Feeds

back to article Transatlantic data sharing talks stumble over access to justice

High-level transatlantic talks on data sharing have hit a snag over EU citizens' right to defend their privacy in US court, the European Commission said in Brussels yesterday. The US Privacy Act only offers redress to US citizens and residents, while the EU guarantees citizens the right to protect their data worldwide. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Why wont you trust us....

they seem to wana say.. and lets be fair The US goverment and the EU commison holding negotiations what could there possible be to worry about. Aren´t these the people we elected to lead us? Arent these people the very best of us? arent these the most honorable, trustworty and selfless people?

Oh waite...

0
0

1's and 0's may face torture in third party countries.

Where were these bureaucrats when extraordinary rendition was going on? Unbelievable.

0
0

Considering these are the people

who are currently negotiating ACTA, which no-one outside a bunch of privileged insiders knows any details about, who signed a one sided extradition treaty with the US, who signed an agreement to allow US carriers to fly on European domestic routes but not vice-versa and so on...

It seems to be a long running theme when it comes to treaties with the US what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

In any case it isn't as if any of these Politicians give two hoots about our civil rights. They have been focused on limiting them as much as they can.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

No subjugation without representation

"We recognize that the fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to share personal data for law enforcement"

Ooo look, it says transnational and terrorism, so it's only for crimes that involved both jurisdiction and serious terrorism cases..... I'll just check that it says that in the agreement....

"3. Relevant and Necessary/Proportionality. Personal information may only be processed to the extent it is relevant, necessary and appropriate to accomplish a law enforcement purpose laid down by law."

Nope, seems to be missing.

So, first problem,

1. you say it's for transnational crime and terrorism but that's not in the limits.

2. it can and therefore will be used for petty crimes.

3. It can and will be used for crimes that are legal in one continent but not in the other (e.g. online gambling sites run by Europeans can be criminalize in the USA despite being legal in the EU etc. etc.).

4. You're signing an agreement that removes the right to privacy and legal protections for Europeans, which you aren't authorized to do. Those protections don't stem from this data sharing agreement, the data sharing agreement must conform to those protections.

5. There is no protection for information once it's been sent. If they say it's for law enforcement, then it doesn't get used for such, what happens to it? Saying 'lawful processing' is not a protection, if one side makes a law that says it can be used for any and every purpose then it can be used for any and every purpose.

6. Who decides it's for law enforcement, the state that *wants* the data, or the state that has to hand the data over. One of those I can vote for, one I cannot. One has my democratic control, one does not.

7. It therefore can and will be used where no crime occurs, for peripheral data, i.e. trawling, used against protestors and dissidents etc.

8. No equivalence clause, if USA creates an Echellon trawling law for non USA citizens, the EU has to hand over EU citizens data. It would be "lawful processing" because it's USA law. It requires law enforcement purpose, but doesn't specify that the laws concerned need to equally apply to Americans.... opens Europeans to attack from hostile dishonest executive.

9. Medical records, political records, speech records, etc. are off bounds always. How I vote is never a crime, what I am ill with is never a crime, even what I eat is none of your foooking business, even if it's diabetic meal.

10. At the core of this is the point, that my vote only influences my nation. So any agreement that elevates another nations laws about my nations laws undermines my democracy. The law enforcement and judicial process has to be within MY VOTING ability, so that the ultimate power to vote the fookers out is available to me.

I vote for Obama, the best of a bad lot, but then again, I don't have a vote, I'd be subject to US laws without being in their country, or having a vote for their president. Does the EU Commission have a mandate to eliminate democracy in Europe now? I don't think it does.

0
0

Elected?

@Lars & AC.

Actually, you know, here in Europe we elect neither the US Government, nor the EU Commission.

So, there's a kind of symmetry to it...

0
0
Black Helicopters

All your IDs are belong to us

So what is to stop someone in the US government committing ID theft against 300+ million EU citizens? Nothing.

0
0
Paris Hilton

EU

We *do* vote for an EU parliament which is there to spend as much of the 25 nations money as it can do, without the need to pass a financial audit.

The EU commission is there to think up ideas. Technically they are appointed by the democratically-elected national governments. Of course, anything they decide needs to be ratified by all the EU nations. Which, given the state of the constit^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htreaty might be never...

Paris, cos that's in the EU.

0
0

Third Countries?

“Finally, the EU is concerned about how data it shares with the US might be passed on to third countries that don't have acceptable data protection rules.”

Wouldn’t it be better to start worrying about that only once the US has acceptable data protection rules?

0
0
Paris Hilton

USA should give human rights to all humans

The US government, and those who vote for it, should recognize that not all humans are American.

The US government and those who vote for it should give human rights to all humans, not merely US citizens and US residents.

The only differences should be that non-US citizens don't have a right to residency, to vote, or to access social services for free.

Paris, because they are all acting like Paris on this.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Magnus

who are currently negotiating ACTA, which no-one outside a bunch of privileged insiders knows any details about, who signed a one sided extradition treaty with the US, who signed an agreement to allow US carriers to fly on European domestic routes but not vice-versa and so on...

It seems to be a long running theme when it comes to treaties with the US what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

"

Dont worry NAFTA got us back. Mexican truckers can drive in the US, but American truckers can't drive in Mexico. EU sells out to the US and the US seems to selling out t Mexico

0
0
Bronze badge
Joke

I see a crack

"cardboard bo? you were lucky!"

0
0

only once the US has acceptable data protection rules?

How about, only when they have a complete list of terrorist? Lol, some of the Sept. 11 terrorist are still alive (imagine when they seen themselves on TV branded a terrorist that drove a plane into a building). A list of people is useless if you don't have a "reliable" list to cross reference it to.

0
0
Thumb Down

"Only In Exceptioonal Cases"

If any law maker tells you that certain provisions of legislation would only be used in 'exceptional circumstances', please introduce them to the perils of kniufe crime by disembowling them with a butter knife.

Apparently it is the 'exceptional circumstances' provisions within RIPA that allows local councils to spy on our use of rubbish bins. I'm sure that all of our personal information will soon be in the hands of the NSA due to the 'exceptional circumstances' of us being carbon based life forms or it being Monday.

Welcome to the Matrix

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.