Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

E.U. Preps for Fight over Passenger Data

timothy posted more than 7 years ago | from the honestly-what's-the-[redacted]-that-could-happen? dept.

51

narramissic writes "Following last week's signing of a new temporary agreement to pass over airline passenger data to American authorities last week, European Union parliamentarians are gearing up for a fight over data privacy. Sylvia Kaufmann, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), commented that 'The fact that the CIA, an agency whose activities, torturing and kidnapping, this house is investigating in a special committee, will have access to passenger data is the real scandal, especially when one considers that the right of redress held by U.S. citizens is not extended to E.U. citizens.'"

cancel ×

51 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I just read something... (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409769)

...which might make this data thing seem like childs play.

Theres an article currently on the BBC about possibly tagging passengers [bbc.co.uk] during flights and around the airport.

Come in number 5, your time is up.

Re:I just read something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410039)

I like the comment from the article about having to find a way to prevent passengers from removing the tags.....perhaps a collar with an explosive charge?

I read something much more sensible :-) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410149)

This is all rather ironic, given that a security expert in the UK has finally stood up and stated the forbidden-but-obvious [bbc.co.uk] : all the added security doesn't really help, it just creates different (but equally damaging, if not worse) targets.

Sounds very web 2.0 (1)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411615)

AJAX driven too? ;)

nothing like examining something on its merits (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409835)

Sylvia Kaufmann, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), commented that 'The fact that the CIA, an agency whose activities, torturing and kidnapping ...

I'm struggling to understand her opening position on this matter (or why such a blatantly pointed statement is considered "news for nerds").

Re:nothing like examining something on its merits (4, Interesting)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409937)

"why such a blatantly pointed statement is considered "news for nerds""

As a nerd/geek, let me tell you that I object to having my digital, or real life rights trampled on so that I can be legally tortured. Heard of Maher Arar? If not, you may want to look that name up and see what the American government did to him based on faulty intelligence shared with them after he was pulled off a plane in New York.

Hi, my name is Pat Riot (2, Funny)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410019)

Who cares about Maher Arar, or any one particular person? He's an ay-rab, for God's sake, he would suffer even worse in his home country!

So a few people have to suffer for the good of all. I'd rather be safe than free!

(Come on, you know that's what the ignorant rabid right's going to say in response to this, lol!)

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (5, Insightful)

Homology (639438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410097)

> So a few people have to suffer for the good of all. I'd rather be safe than free!

Those saying that always means that someone else has to suffer. The notion of self-sacrifice does not occur to them.

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16411181)

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410571)

So a few people have to suffer for the good of all. I'd rather be safe than free!

But who are you to make that decision for me? I'd prefer to be free and endangered. Life's dangerous. It usually ends lethal. And I prefer to spend the time 'til then in freedom.

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411579)

But who are you to make that decision for me? I'd prefer to be free and endangered.

The perception of danger is bad for business, where the perception of safety is good. "Freedom" on the other side offers no visible gain financially-wise. Since money talks and shit walks, say goodbye to your freedom.

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1)

demigod (20497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16412013)

"Freedom" on the other side offers no visible gain financially-wise.

I think that you've got that completely wrong.

Can you even come up with an example (large scale) were lack of freedom has resulted in the production of greater wealth than the equivilant free system?

Ever heard of "free" enterprise or "free" markets?

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16412311)

China. Today.

I for one am shaking my dollars with glee at my wealthy former Communist masters.

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#16412451)

Are you talking short term or long term? In the short term, the despots and their sycophants in business gain a monstrous pile of wealth. In the end, they or their kids wind up at the gallows.

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1)

demigod (20497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411871)

He's an ay-rab, for God's sake, he would suffer even worse in his home country!

That's true, he's Canadian.

Well, at least those poor bastards can look forward to global warming.

Re:Hi, my name is Pat Riot (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16413927)

I know you're probably joking, but on the chance you're not, Canadians are actually quite concerned about climate change. Our government may not act like it though because it's currently run by either Ontario-industry Liberals, or Alberta-oil patch Conservatives who feel any change to the pollution-economy will damage their province. Our economy depends on the weather, so when the weather changes, odds are everything will crash.

