Slashdot Log In
EU Court Blocks Passenger Data Deal with U.S.
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 30, 2006 08:36 AM
from the not-so-fast-cowboy dept.
from the not-so-fast-cowboy dept.
Reinier writes "The BBC reports that the European Court of Justice has ruled the airline data agreement with the United States is illegal. The 'agreement' required airlines to share 34 items of personal data of their passengers with American authorities at least fifteen minutes before take-off of any flight to the US. The Court of Justice examined the agreement after the European Parliament objected. A PDF of the ruling is available online."
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. to Gain Access to EU Retained Data 323 comments
shenanigans writes "After the EU recently ratified controversial data retention laws for ISPs and other telecommunication companies, it now looks like the US government will get full access to the data. From the article: 'US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected'. Apparently, the US has been calling members of the EU to 'ensure that the data collected [...] be accessible to them'."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
So, has anyone ever ... (Score:5, Funny)
For example: "Must have pasta." ... muhahah.
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:5, Funny)
Mustafa Pasta?
Red Flag! Red Flag!
This whole data-collection nonsense ... (Score:5, Funny)
At least all the relatives still acted surprised when we told them the name.
Re:This whole data-collection nonsense ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:3, Funny)
I tried that once but I was detained and I missed my flight. I guess I shouldn't have requested halhal.
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, just curious since I don't know, but what is the difference between Kosher and Halal (sp?). I thou
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Islam preaches about moderation. Anything in abundance is bad, including prayer if it interfers with the general principles of being a good Muslim (e.g. prayer to the exclusion of being an active member of society or devotion to the point of obsession).
Though I have seen passages from the Qu'ran stating that alcohol (or "intoxicants" or "fermented fruits") are banned, I strongly question that stance. Many of these passages, as with other religion documents around the world, are taken out of context and/or questionably translated.
Islam does not contain many absolutes in its philosophy (don't confuse philosophy with practice and culture)...it is a religion of reason and its primary messages are of love, peace, family, society and living a life of moderation.
Yes, you can find many (MANY) webpages stating that there are fundamental truths in Islam and its practice including the "Haram" of alcohol...and I can find a number of sites that state that women have no voice, that "infidels" are anyone who disagrees with some sect's interpretations, yada-yada-yada.
At its root, Islam asks that each individual Muslim question for themselves the essence of their faith and the meaning of its philosophy. Blindly accepting rules and "facts" set out by others does not make one a "good Muslim".
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:5, Informative)
Halal is apparently similar, but less strict on the number of "inherently un-Halal" items (for instance, I believe Muslims can eat shellfish). I'm no expert, but I've been told that kosher is a subset of Halal - so Muslims who can't find Halal food can rely on kosher certification in a pinch. I don't think they're supposed to do that as the first option, though, which is understandable (after all, their own authorities should be the one making the call).
You can get foods which are both kosher and Halal - for instance, the My Own Meals brand (they do instant meals and MRE-esque stuff) has a good kosher certification, and at least some sort of Halal certification.
only lesbians are OK! :) (Score:4, Funny)
Note that while this forbids gay men from having sex with each other, it also (read strictly) excludes heterosexual women from having sex with men! And as for the heterosexual men, well, surely leading the heterosexual women into sin is itself a sin! Thus, the only blessed, bible-certified-and-approved form of sex is lesbian sex!
Directive & Articles (Score:5, Informative)
Article 25 of the EU Directive [cdt.org] can be found on a number of sites and states that non-member countries may be provided with member data in the case of need. It's quite vague (standard law-talkin' guys strategy) so I could see it being read either way--entirely open ended!
Re:Directive & Articles (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Directive & Articles (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a big difference between US and EU laws. In both organisms state reserves the oversight of contracts between private citizens and corporations. But while in US government backs away from such oversight in any matter that any wacko might label "anti-business", in EU there are lots of laws, that state that some provisions in them cannot be discarded by contracts, and items of contracts contradicting such provisions are illegal and void.
I actually like my state protecting me from monopolies/cartels.
Robert
Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Note how the US played the "Terrorism" card, and the courts didn't immediately fold.
You may wish to send this news item to your Attorney General.
Or you may wish to remain asleep.
Whatevers good with you.
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
My fellow Americans are definitely asleep. They spout off about how "moral" they are, and then allow torture. They support war crimes. They support public bribery of every public official. They allow their elections to be rigged with wild abandon. And, through their ignorance and abject greed they are quite willing to kill off the rest of the world with their environmental stupidity.
Europe is my only remaining hope. Bring it on! Please! In all fairness, you should just let us drown in our own effluent, but it really is a small and interconnected world. It is in your best interest, as well as ours, for you to "bitch slap" the hell out of us, and preferrably soon.
BillyDoc
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a fact. This is compleatly untrue. There have been active terrorists in the world, constantly for the last 100 years.
