This Big Brother Is in the U.S.
BRUSSELS - Private
information on innocent citizens will be handed over to U.S. law
enforcement authorities under an agreement slated for approval by the
European Parliament this week.
In February, members of the
Parliament (MEPs) rejected a plan to allow data
on everyday bank transactions be given to the U.S., citing concerns over
fundamental civil rights. Four months later, however, MEPs are expected
to
endorse the same plan Jul. 8, having been granted a small number of
concessions.
This has its roots in a U.S. move to snoop on data held by Swift, a
Belgian-
based company that facilitates exchanges between banks, following the
Sep.
11 atrocities. Under the pretext of tracking the "money trail" of
terrorists, the
Washington authorities used subpoenas to gain access to Swift's data.
Yet
even though personal details on millions of individuals were transferred
across the Atlantic, the public was not informed that such transfers
were
taking place until a report appeared in The New York Times in 2006.
Eager to allow the transfers to continue, the European Union's
governments
accepted an accord designed to give Washington the necessary legal cover
in
November last year. This accord drew angry response from civil liberties
watchdogs, who pointed out that people whose data was abused would have
no means of seeking redress. The new privacy legislation in the U.S.
only
offers protection against unlawful data processing to U.S. citizens and
residents, not to outsiders under scrutiny by the U.S. authorities.
The Parliament's revolt against that accord was prompted in large
measure by
how MEPs felt they had been excluded from talks over the accord's
content,
and by their desire to exercise new powers under the EU's Lisbon treaty,
which gives them a greater say in many policy areas. As a result, the
Union's
governments and Barack Obama's administration in the U.S. sought to
address some of their concerns. A few modifications to the agreement
have
been made, including a provision for stationing an EU official in
Washington
to monitor the accord's implementation.
But privacy campaigners say that the core deficiencies in the agreement
have
not been remedied.
"The fundamental points that were rejected by the Parliament the first
time
are in the text again," Joe McNamee from European Digital Rights told
IPS. "It
seems that what the Parliament has been searching for is a way of
backing
down. The amount of data involved remains pretty much the same."
The data held by Swift includes the names of bank account holders and
the
numbers of those accounts. Because the volume of information concerned
is
so vast, the EU's own Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx has
protested
that the measures envisaged in the November accord "interfere with the
private life of all Europeans." There are no guarantees that data will
no longer
be stored after a certain length of time or after it has been proven to
be of no
benefit in an investigation, he has said.
Alexander Alvaro, a German Liberal MEP who has been tasked with drafting
the Parliament's official response to the accord, says that he and his
colleagues "have got clear concessions" since February. The EU official
sent to
Washington will be able to block the transfer of data if it is being
abused, he
claimed.
Although his stance is being supported by a majority in the Parliament,
some
MEPs are continuing to voice serious misgivings. Opponents say that the
agreement is illegal because it violates the right to privacy, which is
enshrined
in the European Convention on Human Rights. All EU countries are
required to
respect that convention.
Jan Philipp Albrecht, a German Green, said: "Nothing has really changed.
All
sorts of personal data concerning innocent European citizens are still
being
sent to the U.S."
Rui Tavares, a Portuguese left-wing MEP, said European citizens will be
discriminated against as a result of the agreement. "We know full well
that
this doesn't change American law and that it doesn't go through the
American
Congress."
Sophie in 't Veld, a Dutch Liberal MEP who specialises in civil
liberties, said
she was only supporting the revised accord because she did not believe
it
would be politically possible to hammer out a better deal. "There is no
reason
for jubilation but it is the least bad option," she said, warning that
the
accord's shortcoming left it vulnerable to legal challenges.
As part of the changes to the agreement, the EU has undertaken to set up
its
own "terrorism finance tracking programme", so that it can analyse bank
transactions within Europe. Supporters of the accord say that this step
should
enable the Union to eliminate the bulk transfer of data to the U.S.
The latest agreement also gives Europol, the EU's police cooperation
agreement, a role in its implementation. But privacy campaigners point
out
that Europol is not a data protection body.
This is not the first time that the European Parliament has succumbed to
pressure to approve controversial measures that the U.S. has sought as
part
of the "war on terror" declared by its former president George W. Bush.