Re:nothing like examining something on its merits (5, Insightful)

ltning (143862) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409985)

Biased or not, the part saying

...especially when one considers that the right of redress held by U.S. citizens is not extended to E.U. citizens...

is, to me, the real killer. Not only should our info (as collected by our governments or their representatives) be given to someone not under the control of our own governments, we will also have no rights with regards to the collected information once it reaches the other party.

I think it is a very Good Thing (tm) that the EU is trying to fight this.

Re:nothing like examining something on its merits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16412831)

I think it is a very Good Thing (tm) that the EU is trying to fight this.


Trying? There is no try. The EU should refuse and anybody coming to the US can "volunteer" to surrender the data in question or they don't get in. Seriously, if an EU citizen doesn't want to do this let them either stay home or fly into Canada or Mexico if they really need to come to North America.

Re:nothing like examining something on its merits (3, Insightful)

Homology (639438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410063)

> I'm struggling to understand her opening position on this matter (or why such a blatantly pointed statement is considered "news for nerds").

Don't you think that handing out private information to an organization known for torturing and kidnapping people is outragous? Especially since EU citizens have no legal protection at all from US abuse of power?

To make it even more pointed, she could have mentioned that the organization is also running secret prisons around the world.

Re:nothing like examining something on its merits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410101)

Yeah, well, what you don't understand would fill many volumes. Big ups to the EU for taking a stand on this.

Re:nothing like examining something on its merits (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410225)

I'm struggling to understand her opening position on this matter (or why such a blatantly pointed statement is considered "news for nerds").
Since when is the truth considered a political statement?

P.S. This falls under the category of "Stuff that matters"

Not a problem after all... (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16409981)

especially when one considers that the right of redress held by U.S. citizens is not extended to E.U. citizens.

Oh well, in that case there's no problem, since the Republicans [senate.gov] are taking that right away [loc.gov] from US Citizens [blogspot.com] . Now all the DoD has to do is declare you an enemy combatant and there is no proof, no trial, no appeals, and no redress.

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410125)

Out of interest, how is that ever going to fly given your Constitution? I can easily believe the legal weasels can trample on the rights of non-US citizens captured outside US soil. I can believe without too much difficulty that they can trample on the rights of non-US citizens captured on US soil; certain areas of the US political system have always suffered from the strange contradiction that it's an important principle to protect basic rights for US citizens, but they're not important for anyone else. But I don't understand how the much-cited Constitutional Rights(TM) of the US citizen are going to be swept away by the wishful thinking of part of the Executive branch.

Re:Not a problem after all... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410219)

Have you been living in a cave for the past month?

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410583)

Pretty easily, actually. All the administration has to do is the same thing they did with Jose Padilla, hold the person for years, then when the Supreme Court finally gets around to taking notice, appear to cave in (note that Padilla has yet to have his promised trial) before the Supreme Court actually gets to decide whether this is legit or not.

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410627)

Easily. By simply not giving you a trial. It's hard to say "no" to a gun barrel. You're grabbed, swiped and hauled to Gitmo. No appeal, no trial, no lawyers, no phone call. Anyone from another banana republic can give you the details in case you need them.

Having a certain "right" to something doesn't mean that you get it if people with the bigger guns don't agree.

Why people don't care (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410877)

You bring up a good point, and it's not brought up very often.

The success of these measures in passing both Congress and the American public in general, lie in that they're perceived as only being applicable to non-citizens.

The Administration tried for a while to assert that it had the authority to detain citizens as "enemy combatants," as in the case of Jose Padilla, but it pretty much has given up this angle. (They more or less threw in the towel and transferred him to Federal prison on conventional charges on the eve of when the USSC might have ruled against it.) They could certainly try doing it again, since no precendent was really set as a result of Padilla, but I suspect that there would be significant public outcry and the opinion of the courts would be rather dim.