I work no more than 1 mile from the last IRA attempt, as far as I can see it did us a lot more good than harm, but that's another matter.
Please don't say that just because they are after you now, the world is "more dangerous" maybe your part of it is, but overall, it's ticking along as normal.
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays, the thing most likely to kill you is not bandits or the plague or maurading Huns, but rather is your own gluttony! And yet our entire country gets bent out of shape just beacuse a few thousand people happened to die in the same incident. Honestly, it isn't that big a problem!
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
To a comfortable (and therefore apathetic) populace, such a system is inevitable. The market demands infotainment, and debating extremists are much more entertaining than moderate discussions.
An excuse not to let the French into the US now. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An excuse not to let the French into the US now (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An excuse not to let the French into the US now (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this and other measures are totally useless and inefficient to deter terrorists. The 9/11 hijackers had perfectly valid travel papers and would have been most likely granted entry even had these rules been in place. Building fences isn't going to do much, I'd rather suggest solving the problem at the source - US involvement in the Middle East.
Big help (Score:5, Insightful)
But better late than never. I always though the implementation of the treaty should have been postponed until this ruling.
Re:Big help (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Big help (Score:5, Insightful)
These rights are more to prevent the gouvernement to sell this data to the next direct marketeer, which will use it to make personalised adds along the road you drive every morning, or to have pharmacies sell your drug purchase history to your employer.
Re:Big help (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, do you seriously believe that in the US, there won't be widespread tracking of license plates? It will likely be carried out by some company, who
Sounds like it was more a concern about protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Which raises the question as to what specifically the EU courts find lacking in US data security. Perhaps there are too few checks and balances with regard to who gets access to passenger data?
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the main problem of the database-war between the USA and the EU is, that the EU guarantee to its citizens certain rights concerning their data, like not having it transferred to third parties, the right to review the data about oneself and some limited rights to have the data erased. To prevent clever corporations to circumvent those regulations by shipping the data outside the EU, there's a directive that personal data can only be shipped to countries, that have similar data-protection rights (so called safe havens). As you can imagine, the USA isn't really too interested in giving its own citizens data protection rights from corporations and the gouvernement and even less on granting those rights to foreigners. Thus, no data transfer of personal data of EU-citizens to the USA.
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:4, Insightful)
[sarcasm] Oh, great! So if I don't want my government to spy on me I can move to the US! That's wonderful.[/sarcasm}
It's the most ridiculous thing I heard all day.
Oh, and another ting: Why do you trust random corporations more than your government?!?! At least with the goverment you have a say in who makes the decisions, and you can punish them if they screw up.
This is of course just a realization that the US isn't as democratic as they like to pretend, as evidenced by the low voter turnouts at elections.
Go ahead and mod me down! But please stop and think if this troll might be making just a little bit of sense before you hit the moderate button.
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that sums it up quite well. And given the choice, trusting the gouvernement seems more reasonable, as they already have certain monopols (law making, law enforcement, military power). So if your gouvernement becomes corrupt to a point that even basic trust isn't justified any more, your personal data will be your least concern. Another feature of gouvernements is that it keeps the level of corruption rather equal across the branches. So if you still have a few branches you trust, there's a good chance you can trust the other branches as much.
On the other side you have the private sector, where every corporation does as it thinks it can get away with. If one oversteps the boundary, they'll declare bankrupt and the same people start another corporation with a different name and the same game. Self-regulation has been proven many times in the past not to work, a very popular example for this is boiler safety in the UK and US in the late 1800s. If the major concern is the protection of weak individuals against corporations, asking the industry to play fair and nice is naïve, if so much money can be made by not playing nice. Also corporations will have a hard time being more trustworthy than the gouvernement, which can threaten the people working in the corporation. Never underestimate the persuavie power of free roaming death-squads.
To balance things out, the private sector works far better if the goal is effiency to deliver products and services. So if you want cheap and efficient data protection, go to the private sector, if you want trustworthy data protection, stay with the gouvernement.
Americans are doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the otherhand, it's good to see that the EU is flexing some muscle. Bush I believe will say..."they have some backbone..."
Re:I see no backbone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I see no backbone (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe thats called "the right of self-determination". Your grandfather probably helped fight for it in World War 2, only for you to belittle it.
Yes, my grandfather was in France in WWII, and fought for France's right of self-determination, and he'd be one of the first to belittle some of the things they've chosen to do with that right.
Similarly, I believe deeply in the democratic process, but that doesn't mean that I automatically approve of every action taken by every democratic government.
Re:I see no backbone (Score:3, Insightful)
ZOMG, an elected government listened to unhappy voters!
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is going to be a sticky mess since the rule of law isn't being respected in the US now and US attitudes towards foreign courts has always been "screw you, mate!"
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't sign the document? You don't get on the flight.
