the EU national governments. All EU governments are democratically elected. However, the council has legislative powers, even though it's designated by the executive -- that's a breach of the seperation of powers, which is very significant in and out of itself, but it's not totalitarian.

      That said, I'm not so sure the parliamant would/will do a lot better if/when it gets more power -- I dislike what the council d

    • It's also a great tool for national governments to sign unpopular laws into existance. WE didn't want to do that, no way, but you know, we cannot help it, the EU makes us do it and we were overruled.

      They can easily claim that, the votes in the Council of Ministers where those decisions are made are not public. Strangely, everyone was against it but all the others voted for it...

      Can you tell why the general popularity of the EU is in sharp decline within the member countries? Scapegoats are never popular.

  • Why is it that when Stuart Levey, head of the division of the Treasury Department dealing with cutting off funds to terrorist organizations, freezing assets, stopping forgery and counterfeiting, etc., was re-appointed by Obama, SWIFT suddenly became a good thing, whereas before in 2006 I saw it vilified as much as the warrantless wiretapping?
  • There is tons of talk like this [wsj.com] about swiss banks forcing US clients out. I guess the they're caving under pressure.
    What I'm curious about are other tax havens people have been using in recent times above and beyond swiss banks...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yup - most offshore jurisdictions currently shun US citizens due to their rulers tendency to demand full access, and control of their subjects assets. Offshore jurisdictions only deal with customers from authoritarian regimes if they happen to be relatively powerless on the world stage.

      I regard the latest developments as merely a marketing push by the US of their offshore jurisdiction - Delaware - and a way to use political might in order to squash competition within the finance segment.
      Delaware is one of t

  • The only music shops in Europe are non-RIAA-approved ones. The organisation does not exist in Europe, even (AFAIK) in the popular new Lawsuit Flavour that the Russians got a preview of.

  • and it appears likely that the European Union is going to comply

    The word "comply" misleadingly suggests that the EU is somehow subordinated to the US. The correct word is allow (not comply).

    • Re:Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SeaFox (739806) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:24AM (#28849459)

      They're letting another country snoop on their citizen's financial transactions. Sounds like they're being subordinated to me.

      • And this is why I'm too ashamed to travel abroad.

      • by trifish (826353)

        It may "sound like" they are subordinated, if the reader is misinformed or uneducated. That's the point and that's why it's misleading. These agreements have usually mutual benefits. For allowing them to access these international banking data, the EU will get something in return.

        • by SeaFox (739806)

          The trust of the people who put you in power is something not worth trading away.

          • You're quite obviously not a politician. Else you'd append "cheaply".

          • by trifish (826353)

            If someone from the EU stole money from your US bank account and transferred them to or via a bank in the EU, you would LOVE the EU to help the US police trace where the money went, right? And vice versa.

            Then, suddenly, it would probably be all OK and your "trust" bs would silently disappear.

            The fact that laws are enforceable is what distinguishes the US and EU from the countries of the third world. It's things like these that make that possible.

      • by selven (1556643)
        I'm willing to bet it's most likely a reciprocal deal (you spy on my citizens, I'll spy on yours, we can both claim we're not spying on our own citizens), not subordination.
  • Public Anti-Terror campaigns, everybody accusing everybody else, political trials etc.

    At least with that shit Americans at some point realized how horrible it is. Right now the headless chicken is still going strong.
  • At best, EU sees its' mandate as protecting its' citizens rights. Not in protecting anyone else, least of all outsiders who [horrors!] are violating their country's [already generous] tax laws.
  • When the beep will the EU decide that it's had enough of this nonsense and just say NO? No wonder nobody votes in European elections. I thought after Bush we would not be the US's lapdog anymore but to my surprise and horror we still are not allowed to take more than 100 ml of fluid in our hand luggage, even in pan-european flights, and we have to put up with these ridiculous transparent plastic bags, and now this. Please please Brusseles, or Strassburg, give those Americans the finger and Just Say No!

  • by PinchDuck (199974) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @07:42AM (#28850363)

    I will give President Change-you-can-believe-in some points for consistency. He voted to keep FISA in place, and loved the warrantless wiretaps. Mr. Obama speaks better than Bush, comes across as less abrasive, and seems to care more about the common man. Where it counts, however, he is still a power-freak who wants access to as much of your data as he can, just like Bush. All politicians suck.

  • The submitter adds, "I wonder how long it takes until gambling, online games, or non-RIAA-approved music shops are considered supporters of terrorism."

    You're late, the RIAA and their shills have been saying that one for years. When I go home tonight I think I'll go home and download some DRM-free music just to annoy them more.

  • The matter is more specific than the article leads to believe. SWIFT is not actually 'moving' it's servers, rather it is adding new servers in Europe. Creating one TransAtlantic zone for messages allowed to reach the US and one Europe zone for messages not allowed to reach the US. The 'National Member Group Chairperson' of each country has specified in which of these zones their traffic should be traveling in, so with some exceptions each country has their own choice. Soon every country which has chosen
  • Fuck no! (Score:3, Informative)

    by JAlexoi (1085785) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @08:39AM (#28851055) Homepage
    They would need approvals of each and every one of EU's member states. Or at least the one that has the servers physically located.
    In the latter case, most EU's banks would not be allowed to transfer any personal information to that country, until explicitly permitted by the person. Europeans are very careful about legal protection of their personal information.
    I personally, had to sign a release for my employer, allowing my name and last name to be entered in the central employee database in US.

A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love"

Working...