Although you make fun of the "strange contradiction" of applying the Constitution only to citizens, I think that's a more popular interpretation than you think. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's not the correct one; I think the Constitution is pretty clear in outlining a relationship between citizens of the United States and their government. The relationship between foreigners and the USG should be goverened by the relationship between the foreign government and the U.S. government, hopefully in some sort of friendly, reciprocal fashion (e.g. 'protect our citizens when on your soil, and we'll protect your citizens while they're here'). If the foreign government doesn't like it, they can always bar their citizens from traveling to the United States, or declare war, or do any of the other things that soverign states do for relief against each other. At any rate, that interpretation of the Constitution isn't quite as outlandish as you make it seem -- it wouldn't surprise me if there were at least some Federal judges who espouse it, however quietly or academically.

Understanding this and taking it into account, I think helps make the response of the American public to the jurisprudential wranglings of the Bush administration more understandable. (Whether you agree with them or not is none of my business, but even if you disagree, understanding can be constructive.) So long as the new rules don't apply to U.S. citizens, the public outcry is limited. The electorate, while not particularly bright, is not quite so stupid as pundits on both the right and the left often make it out to be; they are basically self-interested, more than a trifle xenophobic, and there have been precious few arguments so far showing exactly how the new rules will negatively impact a basic white, middle-class, English-speaking, law-abiding, Christian family. Therefore, why should they care?

Talking about the Constitutional rights of foreigners -- or even making moral appeals about not torturing foreigners -- is not going to and has not impressed a great many Americans, and this is why I think there is not more widespread opposition to the policies of the Bush administration. Show, clearly and unequivocally, how these policies could be used against a typical red-state ethnic and religious majority, and you'd probably spark a change in government overnight.

Re:Why people don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16411891)

Show, clearly and unequivocally, how these policies could be used against a typical red-state ethnic and religious majority, and you'd probably spark a change in government overnight.

Except that there is widespread opposition to this, even on the Republican side of the aisle. This opposition comes from militant reds who understand that torture is fruitless (consider McCain, who has told the story of giving the lineup of his favorite football team to Vietnamese torturers who didn't know any better), and the Religious Right, where people are quite certain that this is Not What Jesus Would Do. Of course, this is in addition to all the liberals who just hate America and want everyone to die.

The Bush administration has been one of the least loved administrations in history, with most of his run supported by less than the 50% of the people who put him there, however since the US lacks any form of recall at the federal level, he (and the senators and the representatives) can do as they please until their terms end.

Re:Why people don't care (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16413699)

Although you make fun of the "strange contradiction" of applying the Constitution only to citizens, I think that's a more popular interpretation than you think. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's not the correct one; I think the Constitution is pretty clear in outlining a relationship between citizens of the United States and their government.

Indeed. I understand that your Constitution was intended, in essence, to limit the powers of your government with respect to your people. However, that being the case, I question whether it is the right place for human rights law. The ethics of human rights know no international barriers, and have no concept of nationality or citizenship. Human rights, as recognised by most of the world, should be the bedrock of any civilised society, and an integral part of any modern legal system. It seems that the US (or, to be fairer, the current US administration) uses the technicality that such rights as it guarantees are only guaranteed to its people to perpetrate abominations like Guantanamo Bay.

Talking about the Constitutional rights of foreigners -- or even making moral appeals about not torturing foreigners -- is not going to and has not impressed a great many Americans, and this is why I think there is not more widespread opposition to the policies of the Bush administration.

Oh, there is very widespread opposition to the policies of the Bush administration. Take a look in any foreign country in the world. Supporting Bush has basically brought down Tony Blair's administration here in the UK; he only scraped reelection on a technicality at the first General Election after the latest Gulf War, and he was a lame duck less than a year into his "historic third term". The only thing anyone cares about in British politics today is how soon he'll go and who'll replace him (only to lose the next General Election against a landslide, in all probability, for much the same reasons). Europe generally is becoming increasingly anti-US, it seems, as the very story we're talking about demonstrates. Obviously the constant US heavyweight foreign policy agenda is making them no new friends in Russia, around the Pacific, or anywhere else, either.

