EU Overturns Agreement With US On Banking Data 214
Following the lead of the civil liberties committee which last week recommended dropping it (against the wishes of the US), qmaqdk writes "The EU parliament overturned the previous agreement with the US which allowed US intelligence agencies to access EU banking data."
Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for them, way to grow a spine, Europe! Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Insightful)
But they're on the same side, and they get their buddies into plum jobs - just look at how good Henry Paulson was for them. Why would American banks argue with the American government? Everyone would benefit more if they just agreed to scratch each others' backs. (Well, except for the customers, but who cares about them, right?)
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Insightful)
But they're on the same side
There is no such thing in politics and finances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are confusing the act they play for public consumption with the real thing.
It's like lawyers: in court they will fight for their side (it's their job), but outside they might go out together for golfing on weekends.
The main difference is that lawyers have constraints which for example make it unlawfull to get together and screw one of the sides in a case for personal benefit.
Politicians and the "masters of the universe"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.
The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US. The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem with that is banks are Federally chartered in the US.
There is such a thing as state chartered banks.
> The FBI can make life difficult for any bank that does not comply.
And here I thought the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OTS and state regulatory agencies regulated banks.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OTS and state regulatory agencies regulated banks.
"Oh you need to wire 250,000 dollars, well we never received your 'Know your customer.' paperwork, so we're going to delay the transfer until you get us new copies. Have to make sure you're not banking with terrorists. What? You say you sent us the originals? Well, we're going to need you to get us some new originals, signed in triplicate.'
LK
Re: (Score:2)
>>Now if only American banks had the same motivation to protect its customers data from the very same agencies.
I think they're more motivated by Uncle Sam's moneybags.
If you're a friend of the government, the government will cover your risky losses. You get to be Goldman Sachs. If you're not, then you get to play as Wachovia. In other words, being a friend of the government is the optimal place to be, since it lets you gamble as wildly as you like - you pocket any upside, and if your gamble doesn't pa
Re:Well done! (Score:5, Interesting)
British courts did the right thing this week too- they ruled against the British government/US attempts to cover up US intelligence handed to the UK proving that one of our citizens was tortured before being moved to Guantanamo before being eventually released with no charges.
Turns out British intelligence was aware of the torture, which is why most people assumed our foreign office had such an interest in keeping it covered up in the first place.
Despite American threats to withdraw intelligence sharing if the data was released, our courts ruled that the data should be released, so it's a bit of a double win this week in standing up to oppressive American strong arm tactics of threatening to put us at risk from terrorists if we don't do what they say.
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Interesting)
With regards to the torture thing, we do tend to get these unusual rulings in the UK around election time when there are points to score. I wonder if the ruling would have gone the same way had it happened in June when everyone was still waiting to see which way the wind was blowing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been a bit hit and miss all along really this one though, it's been a fine line- first off the details were going to be released, then they weren't, then they were, then we had to wait for a home office appeal, now the home office finally lost the appeal and they were released.
So to be fair, this one has been swaying either way so long, I don't think that's it.
The oink ruling was a bit more of a pleasant suprise though, although that was trial by jury so I suspect even that ended as it did for differen
Re:Well done! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it's not quite as good of a decision as was being made out once you get past the headlines.
The decision in question was specific to a few paragraphs in a report which the UK government had said had to be censored because the US asked us to keep out of the public - so we did.
At some point, a report in the US publically quoted those paragraphs and so UK courts ruled that since the information was now in the public domain there was no reason not to publish the censored paragraphs ourselves
The decision did however go against the UK governments continued wish to keep the paragraphs censored since those paragraphs basically said the UK knew about and supported torture of a UK citizen.
Damn (Score:4, Insightful)
Now they'll just have to go back to the old fashioned way.
In case of emergency, break law
Not forgetting to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We already know how this works (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or if that fails..
US: Hello there small child can I see your private parts?
EU Banks: No, my parents said I'm not allowed to show those to anyone.
US: Thats ok, lets keep it a secret between us.
funniest AC I've seen in a while (Score:2)
That's a subtle hint to Mod Parent Up!
Or don't. Whatever. Still funny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
slut
Oh, it's more sinister than that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.