In
2005, for example, MEPs accepted sweeping measures to make
telecommunications firms retain details of all phone calls and email
messages
made and sent by ordinary citizens.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
BRUSSELS - Private
information on innocent citizens will be handed over to U.S. law
enforcement authorities under an agreement slated for approval by the
European Parliament this week.
In February, members of the
Parliament (MEPs) rejected a plan to allow data
on everyday bank transactions be given to the U.S., citing concerns over
fundamental civil rights. Four months later, however, MEPs are expected
to
endorse the same plan Jul. 8, having been granted a small number of
concessions.
This has its roots in a U.S. move to snoop on data held by Swift, a
Belgian-
based company that facilitates exchanges between banks, following the
Sep.
11 atrocities. Under the pretext of tracking the "money trail" of
terrorists, the
Washington authorities used subpoenas to gain access to Swift's data.
Yet
even though personal details on millions of individuals were transferred
across the Atlantic, the public was not informed that such transfers
were
taking place until a report appeared in The New York Times in 2006.
Eager to allow the transfers to continue, the European Union's
governments
accepted an accord designed to give Washington the necessary legal cover
in
November last year. This accord drew angry response from civil liberties
watchdogs, who pointed out that people whose data was abused would have
no means of seeking redress. The new privacy legislation in the U.S.
only
offers protection against unlawful data processing to U.S. citizens and
residents, not to outsiders under scrutiny by the U.S. authorities.
The Parliament's revolt against that accord was prompted in large
measure by
how MEPs felt they had been excluded from talks over the accord's
content,
and by their desire to exercise new powers under the EU's Lisbon treaty,
which gives them a greater say in many policy areas. As a result, the
Union's
governments and Barack Obama's administration in the U.S. sought to
address some of their concerns. A few modifications to the agreement
have
been made, including a provision for stationing an EU official in
Washington
to monitor the accord's implementation.
But privacy campaigners say that the core deficiencies in the agreement
have
not been remedied.
"The fundamental points that were rejected by the Parliament the first
time
are in the text again," Joe McNamee from European Digital Rights told
IPS. "It
seems that what the Parliament has been searching for is a way of
backing
down. The amount of data involved remains pretty much the same."
The data held by Swift includes the names of bank account holders and
the
numbers of those accounts. Because the volume of information concerned
is
so vast, the EU's own Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx has
protested
that the measures envisaged in the November accord "interfere with the
private life of all Europeans." There are no guarantees that data will
no longer
be stored after a certain length of time or after it has been proven to
be of no
benefit in an investigation, he has said.
Alexander Alvaro, a German Liberal MEP who has been tasked with drafting
the Parliament's official response to the accord, says that he and his
colleagues "have got clear concessions" since February. The EU official
sent to
Washington will be able to block the transfer of data if it is being
abused, he
claimed.
Although his stance is being supported by a majority in the Parliament,
some
MEPs are continuing to voice serious misgivings. Opponents say that the
agreement is illegal because it violates the right to privacy, which is
enshrined
in the European Convention on Human Rights. All EU countries are
required to
respect that convention.
Jan Philipp Albrecht, a German Green, said: "Nothing has really changed.
All
sorts of personal data concerning innocent European citizens are still
being
sent to the U.S."
Rui Tavares, a Portuguese left-wing MEP, said European citizens will be
discriminated against as a result of the agreement. "We know full well
that
this doesn't change American law and that it doesn't go through the
American
Congress."
Sophie in 't Veld, a Dutch Liberal MEP who specialises in civil
liberties, said
she was only supporting the revised accord because she did not believe
it
would be politically possible to hammer out a better deal. "There is no
reason
for jubilation but it is the least bad option," she said, warning that
the
accord's shortcoming left it vulnerable to legal challenges.
As part of the changes to the agreement, the EU has undertaken to set up
its
own "terrorism finance tracking programme", so that it can analyse bank
transactions within Europe. Supporters of the accord say that this step
should
enable the Union to eliminate the bulk transfer of data to the U.S.
The latest agreement also gives Europol, the EU's police cooperation
agreement, a role in its implementation. But privacy campaigners point
out
that Europol is not a data protection body.
This is not the first time that the European Parliament has succumbed to
pressure to approve controversial measures that the U.S. has sought as
part
of the "war on terror" declared by its former president George W. Bush.
In
2005, for example, MEPs accepted sweeping measures to make
telecommunications firms retain details of all phone calls and email
messages
made and sent by ordinary citizens.
