European Parliament Considers Sharing Passenger Information By Default 58
An anonymous reader writes The EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) proposal which was defeated in April of last year has returned to consideration in the European Parliament today. The law would require that airlines provide extensive personal details of anyone flying into or out of Europe. The information would include name, address, phone numbers, credit card information and travel itinerary. Director of Europol Rob Wainwright says that PNR is within the bounds of "reasonable measures" in the struggle against terrorism, and that possible threats against Europe have increased in the more than 12 months since the law was last rejected. Dutch MEP Sophie In't Veld is arguing that the Data Protection Directive should be put into place before any such systematized disclosure be ratified. "They want unlimited powers," she said. "they don't want to be bound by rules or data protection authorities and that's the reality."
With one condition (Score:5, Funny)
I would allow this with one condition.
For each single case of an individual's data being stolen, the current director of Europol and the one in place at the moment of the steal spend a year in prison and Europol pays to the individual $1M plus whatever is stolen from his accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
What relevance does that have?
This data is collected at hotel checkin already (Score:1)
While not a justification of this information collection, when ever you check into a hotel in Europe you have to provide all of this information. This is almost real time uploaded to interpol. This is far more invasive and complete then the flight information.
Re: (Score:3)
Just for your information: hotels in many European countries are required by the law to collect your personal information upon check-in
That's mot the same as an EU-wide law. Some countries don't have any reauirements. See CMS Guide to Principal Hotel-Specific Laws in Europe and China [cmslegal.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You confuse the local laws of some countries with EU law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had to show my id in several hotels in Germany, Czech republic, Finland...
Re: (Score:2)
Have had to in Italy, Germany, the UK, Netherlands, Austria, probably several more.
As to the ID and credit card thing in the US, that's the hotel's doing - they want to make sure they get paid, and that the person using John Smith's credit card actually is John Smith, and not some guy who's going to raid the minibar and walk out with the towels and the TV.
Typical (Score:1)
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
And the reason for this all: fear. Fear for terrorists, fear for being held responsible, fear for the unknown. We live in a world in which we no longer accept any kind of risk. No matter how low that risk. Well, at least risks we are aware of. We fear terrorists, we fear ebola, we fear being robbed in the streets while at the same time we smoke, eat unhealthy food, practice dangerous sports and get in the car. Every day we do things that are more dangerous than the things we fear most.
Yes, terrorists should be stopped, but not at all cost. And there is no way to make 100% sure no terrorist will ever hit us. So, stop pretending we can! Stop wasting our time, money and privacy to give us false security! And if a terrorists hits us and kills 20 people, is say: that's bad but it isn't the end of the world. Life goes on. In the same time more people are killed for other reasons and we don't even hear about them!
Look at Boston. Despite all the anti-terrorist measures in America, it was still possible to do this kind of attack. And what happened to Boston? Nothing, they moved on. And that's how it should be done. Yes, it's easy for me to say because I haven't lost any family or friends in that attack. But that is the right way to look at it for politicians. Respond to it with logic and common sense and not with fear and emotion. Because that only makes it worse!
Re: (Score:1)
Well said, sir!
Re: (Score:3)
I agree completely but fear and being seen to do something to protect people from that fear wins votes. It is essentially "won't someone think of the children" writ large at a national scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Go back to the 80s and look at London and the rest of the UK. The IRA was threatening all sorts of bloodshed and people made a point of still going out and living their lives. It was promoted that to not live you life as normal was letting them win. To me it felt like 9/11 changed that attitude world wide.
Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To me it felt like 9/11 changed that attitude world wide.
What? Ironically, not here in the USA, where if you don't buy that SUV, the terrists win. No, here it is emphatically necessary that you not only keep doing the things you were doing before, but do even more! For the 'conomy! 'merica!
Re: (Score:1)
And the reason for all of this "fear"? Control. Easier to control the populace if they're in a constant state of fear.
Having said that, not all of us buy into fear - so I disagree with your general use of "we". I haven't asked for government protection nor do I require it. There are plenty of risks in daily life - most anything can happen - and it seems to me you don't really have much choice other than deal with it.
Personally, I believe mainstream media are partly to blame with their 24/7 "breaking now
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, people started to become numb for that. Remember, the media's job is not to bring the news, but to sell the news. Keep that in mind when reading / listening to the news.
Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
The reason for this is people's ignorance. They want the information and they just chose the excuse that's easiest to justify in the current situation.