The intelligence "sharing" is done precisely because each side could get in legal and/or political trouble for spying on its own citizens without good cause. On the other hand, if it's just foreign intelligence provided by a friendly state, well, that's OK, then. This is as much one in the eye for certain EU governments (whose appointed representatives previously forced this measure through at European level mere hours before the Lisbon Treaty kicked in and meant the elected MEPs would get a say, remember) as it is for the US.
Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... (Score:4, Interesting)
As a US citizen, the first thing that came to mind when I read this was "WHOO HOO!"
About the only ones that are going "Oh no!" are the people in my government that feel that they should be able to get away with/do anything they damned well please, and that the rest of the world should just bend over, take it, and like it.
Just to be perfectly clear on the matter, I am VERY much opposed to those tactics from my government.
I am VERY pleased to see the power hungry hands and arms of my government get bitch slapped like this. VERY pleased. The concept of "Soveriegnty" when it is applied to "Foriegn nations" is apparently something my government has serious difficulties understanding.
Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.
No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.
Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure you're not confusing this with other recent controversial agreements, such as the extradition of people like Gary McKinnon? That agreement has been controversial both for being asymmetric and for the low standard of evidence and poor guarantees of a fair trial.
In this case, AIUI, the issue is data protection and privacy. The EU has much stricter rules on these things than the US, and normally the law prohibits exporting such data outside Europe without proper safeguards. The US in general does not provide those legal safeguards, and in this case, it's not even the legitimate users of the data who would be working with it outside the protections, it's a foreign government.
There is simply no reason they should be entitled to claim that information in some unrestricted, open-ended fashion. With the lack of guarantees we have, they could just pass it back to European governments (who may or may not be legally allowed to demand access to that information en masse and without reasonable grounds themselves) or to US-based businesses to give a commercial advantage over their EU-based competitors.
Re:Oh, it's more sinister than that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, just to clarify my own post: yes, the SWIFT-related deal is inherently one-sided in terms of the US getting the information first, but that isn't the cause of the main complaints here in the UK, at least not those that have been widely reported in the media AFAICS. People aren't asking why the US isn't doing something reciprocal (what would that be, given the nature of SWIFT?), they are asking why this is allowed at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as I understand it, this one was more a case of I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine.
No. The agreement was unilateral. The US had no obligation to provide the EU with the same information, which was the main reason why it was overturned. At least, that's the main point according to news sources on our side of the Atlantic.
That is what the poster you responded to said. Since the agreement wasn't for both sides to see data from the other it was overturned. The EU has been trying to get access to US banking records for quite some time. They want to be able to get access for their tax authorities.
Incorrect - One direction only!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
A good start! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a shame that similar action won't be forthcoming when it comes to the lopsided extradition treaties though.
N.B. These don't apply to all EU member states but are particularly bad with our spineless foreign office.
As a US Citizen all I can say is... (Score:4, Insightful)
About time the EU showed some backbone and told the US where to stick it. The US has bent everyone else over and had their way far too long. Now that the US's economy is a mess, the dollar is weak and getting weaker and the Euro is fast taking the place the Dollar once had, the US needs to be sent a strong, loud and clear message that it's hay day is over and it's going to have to rely upon diplomacy, cooperation and fair play instead of idle threats and ham-fisted foreign policy towards it's allies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, the Euro is tanking against the dollar right now, as investor's fear of a crash of the Euro due to the PIGS. And that is against an already heavily devalued dollar. Now would not be a good time to deny European banks access to the American market. Your plan would pretty much ensure the demise of the Euro as European countries end up pulling out of the Eurozone so they don't have to bail out the PIGS. If they don't figure out some way to devalue the Euro even further for the countries that are in deep
Re: (Score:2)
That's called diplomacy :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's media frenzy. There is no Plan B, countries leaving Eurozone, etc. There will be bailouts somehow (and there are already underhand mechanisms going on to replace what states used to be able to do - Ireland is buying bad bank assets with government bonds, and the European Central Bank will swap the banks cash for the bonds). Politicians have said as much and it is only fear and superstition that traders aren't just accepting that.
On the other hand, the UK has been postponing big trouble (due to the im
Re:It's not just the PIGS (Score:5, Insightful)
Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are the worst but not the least. Most of the countries in Europe have spending and Debt levels that (as a percentage of GDP) are double the US level everyone is worried about. ...