BRUSSELS - Private
information on innocent citizens will be handed over to U.S. law
enforcement authorities under an agreement slated for approval by the
European Parliament this week.
In February, members of the
Parliament (MEPs) rejected a plan to allow data
on everyday bank transactions be given to the U.S., citing concerns over
fundamental civil rights. Four months later, however, MEPs are expected
to
endorse the same plan Jul. 8, having been granted a small number of
concessions.
This has its roots in a U.S. move to snoop on data held by Swift, a
Belgian-
based company that facilitates exchanges between banks, following the
Sep.
11 atrocities. Under the pretext of tracking the "money trail" of
terrorists, the
Washington authorities used subpoenas to gain access to Swift's data.
Yet
even though personal details on millions of individuals were transferred
across the Atlantic, the public was not informed that such transfers
were
taking place until a report appeared in The New York Times in 2006.
Eager to allow the transfers to continue, the European Union's
governments
accepted an accord designed to give Washington the necessary legal cover
in
November last year. This accord drew angry response from civil liberties
watchdogs, who pointed out that people whose data was abused would have
no means of seeking redress. The new privacy legislation in the U.S.
only
offers protection against unlawful data processing to U.S. citizens and
residents, not to outsiders under scrutiny by the U.S. authorities.
The Parliament's revolt against that accord was prompted in large
measure by
how MEPs felt they had been excluded from talks over the accord's
content,
and by their desire to exercise new powers under the EU's Lisbon treaty,
which gives them a greater say in many policy areas. As a result, the
Union's
governments and Barack Obama's administration in the U.S. sought to
address some of their concerns. A few modifications to the agreement
have
been made, including a provision for stationing an EU official in
Washington
to monitor the accord's implementation.
But privacy campaigners say that the core deficiencies in the agreement
have
not been remedied.
"The fundamental points that were rejected by the Parliament the first
time
are in the text again," Joe McNamee from European Digital Rights told
IPS. "It
seems that what the Parliament has been searching for is a way of
backing
down. The amount of data involved remains pretty much the same."
The data held by Swift includes the names of bank account holders and
the
numbers of those accounts. Because the volume of information concerned
is
so vast, the EU's own Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx has
protested
that the measures envisaged in the November accord "interfere with the
private life of all Europeans." There are no guarantees that data will
no longer
be stored after a certain length of time or after it has been proven to
be of no
benefit in an investigation, he has said.
Alexander Alvaro, a German Liberal MEP who has been tasked with drafting
the Parliament's official response to the accord, says that he and his
colleagues "have got clear concessions" since February. The EU official
sent to
Washington will be able to block the transfer of data if it is being
abused, he
claimed.
Although his stance is being supported by a majority in the Parliament,
some
MEPs are continuing to voice serious misgivings. Opponents say that the
agreement is illegal because it violates the right to privacy, which is
enshrined
in the European Convention on Human Rights. All EU countries are
required to
respect that convention.
Jan Philipp Albrecht, a German Green, said: "Nothing has really changed.
All
sorts of personal data concerning innocent European citizens are still
being
sent to the U.S."
Rui Tavares, a Portuguese left-wing MEP, said European citizens will be
discriminated against as a result of the agreement. "We know full well
that
this doesn't change American law and that it doesn't go through the
American
Congress."
Sophie in 't Veld, a Dutch Liberal MEP who specialises in civil
liberties, said
she was only supporting the revised accord because she did not believe
it
would be politically possible to hammer out a better deal. "There is no
reason
for jubilation but it is the least bad option," she said, warning that
the
accord's shortcoming left it vulnerable to legal challenges.
As part of the changes to the agreement, the EU has undertaken to set up
its
own "terrorism finance tracking programme", so that it can analyse bank
transactions within Europe. Supporters of the accord say that this step
should
enable the Union to eliminate the bulk transfer of data to the U.S.
The latest agreement also gives Europol, the EU's police cooperation
agreement, a role in its implementation. But privacy campaigners point
out
that Europol is not a data protection body.
This is not the first time that the European Parliament has succumbed to
pressure to approve controversial measures that the U.S. has sought as
part
of the "war on terror" declared by its former president George W. Bush.
In
2005, for example, MEPs accepted sweeping measures to make
telecommunications firms retain details of all phone calls and email
messages
made and sent by ordinary citizens.