Sooner or later, this will have consequences for the people who voted for Bush, and (unfortunately) for everyone else in the US who didn't. The rest of the world is already taking steps to insulate its economic prospects at US expense, so that when the US economic bubble inevitably bursts, the damage will be limited. How much support is there for the US stance on North Korea now? I know several people who have decided not to travel to the US on holiday over the past couple of years, because they didn't want to go through the harrassment at the airport or they were afraid they would be caught up in something and screwed because they weren't US citizens. I even know one guy who turned down what should have been an excellent promotion opportunity with a US-based company because he wasn't happy to move there in the current climate. Bush and his supporters can stick their heads in the sand over this if they want, but it won't change the long term damage this sort of isolationist policy has, and relying on citizen-only human rights laws and pretending Guantanamo doesn't make Bush as bad as Saddam ever was is exactly the sort of thing that causes the problem we're talking about, when foreign powers won't co-operate because they don't trust the US administration to act ethically.

Re:Why people don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16420731)

Talking about the Constitutional rights of foreigners -- or even making moral appeals about not torturing foreigners -- is not going to and has not impressed a great many Americans, and this is why I think there is not more widespread opposition to the policies of the Bush administration. Show, clearly and unequivocally, how these policies could be used against a typical red-state ethnic and religious majority, and you'd probably spark a change in government overnight.

The US Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. It makes no distinction between them, although many americans believe otherwise and certain parties like to spread propaganda claiming that the US constitution doesn't protect foreigners.

Re:Why people don't care (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421457)

Although you make fun of the "strange contradiction" of applying the Constitution only to citizens, I think that's a more popular interpretation than you think. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that it's not the correct one; I think the Constitution is pretty clear in outlining a relationship between citizens of the United States and their government.



Oddly enough, the whole citizenship thing wasn't defined until much later. If the constitution says "No person ...", it doesn't mean "No citizen ...", and if it says "The accused ...", it does not imply "but only if citizen".



Do you think the US would have been such a popular target for immigrants in the 19th century if the word had been "Hey, you have no rights there ('cause you're no citizen), just like you have no rights here ('cause the Prince says so)." ?



Also, how about the possibility of revoking someone's citizenship (the fourteenth Amendment put a stop to that, but for how long ?) ? "Hey, you might have certain rights, but keeping your citizenship isn't one of them. *poof* it goes. Ooops. *poof* go your rights. Muahah".



Luckily, I live in a place where the constitution means "everyone" when is says "everyone", and "every citizen" when it says "every citizen".

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16420225)

I can easily believe the legal weasels can trample on the rights of non-US citizens captured outside US soil.
 
This is how it can happen. Because you have no problem believing this, then can just about do anything.

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411245)

Oh well, in that case there's no problem, since the Republicans [senate.gov] are taking that right away [loc.gov] from US Citizens [blogspot.com]. Now all the DoD has to do is declare you an enemy combatant and there is no proof, no trial, no appeals, and no redress.

Which, hopefully, will last about an hour before someone files an injunction against it, and the courts quickly decide that it's unconstitutional.

There is no mechanism by which the US government can pass a law that reduces the constitutional rights of a US citizen. Those are guaranteed, in stone, for anyone who is a citizen. They cannot be overruled, diminished, redacted, or circumvented. Not legally, anwyay.

I believe such an issue would be forced to the level of SCOTUS and immediately stricken.

If they did pass such a law, and it withstood a court challenge, then the entire foundation of US law will be undermined. And, IMO, the US will have lost any moral high-ground they claim for any of their actions. You can't fight tyranny by becoming a tyrant.

Cheers

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16412425)

You can't fight tyranny by becoming a tyrant.

History claims it worked for Abraham Lincoln:

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana....His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order.
(Wikipedia, Habeas Corpus [wikipedia.org] )

It was wrong for Lincoln, or for Grant in 1870 in the U. S. South (in response to the rise of the KKK), and for Bush now, but it still works. To paraphrase another infamous historical figure, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?"

Re:Not a problem after all... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16412695)

History claims it worked for Abraham Lincoln: ... It was wrong for Lincoln, or for Grant in 1870

But, as you point out, it was overturned as illegal. So it didn't actually work for Lincoln (unless I misread the quote you included).

To paraphrase another infamous historical figure, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?"

Well, I guess if POTUS is gonna declare war on SCOTUS, that could be an issue. It's one thing for the Russians to dismiss the Vatican; but, as long as the Constitution is upheld to be the law of the land, that shouldn't happen.

If it does happen, then I project one hell of an interesting period in US history. And a lot of strife for the rest of the world as things break down very fast.