Uhm, the US federal deficit stands at 10.64% [usgovernmentspending.com], only slightly lower than the 12.5% of Greece, the worst performer in the Euro zone at this time. Portugal seems to have a deficit of 9.3%, Spain 11%. The I in PIGS is Ireland with 11%, not Italy. Mind you, these are the worst performers in the Euro zone, and relatively small economies, the average figures of of the entire Euro zone are looking a lot better than the US right now, and definitely better than the UK. The market doesn't only look at cold, hard figures though.
About the Euro tanking vs the dollar, I remember almost a decade ago, the Euro was worth about $0.70, now it stands at twice that amount. Both those extreme values are unrealistic and harmful, it would be better to have a stable exchange rate close to 1:1
Re: (Score:2)
The guy you were responding to used the word "debt", not "deficit". There is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy you were responding to used the word "debt", not "deficit". There is a difference.
The story is the same when you look at national debt. The OP claimed the EU was at twice the levels of the US, but google disagrees with this claim.
The national debt of the US approaches 100% of GDP [wikipedia.org], roughly the same as the UK [wsj.com].
Greece meanwhile is struggling with a debt of 120% of the GDP. According to the wsj article linked above, Spain has a national debt below 70% of GDP. Portugal was above 75% last year, I didn't see figures for this moment. None of these amounts are anything close to twice the level of
Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The dollar has gained quite significantly since 2007. The Euro's mindshare was the first thing to go in the recession... Not just a chink in the armor, but a forced realization that a defacto currency, from which any country can opt-out at any time, with no central governing authority, but with individual authorities with a poor understanding of how to handle such changes, and with several weak players involved, is not a safe bet in the slightest
The dollar regained gained some, after having steadily declined from about EUR 1.25 to about EUR 0.65
I don't know what you base the idea on that any country could opt-out of it at any time. Such an operation would be purely theoretical, the actual process of leaving the EUR after having joined would take years, carry a staggering cost and would seriously harm the economic outlook of any country attempting it. It's unthinkable, joining the EUR is a one way path.
I'd point to Kosovo for a look at what European "diplomacy" can do... Lots of speeches over the years about "never again," and then a whole lot of nothing when a real stand needs to be made,
It has a whole lot to do with the reluctance towards looking at only one side of an issue. I'd call it a difference in culture between the US and post WW2 Europe. In the US, there is still a strong belief in right vs wrong, good vs. evil. In a conflict, there must be one side that's right and another one that is wrong. Kosovo and Bosnia were solved very decisively by the US, by picking a side, obliterating the other side, and blaming the entire conflict on the obliterated party. It worked, the conflict is over. It no longer matters that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo later turned out to have been a fabrication, and that the good guys in Bosnia turned out to have been almost as nasty as the bad guys.
I say this not as an ignorant and arrogant American, but as a distant observer.. /. so often is a rather serious case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The grass may seems greener on the other side, but it's pretty clear that there's no grass at all over there...
(...) but this (largely Europeans) fervent anti-Americanism we see touted on
I say this as a half-yank, half-eurofag. In my experience the anti-Americanism in Europe is exaggerated in the US media. Euros just tend to be more 'negative' in general, and many Americans experience any shimmer of doubt or negativity as anti-American. I don't experience anti-Americanism in Europe as worse than anti-Europism in the US, or anti-California-ism in Texas.
Re:As a US Citizen all I can say is... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Bosnian, let me point out that neither Croats nor Muslims in Bosnia were nearly as bad as Serbs. Maybe if you took a bit of time from trying to fit everything into one tidy world view where your neat generalization applies to everything, you'd learn that Serbia went to war with Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia and finally Kosovo. This alone should make it blindingly obvious to anyone who the bad guy is
Because, sometimes there really is a bad guy and someone needs to make him pay.
My apologies if that ruins your neat little theory of Europe vs USA culture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the other side of committing genocide? Please tell me, I'd love to hear you generalize that too.
Again, you're trying to create a generalization that applies to both the American civil war and the war in ex-Yugoslavia. There is no common thread there. We were (five) different nationalities and cultures with different wishes for the futures of our countries. We split, and now we are different countries. I know even you can tell the difference in sides as you went for "almost as nasty" in your initial
Old Europe strikes again (Score:5, Funny)
Putting their own petty concerns over the safety and security of American citizens.