If the cold war was still on, the reason to ask for all the data would be "communists!".
Then it was "Drugs!".
Now, it's "Terrorists!".
Soon it will be "Pandemia!".
Later "Organized crime!".
And then "Aliens!".
Re: (Score:1)
And then "Aliens!".
I know you are joking, but unfortunately I know the last bit is no joke from personal experience. It is a whole different ball-game when you involve that particular can of worms.
Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
And the reason for this all: fear... Every day we do things that are more dangerous than the things we fear most... Respond to it with logic and common sense and not with fear and emotion.
Your sane, logical argument almost tempts me to forget my belief that the source of all these silly, over-the-top 'precautions' is not fear - it's greed, and lust for power. The fear you speak of does exist among the people, but it is a fear that has been purposely manufactured and is carefully nourished. Entire industries have sprung up around 'terrorism'; millions of (entirely parasitic) jobs are on the line, as well as minor and not-so-minor financial empires. Creating and fuelling paranoia is big business - hell, it's a growth industry, and a saviour to the military-industrial complex once threatened by the end of the Cold War.
The question to ask, always, is "cui bono?" Governments, (i.e. the executive branches of trans-national corporations), use propaganda as advertising, to sell fear and to promote compliance with authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was panic over Ebola and fewer people in the US have died from it than have been killed by rubber ducks in bath tubs. We've spent at leas $4 Trillion going after terrorists for 9/11 which killed around 3,000 people. We've had more deaths from the flu or collateral damage from SWAT teams. Threats don't seem to be commensurate with their real effect on human life, but in how they manipulate public opinion and divert us from self empowerment. Humanity landed a craft on an asteroid and all most people kne
Re: (Score:1)
or do we at some point wonder if there isn't a concerted effort to keep everyone ignorant and fearful?
No need to wonder, there is. But don't try to tell that to anyone, they don't want to listen.
Those who do know/care are too few to matter. It is akin to the 2 party political system - no one can break in because the party members don't want to split the vote and let the "other" party win. Even if 10 new party people did break in, they're still drowned out by the rest of the fools in Congress.
So do I think it's kind of pointless, sure, but is it worth fighting and trying to do some good - you bet your a
Who needs Soviet Russia (Score:2)
when you got terrorists laughing their asses of at their post 911 win. I don't think any of them could have wished for a better win.
Did it ever do any good (Score:1)
Show ONE example where extensive data exchange has ever prevented a "terrorist attack".
The only reason could be to aim for full insight in peoples where-abouts. I would imagine this does not have any effect on terrorist or criminal's activity. They have other ways of remaining undetected.
Credit Cards? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The requirement for credit card information can only have come from American influence. Because credit cards are hardly ever used in Europe, that proposed law even sounds silly to me because of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. I asked for one when I had to go to the US [in 2005] - never needed it before. Most online retailers for instance would have an agreement with the banks so you can pay with you debit card [the Dutch system for instance is called iDEAL] rather than credit. Of course Amazon is not like that --> in fact 95% of my usage of the thing is because of amazon.....
I still have to meet an European who does not think that paying your restaurant bill with credit card is idiotic...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that when they say "credit card information" they will actually include information for other types of payment card as well.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of that information seems reasonable if you want to know who is crossing into and out of your border. But why credit cards?
I suspect to cover situations like Osama Bin Laden flying in his Nephew to do the bombing for him since he can't get in.
I'm not saying that makes any sense if you actually think about in for a few seconds, but I bet that's their reasoning.
How to fight terrorism (Score:1)
Mice (Score:3)
You don't keep mice out of your house with mousetraps. You keep them out by sweeping up all the crumbs on your floor so they have no reason to come in anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't keep mice out of your house with mousetraps. You keep them out by sweeping up all the crumbs on your floor so they have no reason to come in anyway.
Thank you Master Po.
It's how the EU works (Score:2)
If they don't vote the right way the first time, they're made to vote again and again until they do. Of course, as soon as they vote right once, they don't get another one.
Reasonable measures in fight against terrorism? (Score:1)
and how soon after will such data be used to compile a no-fly list, to be used to harass anyone who criticizes the state security apparatus.
'The U.S. government is blacklisting people as terrorism suspects based on secret standards and secret evidence. People on government watchlists are questioned, harassed, detained, and even barred indefinitely from flying — and t