Cheers

Right of redress held by U.S. citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410045)

What right of redress held by U.S. citizens? If there is any such thing, most US citizens don't know anything about it. The CIA, along with the NSA and a whole lot of other **A's, do as they please. I think somebody may have fallen for an advertizing blurb.

Don't worry (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410361)

The European Parliament doesn't have as much power in Europe as it should. This kind of issues are decided, at the end of the day, by the states foreign ministers and they will not piss USA off.

EU Ministers are targetted and under CIA control (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16410753)

Looking at the scandals in the past decade, most of the EU ministers are either paedophiles or otherwise blackmailed by the CIA for control. Europe is losing it's independence to CIA spies. The paedophile scandals in all the major EU states (Portugal, France, Britain, Belgium, UK at least) indicate that there is either a lot of them among politicians, or a concerted effort to entrap politicians, media people, police and powerful businessmen around the world for leverage and coercion purposes. All investigation is stymied into the upper echelons of the paedophile rings, which is easily achievable if you have the right people under your thumb.

In addition at least Chile, Australia and Mexico have had rings exposed leading straight to organized paedophile rings used by the people and parties in power. This sounds like a bad conspiracy theory, until you read the hundred or so articles easily found via google from paedophile rings. Articles from the past years with a common theme: People who've been exposed, with indications of larger connections, well organized, well financed paedophiles who've managed to stymie the investigations. An intelligence organization is behind this sort of organized activity. And intelligence organization wanting to exert it's influence and control over other countries and the resources to pull this kind of thing off.

NAZI state (1, Flamebait)

LCookie (685814) | more than 7 years ago | (#16410393)

I for one will never travel even close to the new Nazi state USA.

The unholy war on terrorism is all but lost already since it's obviously used as a pretext to cut civil liberties and privacy by a corrupt government.
Bush and his entire government of corporate whores need a serious kick in the nuts if they should have any at all!
I wonder how long it will take until even the last moron understands that this system is flawed.
Don't get me wrong, I do not approve of terrorism and killing random people.
Things are getting really ugly and it's not Ben Laden's fault. There has always been terrorism, but it has never been used in such a malicious way to suppress civil rights. And don't think it'll get any better, even if (by pure chance) they ever get ahold of Ben Laden.

Incompetence and greed rule the USA and it even starts to taint other countries. I wish I had but 5 minutes alone with Dubya, he'd never forget them...

Re:NAZI state (1)

LCookie (685814) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442553)

Whoever modded me Flamebait, you're a stupid conservative asshat and should get a brain! Why don't you go and suck Dubya's nuts while at it.

Red dress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16411427)

So, IIUC, EU citizens have no right to hold a red dress, while US citizens do. What does this have to do with data about passenger fights ? Are US and EU citizens going to fight over a red dress on a plane ? IDQU.

EU Law: Right to Privacy, Data Retention Laws (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16411529)

http://www.itworld.com/Man/2688/061012eudatavote/i ndex.html [itworld.com]

Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner in charge of justice issues, criticized Parliamentarians for being anti-American. "It's terrorism that is the problem, not the United States of America," he said.

The 9/11 terrorists used stolen passports. Passenger data, credit card reports as well as any secret no-fly lists would have been useless in stopping the terrorist attacks.

Breaking EU privacy laws and giving EU passenger data, credit card histories, Credit Card numbers and credit histories to CIA against the wishes of passengers and EU parliamentarians shows extreme contempt for the EU law and the European court's decision, our legal system and values.

If the EU laws are not respected and enforced by our own government, and respected by the companies who should abide by them, then what good are they?

Why should American law supercede EU law? We are not a part of United States. If USA fines European airlines, EU can fine American airlines double the amount.

Why should CIA's excuses for right-to-spy on EU citizens supercede our right to privacy that is stipulated in EU law?

Why is an EU commissioner advocating for the rights of CIA spies at the cost of EU citizens rights?

no stolen passports (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16413043)

The 9/11 terrorists used stolen passports.