Soon a new US law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While there is a charge for some bank transfers, most international e-banking transfers within the EU are charge-free. I have never had more than about a euro charge for a transfer outside the EU. If you get charged 20 dollars, talk to your bank, it seems to me they're the most likely culprit.
Re: (Score:2)
Money transfers do cost money and they are suprisingly complicated for a bank. Worst case, a customer wants to transfer money to a bank with which the bank has no business relation. Then the bank has no accounts with the other bank which complicates things. Often such transfers are routed through half a dozen financial instit
The easiest way to deal with such US demands... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me the US is quick to access other countries' data, but it far less willing to provide equal access to internal data as well.
Hence this would either level the playing ground or put a stop to US demands.
Re:The easiest way to deal with such US demands... (Score:5, Insightful)
is to require reciprocity. That goes for access to financial data as well as travelling/airline data.
Though slowly, it seems that other countries are getting fed up with certain US policies.
Your comment reminded me of this incident [chinadaily.com.cn] few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
You also have to be aware that you have to be in a certain position to make such demands, the US is slowly but surely loosing that position. The european countries have not had such a position for a long time. And I must say it is more cozy not to have it than to have it.
But the US has to get used to it, and that transition is mentally hard for a lot of people!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
parliament (Score:4, Informative)
The european government consists of two elements - the commission and the parliament.
What you need to know in short:
The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic, and holds most of the power and does most of the actual activity. It also bends over backwards whenever the US wants something. It was the commission who gave away our flight data, our personal data, our Internet data and now our banking data.
The parliament is elected, is the democratic body, and has very limited powers (though they have shifted around a bit with the last reform). It isn't exactly a mecca of reason, but it more often than not stops the worst excesses of the commission.
So once again, I applaud the parliament. They're fighting uphill battles against the commission all the time.
Re:parliament (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the european parliament since the Lissabon treaties now are in place is more powerful than ever, which is a good thing, since the parliament is very democratically elected and thanks to the sheer number of fractions things like fraction alignments like it happens in some local parliaments never can happen.
For some european countries now the EU parliament is the first parliament they have in history which really acts like a parliament and not like some whore following whatever the fraction alignment tells them to do just to stay on the payroll of someone.
I would say since the Lissabon treatys the EU is closer to democracy than some EU countries are, we have the comission which can be axed by the parliament and every, absolutely every law which needs to be passed down to the countries have to be ratified and can be axed by the parliament (before it had advisory status, they could axe but in the end there were enough other ways to push the gutter down)
The problem also never was the comission, the media just blew it out of proportion, in fact some parts of the comission really do an excellent job for instance the ones which handle the anti trust issues. Important things such as the Swift treaty mostly were carried on by the council of ministers, which is represented by ministers of the single countries, exactly those persons who voted yes in those gremia and then went home to their own countries blaming the EU for what again was passed down over the EU into the single countries. Speaking of lying the members of the council of ministers were the biggest liers and basically scapegoated the EU and Comission for everything they simply did themselves! I personally stopped blaming the comission for everything because most of the evil stuff simply came over the council of ministers down the last years (mostly the interior ministers which seem to have a habit of becoming assholes as soon as they are appointed, or have been the biggest ones before even being appointed)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The commission is appointed, completely undemocratic,
The commission is appointed by the governments of the member states, and has to be approved by the EU parliament. Just in the recent weeks, a new commission was formed, and one of the candidates appointed by the national governments needed to be replaced because it became apparent that there was too much resistance against her in the parliament (which doubted her competence). Not saying it is perfect, a big point for criticism for example is that the parliament (AFAIK, still) can only accept or reject the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer, I am Swiss and I work for a Swiss bank
Ok, it's official ... (Score:2)
Now the remaining question is: how do we make sure that EU banking data is adequately mined for leads and clues and that the US is warned the instant something is detected? Because it just so happens that the US is the party that's most at risk, and the EU is the party with porous borders to Islamic nations around the Mediterranean, and an indigenous Muslim population numbering several million which demonstrably conta
This changes nothing - they'll still get your data (Score:2)
The German Chancellor has said that it's OK for her tax-collectors to buy & use bank data that was stolen...
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w6/data-german-laws.html [newsfeedresearcher.com]
Since most Western Govs are broke, they're going after any cash they can, whatever it takes.