Result: terrorists fly to mexico and walk into the US.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's highly unlikely. Firstly, Canada would be a better choice to do that. Secondly, there are a dozen easier ways. Sail in on a private charter, cargo ship, or a cruise with false tourist visas. Similar tricks can be done with air traffic to smaller airports. The walk from Mexico is through a desert and the end is guarded by rednecks with dogs & guns. Tough choice...
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully, the US will back down. If not... this could turn out to be nasty. There've been a couple of trade wars with the US in recent years - recall the dispute over bananas, and then over steel - but this one would be a whole lot bigger. Banning flights? Brussels would retaliate hard.
Realistically, though, the US customs will just start demanding the information directly from the passenger on arrival, rather than getting it from the airline. It would be a big hassle, and would leave Europeans with an even worse impression of Americans than they already have, but at least it wouldn't spark off another trade war costing billions.
financial aid? (Score:5, Informative)
So, the US has some credible economic threats against Europe, but withdrawal of "financial aid" isn't it. The US threat is more like "we can commit economic suicide and take you with us"; it's a threat better exercised with great care.
A victory for terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Difficult position for airlines (Score:5, Interesting)
"And if we do supply the data, potentially we're breaking the law [on data protection]."
So what are their options? Are the airlines going to have to completely suspend flights to the United States if neither side backs down?
(Not that this possibility isn't intriguing, but I certainly wouldn't want to have to be a manager in one the major European carriers for the next few months).
Visas? (Score:4, Interesting)
And could they turn away a plane carrying somebody without a visa?
In general EU citizens get their visas in customs, after having landed in the US, and US citizens get the same treatment in the EU. That's always struck me as odd, actually; what if they refuse you a visa? You've flown all that way for nothing?
I wonder if they need to move the visa procedures back closer to the country of origin. That would probably be a massive regulatory hassle. And it would sure make relations between the US and the EU seem chillier.
Re:Visas? (Score:5, Informative)
And yes, the US - like every other country - can deny anyone entry even if they have a visa. That's one of the risks of international travel.
The point however is that these regulations aren't to prevent terrorists entering the US through an airport, they're to prevent them entering through a skyscraper (think 9/11) so collecting the personal info on the ground after they land is too late.
I'm not saying I think they're effective - obviously not, they're dumb like most of the recent security measures - but the whole point is to know about the incoming passengers before they hit US airspace.
What if the shoe were on the other foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
How to stamp out international tourism in 1 easy step.
What the USA is asking won't stop terrorists from getting on board planes. Not for a second. All it has the potential to do is flag innocent people.
Re:What if the shoe were on the other foot? (Score:5, Funny)
At least I think that's what he said. I understand that to show his support for legal immigration, President Bush often pretends to struggle with the pronounciation of simple English words.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sharing info BAD.
Logging all internet traffic(EU data retention acts) GOOD.
Huh?
Re:what are those 34 items? (Score:5, Informative)
1. PNR record locator code
2. Date of reservation
3. Date(s) of intended travel
4. Name
5. Other names on PNR
6. Address
7. All forms of payment information
8. Billing address
9. Contact telephone numbers
10. All travel itinerary for specific PNR
11. Frequent flyer information (limited to miles flown and address(es))
12. Travel agency
13. Travel agent
14. Code share PNR information
15. Travel status of passenger
16. Split/Divided PNR information
17. Email address
18. Ticketing field information
19. General remarks
20. Ticket number
21. Seat number
22. Date of ticket issuance
23. No show history
24. Bag tag numbers
25. Go show information
26. OSI information
27. SSI/SSR information
28. Received from information
29. All historical changes to the PNR
30. Number of travelers on PNR
31. Seat information
32. One-way tickets
33. Any collected APIS information
34. ATFQ fields
Re:what are those 34 items? (Score:4, Informative)
26. OSI information Other Supplemantary Information which does "not require action or a reply by the carrier. They are low-priority messages and are usually used for information purpose only."
27. SSI/SSR information Special Service Request
"Use SSR messages when you require an action or a reply to your request for these service items:
This obviously can include Credit Card and other information relating to connecting flights or to other passengers not even travelling to the USA.
Passport information is not mandatory for travel agents to demand, but it is often included.
So much for the exclusion of meal requests from the initial list of 39...
33. Any collected APIS information - Advanced Passenger Information System
- "passenger manifests" including name, nationality, passport number, date of birth, etc. - why are they duplicating data on two systems ?
34. ATFQ fields Automatic Ticket Fare Quote i.e. the price of the ticket and could be commercially sensitive
The SABRE system (and probably the other CRS systems) seems to have other hidden free text fields in the Passenger Name Record, which can be hidden from other airlines etc, but which are, presumably available to the US Deptment of Homeland Security
it did happen in my country... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I have a problem with this.
Remember, the hijackers in 2001 were all in the country legally. We had all the info on them we needed, either it just didn't add up or we failed to act upon it.
There's no way I'm surrendering my email address (amongst other things) to fly.