"The Saudi passports the hijackers carried were genuine, and so were the visas to the U.S. But investigators believe the hijackers obtained fresh passports after telling Saudi authorities they had "lost" their old ones, presumably to cover up trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then, knowing that spanking-new passports would raise questions, the hijackers artificially aged them and forged entry and exit stamps -- probably with old-fashioned rubber stamps and ink pads -- to innocuous countries in the Middle East." 9/11 Hijackers: The Passport Scam: A new look at how the terrorists forged documents [time.com]

Identity of the highjackers is still unclear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16432659)

We want reciprocity... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16411925)

If you want our data, then we want yours... after all, if you've nothing to hide... then you've nothing to fear by having ex-communist countries and others having the goodies on Americans coming to visit them... and think of our children... and it's all in the fight against terrorists...

Re:We want reciprocity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16413389)

If you want our data, then we want yours... after all, if you've nothing to hide... then you've nothing to fear by having ex-communist countries and others having the goodies on Americans coming to visit them


Ex-communist countries? I have no problem with nations like Poland having my data. France, Belgium, Greece, Portugal.. now those countries I have a problem with. They're basically hostile to the US in the worst of times and a thorn in the US' side in the best of times (i.e. during a Democratic administration).

The solution: Europeans should stay the fuck out of the US, and US citizens should stay the hell out of Europe. Is it really so difficult? Anybody who wants to cross the line has to give up the data. Period. After all, we're (the US) more economically bound to Asia nowadays anyway, so who cares?

Re:We want reciprocity... (1)

repvik (96666) | more than 7 years ago | (#16420573)

Oooh, don't forget partly-islamic Turkey, which is trying to become part of the EU!

Principles get sold out (1)

PingXao (153057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414141)

Principles and ideals like liberty and freedom get sold out all the time in the name of the almighty dollar, or in this case, euro. It's been that way for a while now. Given the choice of retain your privacy and lose a few airlines to bankruptcy, or sell out your principles and keep those airlines in business, which wins? We see it time and again.

I don't see an end any time soon to the controversy between those who want to preserve their own rights and those who want to take those rights away in the name of "protection". I don't see any modern defenders of liberty and freedom anywhere. None who will put their money where their mouths are.

Put your money where your mouth is (2, Insightful)

PhB95 (442518) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414795)

It's up to everyone of us. I try to do just that. I always wanted to take a vacation to visit the US, but I'm afraid I never will. For fear of being arrested, imprisonned, tortured, without an attorney and even without being told why, I prefer to stay here, or visit some other countries less hostile to foreigners. My data would probably not pose the faintest problem, but I refuse to take that risk: Errors can happen, so little the chance may be. I hope I'll manage to avoid any bussiness travel to te US.

In relation to what we could call "the Patriot(TM) climate", we have some people coming from London to our office sometimes. They used to come by plane : No more. For fear of bombs, but also of boring and long security checks, they now come via the Eurotunnel. So while some bussinesses benefit from all that climate, others will probably feel the damage.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 7 years ago | (#16420031)

The funny thing is that as an American living in Europe all that stuff you describe has been going on in Europe for ages. For safty purposes the company even has procedures in place so we could jump the border get a plane and get back to the US and they would then start work on tring to get our stuff back to us. This happened after one person who was in lawsuit with the government was raided during the middle of the night with moving trucks and he was arrested; and that was for a tax problem.
Lets not even get into all the paperwork that has to be filled out and carried with me or the police checks I get when I check in to hotels.
It is all a matter of how close you are to it and how it effects you. Over here in Europe we hear all this stuff really out of proportion and think it is a major hassel but in reality you live under similar rules already in place.
As an other example a while ago there was this big set of messages of how the US was turning into a fascist state, bush=hitler, etc because it was harder for forgieners to get a bank account in the US. The change was that instead of just calling up a bank and opening an account you now had to fax/email them a copy of the picture page in your passport and you had to be from one of the countries the US has banking relationships with. Now compare this to the problems for opening an account in Europe, here I need both a residence permit, just a matter of time waiting for the signatures and then standing in multiple lines for the photos, etc and then I need to show my work permits. As a Europian all that work and residence permits are probably considered nothing but from what is heard over here if the US were to come even close to these requirements it would be seen as if the US had just branded all people entering its borders.
Do aggree with the planes over here, I no longer even consider taking a plane unless the train trip would be 10-12+ hours all the new requirements they have put up make it a major hassle.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>