So don't worry about the intelligence guys being deprived; they'll just call their buddies in IRS, (who still have access to US accounts in the EU, I believe). Chinese walls, I hear you say? Know how to recognise one? It's got a grapevin
Come on! The joke! (Score:2)
The big joke here is that we Americans actually had the double think of publicly asking for permission to spy on everyone. Europeans, on the other hand, have known for centuries that spying is something that you do in secret and don't ask. Thus, while we Americans are like, "uh, we can't spy on Europeans because we are not allowed", the reality is, the British, French and Swiss intelligence services probably know from data mining what I'm going to eat for lunch before I will.
Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.
Right, so to stop a few corrupt individuals and companies in the US avoiding paying tax in the US by banking in Europe, every banking transaction that passes through Europe (or the EU, with 27 countries and over 500m people - that's more than all of North America) should be reported to the US... Something about setting ones own house in order before messing with other people's springs to mind.
Moving on, it is nice to see that the (democratically elected) European Parliament is finally able to stand up to the (appointed) Council of Ministers (and the US); the Lisbon Treaty does have its good points (even if it was pushed through in a rather undemocratic way). Now if only the rest of it could get implemented and the Swedish Pirate Party could get their second MEP into office.
Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah something was denied to the US the US defense trigger some have comes out automatically without thinking. You have to be aware of that this treaty was a mutual spy upon you treaty. The US could not legally spy on the transactions of its own citizense but they could more or less spy upon the europeans, and vice versa, so what happens is that the data gets exchanged (all friend countries so why even doing some spying?) and then suddenly the US government has "YOUR" data (as well as all european governments and foreign agencies).
Before wishing us evil, think twice that the EU government has basically stopped a blatant spy attack of the US government against its own citizens and vice versa. Besides shifting banking data also opens the door to industry espionage especially in the banking sector.
Kicking all this was a good thing for both sides.
I hope the same will happen to whatever the dreaded Acta group currently negotiates. The EU parliament already is pretty pissed that they do not get any information as well there is a very high chance that the Acta groups treaties never will make it through the parliament no matter what is in there, they already made a significant number of people angry so that they vote against it automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it illegal for the US government to ask someone else, whether it's a foreign government or a telecom company or a 13 year old Russian hacker, to spy on someone if it's illegal for them to do the spying themselves? From what I recall, this is what happened with the telecoms a while back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Undemocratic? We got not one, but two votes on the Lisbon Treaty here in Ireland :)
In fairness, the Treaty was signed by people's elected governments (democracy - you vote in a government to run your country as they see fit), and in countries other than Ireland, was not in conflict with the constitution (despite scrutiny in a number of countries it was found not to be a problem). Even in Ireland, if the government had wanted to, they could have passed almost all of Lisbon without a constitutional amendment
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the campaigning here would have been funny if the situation hadn't been a serious one. Coir (a front for a militant pro-life Catholic fundie group) were particularly dishonest in their scaremongering. My favourite was the one in which we were threatened with the minimum wage coming down to around 2. Of course, when asked, the people producing those posters couldn't provide any source for that.
Yup, I was rather relieved to see it go through on the second vote. We're too bogged down in deference to the C
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just happy that the guys I helped elect to represent me in the EU are doing their job.
The EU Parliament is the only directly elected EU institution (the members of the European Comission are nominated by countries' governments - and many are in the pockets of some lobbyist or other - and the Council of Europe is made up of representatives from each EU countries' governments) and it is the most consistent defender of things like consumer rights and the privacy of the EU citizens.
I would like to remind ev
Don't just vote, do something! (Score:3, Informative)
Having spent a few years as a lobbyist in the European Parliament during the EU software patents directive [swpat.org], I can tell you that it's very easy to affect the MEPs.
I learned that they're mostly lost, and the centre-left guy will vote your way just as quickly as the centre-right guy will, so which one you voted for doesn't make a huge difference, but talking to them does. (FWIW, the best party in there is clearly the Greens.) Tell them your concerns and show them your evidence. Showing eviden
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Small correction. The EU commission is named in the following way: The EU Parliament votes for the EU Commission chief (in this case Barroso), the chief assembles his team and after that the team must be validated by the Parliament again.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just the EU. If you wire money from India to China for example, that most likely goes through SWIFT, and that gets reported to the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, AGAIN, it's not like the US always had the right to see EU banking data.
