back to article EU governments reach agreement on passenger name data

The Council of the EU has reached agreement with the European Parliament on a proposal for the transfer of passenger name data (PNR) from airlines to EU countries. PNR data can include any personal information collected during bookings for flights, including home addresses, mobile phone numbers, frequent flyer information, …

  1. Kevin Johnston

    Restrictions

    "may only be processed for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime"

    Well that's all right then because we know the PTB always respect limitations on data usage........

    Muppets one and all

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is the reason for this?

    I mean if I want to go to a EU country I could just get a bus or fly to a neighbouring country and cross the border by car.

    These terrorists seem to be a very convenient excuse for passing laws to track people.

  3. Dr. Mouse

    Good start

    While I can see the down votes coming in for this comment, I'm impressed.

    From what I can see, they have actually specified a limited scope. Unlike, for example, RIPA, they are putting specific wording into the law to stop this data being used (legally) for purposes other than specified. Our (UK) government could learn from this.

    It remains to be seen whether this restriction is:

    a) kept in the law,

    b) followed, and

    c) enforced by severe penalties for those who break it.

    It is, at least, a step in the right direction.

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Good start

      From what I can see, they have actually specified a limited scope.

      Or is it merely an illusion of limited scope?

      I haven't read the legislation but what counts as pursuant to the prevention of crime can have a very broad reach.

      1. Dr. Mouse

        Re: Good start

        I haven't read it either, but the article specifically says terrorist offences and serious crime. I tend to trust Out-Law articles, and assume they have read the relevant proposed legislation and reported accurately.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Good start

          the article specifically says ......serious crime.

          Meaning what? For local councils, putting your rubbish in the wrong bin is a serious crime. For road safety groups, speeding is a serious crime. For left-leaning liberals, simply using selected words is a serious crime. For HMRC, tax avoidance is something treated as a crime (unless you're a big US corporation, in which case HMRC will happily wave it through).

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good start

        Prevention and Detection is a pretty broad remit open to ministerial invented "chains of logic." It's funny (odd) that the EU falls all over itself to share PNR with the US (as if they had a choice) but the Max Schrem decision is somewhat on point here.

        Much more on point is the licking of lips, raised heart rate and respiration of every Blackhat on the planet and so many targets to choose from, each with their own facilities, bureaucracy, and security regimes. Other nation states are going to want illicit access to track their lists of targets. Nice move!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Separate databases for each member state, very efficient. Two years to put it into service (really in a hurry to combat actual terrorism, isn't it?). Of course terrorists only fly (politicians can't believe someone could travel over 100km but in first/business class on an airplane).

    Also, AFAIK, to enter EU you need to be a EU citizen (and have a valid document) - or you need a visa - both should be controlled at any entry point (air, land, sea) at the EU borders - why should airline collect data instead of customs? Because having gov employees working is asking too much, better have airlines do the work and send it to database where data will be - as usual - searched after the fact?

    Why not also ask telecom and banks to issue SIMs and credit cards only to identified individuals - and block immediately lost/stolen SIMs and phones? Because hampering telco and banks business is not good for their political career? What about money transfers?

    Meanwhile now the UE complains illegal immigrants were not fully identified - but there is no legal framework that makes it compulsory - allow for identification, fingerprints, iris scan or whatever - or be jailed until expelled?

    It's clear it is just realized the dream of every bad politician and every bad cop - gather data about every of your own citizend, "just in case"...

  5. alpine

    Landbased?

    And what about land based travel. You know trains n' boats n' cars?

    1. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: Landbased?

      I know what you mean, but the inclusion of boats means "land based travel" is the wrong term. Perhaps "surface-based" would be more accurate.

  6. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Nice to know they are rebutting the US data demands

    I have a trusted, real-life, travel agent who books all my travel needs.

    Her office address is my home address, there are no mobile phone numbers, frequent flyer plans are for the birds, email addresses are on her agencies servers and forwarded on demand. As for credit card data - she books hundreds of thousands of dollars of travel on her agency plastic.

    And she uses EU-based Amadeus res system as all the US systems such as Sabre, Apollo, Expedia all pump their data straight into US Government computers.

    Land transportation is still the best way to cross a border with minimal mouse trails - ask Nick Leeson (Barings Bank spectacular failure) and CHOY Hon-Tim (USD$14-million Singapore bribery case) who both used air transport.

    And with all the sources for fake ID, including passports, there are still many holes to close.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why?

    Why only serious crimes? Why not for ALL crime? Is there some reason why one criminal should be pursued and another not? For instance its it alright to pursue a suspected terrorist but perhaps not a hacker? If so why would you not want to also convict a hacker? I don't see the value in limiting the use of data to terrorism or "serious crime". All crims should be prosecuted and punished, period. In addition all EU countries should agree 100% to extradition where a crime occurred because that is the law that applies to the crime. The EU needs to get in touch with reality or they are going to pay a very high price for their ignorance.

    1. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: Why?

      And, there, ladies and gentlemen, is the first astroturfing from the security forces. You will hear this argument put forward more and more over the next few years.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon