EU Wants Air Passenger Data Collected 151
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.
Cut to the chase (Score:4, Insightful)
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]
Hate speech and bomb-making instructions? (Score:2, Insightful)
I Can See This Leading to Trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also not sure how collecting data on all passengers will help them with the small minority they want to track.
Re:Damnit! (Score:2, Insightful)
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, 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...
Welcome to the USSR (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
I cringe at the though of hate speech (Score:3, Insightful)
An convenient excuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I cringe at the though of hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I Can See This Leading to Trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
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>
You are not getting it because (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:hmm. (Score:1, Insightful)
Bread and circuses people.
Re:Hate speech and bomb-making instructions? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 detention of Al-Jazeera's Sudanese cameraman, Sami Al-Haj, since 13 June 2002 at the military base of Guantanamo and the murder of Chauncey Bailey in Oakland in August mean the United States is still unable to join the lead group."
anyway, just screaming "Our laws are better!" just doesn't say much about the actual state of freedom of speech in a country. I bet there are dictatorships that have even nicer looking laws about freedom of speech.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.