Furthermore the world is a bit bigger than only the US and the EU, there'll always be opportunities.
They'll still be able to see the cashflow going out of the country though, unless it's foreign money.
In short: not a valid argument and props to the EU for finally deciding that they will not kiss American ass any longer.
Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. (Score:5, Informative)
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.
Nope. Sorry. This has nothing to do with sharing records for tax collection. This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens. The tax data sharing agreements are separate and above board and require the bank to supply data only on those required to pay income tax in the U.S. (or whichever country they share with). Virtually all countries participate in tax data sharing now, so I'm afraid you can't get out of paying your taxes simply by banking in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
This agreement allowed intelligence agencies in the U.S. to secretly access banking information for all customers, including non-U.S. citizens.
Uhhh, no; it does not. You may want to look up what SWIFT [wikipedia.org] actually does:
The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication ("SWIFT") operates a worldwide financial messaging network which exchanges messages between banks and other financial institutions. SWIFT also markets software and services to financial institutions, much of it for use on the SWIFTNet Network, and ISO 9362 bank identifier codes (BICs) are popularly known as "SWIFT codes".
So what the intelligence services could access
Re: (Score:2)
erm. That's like saying that BACS is a messaging service between financial institutions, exclusively.
Sure, SWIFT is used for bank to bank payments, but it's also used for customer to customer payments.
That most individuals don't transfer funds large enough to justify the expense of SWIFT messages don't mean that they can't - I've done it myself before now (not for a particularly high value transfer, just one that I didn't want to go through multi-day clearing cycles on).
At the 'tax avoidance' or 'terrorist
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute, you actually think Al-Qaeda is a country?
Other than that you are right that there are still plenty of countries without these agreements, hence my previous post.
Re:Cool, now nobody has to stop terrorists. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute, you actually think Al-Qaeda is a country?
They must be. We are at war with them.
Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.
So where would one apply for a visa to these countries? I can think of a few teenagers who'd love to go, and get off my lawn in the process. Win-win!
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs and teenage sex are countries too, I suppose.
I remember when they were the same country.
And a wonderful place it was, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea...
EU members have their own intelligence agencies (presumably with reasonable access - subject to privacy laws and various checks - to all that banking data) that deal with al-Qaeda, Iranian and North Korean operatives should they operate in or through EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. (Score:4, Informative)
The Americans tax their citizens on their world-wide income, no matter where they live. The reverse isn't true. So why would a rich European want to hide in a high tax, high unemployment country with record gun crime and without a decent health care system? Though I may sound a little harsh on your system, you under-estimate your fellow Americans. My job is to sell luxury real estate to the wealthy, and I also arrange private banking in Monaco. Virtually none of my American clients are eager to avoid paying taxes.I won't name other nationalities, for fear of being accused of stereotyping, but I will say that in my experience Americans are in the very top percentile of honest tax payers. Though you may have problems with corporations, where every tax dodge is purely for the benefit of the shareholder, you should have more faith in your fellow citizens. Overall you can be proud of them.
Phillip.
Re:Cool, now nobody has to pay taxes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm, I was going to tear you an new one crying BS on high taxes & unemployment (the US & EU have essentially the same unemployment)...then I saw why everyone wants to claim residence in Monaco.
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Monaco/Taxes-and-Costs [globalpropertyguide.com]
Personal income tax: 0%.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not including the 25% value added tax which is slapped on everything I purchase
25% VAT? Where do you live in the EU then? VAT is 15% in most of the EU. Also, for a 'small business owner' you seem to completely fail to understand how VAT works. Value Added Tax is a tax on value added. You charge VAT on things that you sell, deduct from that the amount of VAT that you paid on things that you bought, and only pay the remainder to the government. If you're paying the full VAT amount on stuff that you're buying, then it means that you're not producing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Hungary - 25%
Sweden - 25%
There are only one country, Luxemburg, that only charges 15%
Re: (Score:2)
This ain't about tax avoidance at all.
It has always been the case that those Americans who want to avoid taxes can do so in the US easily -- simply setup up a non-profit for the purpose, and be done with it, safely and legally. I know quite a few Americans who do just that, and don't bother with offshore accounts.
Shipping data wholesale to the US authorities is a legal problem in Europe mostly because there privacy protection still has some limited meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again. Soon the USA will follow suit and allow Europeans who do not wish to pay taxes to be shielded from Europe.
If they earn their money in US, then transfer to a European bank would originate in US, ultimately, and can be monitored.
If they didn't earn their money in US, and they don't reside there, then why is it any business of US government in the first place?
(I understand you may have that written in your laws, but it's not like that would the the first silly American law, and the world at large has no obligation to help you enforce such laws - no more so than it has any obligations to help you enforce your onlin
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think that will work. There is a tax information sharing agreement, and as data flows both ways on that one, it isn't affected. SWIFT does international wire transfers and doesn't know what happens to the money once it has been transferred.
Anyway, if you want to avoid tax, you put your money in Switzerland or Leichtenstein, or maybe Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands. Those countries are not in the EU.
Re:Can someone please explain to me ... (Score:4, Insightful)
For starters, we don't seem to be bombarded with "with us or against us" rhetoric.
Also, current administration has at least enough tact to not encourage negative attitued towards, say, France; or "Old Europe".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How's Obama any different than Bush?
The US is still oppressing their rules and wishes onto the rest of the world.
Nothing has changed.
Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.
Re: (Score:2)
How's Obama any different than Bush?
Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.
Re: (Score:2)
How's Obama any different than Bush?
Obama is using diplomacy to get other countries to do what we want, while Bush used more or less thinly veiled threats. Whether or not that's better is debatable, but at least in theory it will give other countries more of a choice in the matters.
I'm not sure if there is a boundary between "diplomacy" and "veiled threats". Sometimes it seems that "veiled threats" is actually one of the tools of diplomacy.
While I do not condone threat in foreign relations, I'm skeptical it is not part of the repertoire of the so-called diplomacy.
Re:Can someone please explain to me ... (Score:5, Funny)
How's Obama any different than Bush?
Bush was honest about what he believes.
Bush's agenda was all about maintaining the physical safety of Americans, even if privacy had to suffer. (I disagree with this too BTW)
Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.
LK
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not be so harsh about Obama,he has to face an entirely different situation. Bush also was not honest about his believes, most of the Iraq war just was done to get a handful of US corporations to cash in. Cheneys company was one of the huge winners of this deal, the international soldiers the loosers.
Obama currently fights an entirely different battle, Bush gave to him a basically fucked up country, not close to bankrupcy but with a serious debt problem, an pushing everything through is a problem bec
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot that is how I judge the situation as an outsider.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's agenda is all about claiming high ideals while brokering backroom deals to do whatever the fuck he wants to anyway.
He certainly disappointed on the wiretapping issue - caving even before being elected.
But from what I'm seeing its more of a case of being pushed back from his ideals.
For example - the whole healthcare thing - he tried to do it 100% out in the open, tried to let congress do it while he was hands-off even. But after 6 months of pretty much nothing he really had no choice but to start trying to go the backroom way. And don't confuse me for a supporter - I think nationalized healthcare is the wrong way to go
Re:Can someone please explain to me ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if Bush was as bad with a teleprompter than Obama is without one, then I'd say that it's still a definite improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure. In a way, I'd much rather he be less charismatic, less smooth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it actually matter?
I want a president who surrounds himself with smart people and listens to them. That's a smart leader, not necessarily one who is the best at everything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want a president who surrounds himself with smart people and listens to them. That's a smart leader, not necessarily one who is the best at everything.
It's very common for someone to have an over-inflated view of their own abilities. Such people will only perceive others to be smart if those others agree with everything they say.
This is how you wind up with idiots surrounded by yes-men in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Doh. I was naively assuming that was just incompetence. Now you've triggered my innate cynicism.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was this bank service, like, handling the transactions that finance world terror groups and insuring their privacy?
I'm sorry, I don't see why that excuses a foreign Government monitoring the financial transactions of people, companies and financial institutions in my country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually the EU loved sharing that data because the strong data protection laws in the EU make it hard for them to search that data, by sharing it to the US and having them share it back all that pesky privacy that the citizenry values so much could be ignored. Only by increasing the power of the elected parts of the EU government was this repealed. It was kicked because the people of the EU don't want that data shared, not because of some political independence talk.