EU Won’t Hand Over Their Data

/35 Comments/in /by

Last year and in February, we watched as the EU balked at US demands for data-sharing under the SWIFT program. The Belgian cooperative in charge of the international money transfer database moved its servers to the EU, but the US still wanted the same access it had had when the servers were in the US. The US had tried to push through a last-minute deal before EU Parliament changed hands last year, but the parliament rejected that deal. So now the EU is trying to decide what kind of data-sharing they’ll have with the US.

EFF links to a report from this week’s EU debate on SWIFT. The result? The Europeans passed a resolution stating that they’re not going to hand over to the US bulk downloads of data, and ultimately any data shared with the US should be extracted on EU soil, and should include reciprocity with the US.

On the issue of bank data transfers, Parliament argues in a resolution adopted by show of hands, that bulk data transfers infringe EU legislation.  It urges the Council and Commission to “address this issue properly in the negotiations”.  In addition, the new agreement should include “strict implementation and supervision safeguards, monitored by an appropriate EU-appointed authority” on the day-to-day extraction of and use by the US authorities of all such data. The maximum storage period must not exceed five years and the data may not be disclosed to third countries.

Any new agreement should be limited in duration and pave the way for arrangements to enable requested data to be extracted on European soil, say MEPs. They believe that “the option offering the highest level of guarantees” would be to allow for the extraction of data to take place on EU soil, in EU or joint EU-US facilities.  In the medium term, an EU judicial authority should oversee the extraction of data in the EU. Meanwhile, select EU personnel should take part in the oversight of the extraction process in the USA.

Reciprocity would require the Americans to allow EU authorities to obtain and use data stored in servers in the US.

Parliament wants access to any documents that demonstrate the need for the scheme.  It also wants to know whether the envisaged agreement will guarantee the same rights to European citizens as to Americans in the event of any abuse of the data: the rights guaranteed under the US Privacy Act can be invoked only by citizens and permanent residents of the United States.

The Europeans might yet put some limits on the US efforts to totally eliminate privacy in the name of counter-terrorism.

image_print
35 replies
  2. klynn says:

    Good for the EU!

    At least someplace, somewhere, stands for rights and privacy.

    The Europeans passed a resolution stating that they’re not going to hand over to the US bulk downloads of data, and ultimately any data shared with the US should be extracted on EU soil, and should include reciprocity with the US.

    (my bold)

    Oh that brought a smile. US citizens will scream in opposition on that “foreign invasion” of privacy.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Interpol’s internal administrative operations, including the persons, places and working papers of its employees, are not subject to disclosure under FOIA, just as is true of foreign embassies and consulates.

  5. JTMinIA says:

    Prima facie evidence of terrorism, in my book. If any of them EU folks were dual-US-citizens before now, they won’t be by tomorrow.

    • emptywheel says:

      Thanks, GCP, I am interested.

      Interesting that “James”–who at first wanted to make sure drilling could continue–is suing.

      And yes, it does appear that the mud-to-water switch is one of hte problems. we’ll have to wait to see whether it’s enough to make BP bear full liability for the spill, though (the $75 million limit only remains if you’re not negligent).

      • GulfCoastPirate says:

        Yea, interesting indeed. I wonder why in the world they did it that way. Dosn;t seem to be SOP.

    • Hmmm says:

      Not to go all nonsequitur, but the first phrase that comes to mind is “law of the sea”…

  8. croghan27 says:

    On the issue of bank data transfers, Parliament argues in a resolution adopted by show of hands, that bulk data transfers infringe EU legislation.

    Obviously they are looking back, not forward. They reject making up laws as they go along.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    That’s what comes from directly electing EU parliamentarians, rather than having them appointed by their states governments.

    As many holes as the Dutch, the Germans and especially the Brits have poked in their privacy regimes for “national security” and “law enforcement” purposes, they are nothing compared to the tearing down of walls the Bush and Obama administrations have accomplished.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    For those who want to follow EU privacy issues, here is the announcement for a new EU privacy project, a joint effort by the Privacy International in London, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, DC, and the EU Commission funded Center for Media and Communications Studies at Central European University (CEU) [http://www.cmcs.ceu.hu/research/privacy-and-freedoms].

  11. BoxTurtle says:

    I think this is a victory in name only. I think we’ve got the technology to take that data with or without their owners cooperating and I think that’s what ObamaLLP is going to try to do.

    Boxturtle (Fie, Sir! Fie on thy anacronistic laws, I say!)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      From that article:

      Among other things, Mr. Meltzer played a leading role in the administration’s efforts to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and related policies affecting terrorism detainees.

      I’m sure that passion is not why he’s leaving.

      And then there’s this:

      “In addition, Mr. Meltzer, who teaches courses on the federal courts at Harvard, helped prepare Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her confirmation hearings – a role he may reprise in his final weeks by working with Mr. Obama’s forthcoming Supreme Court nominee, which the president is expected to announce as soon as Monday.”

      I wonder if he doesn’t like the top name on the list.

      • fatster says:

        After reading your article about all the interlinkages involving Kagan, Summers, Harvard, etc., I certainly defer to your good judgment on such matters.

    • harpie says:

      Thanks for posting that. Interesting:

      As Holder went on to note, the Supreme Court, which recognized the public safety exception in the 1984 Quarles case, has never laid out how long questioning can last under the exception.

    • Hmmm says:

      Dang, you’re fast!

      My main question after reading the TPM piece on the new hemi-semi-demi-Miranda is (though my questions are not necessarily limited to) the following: Eric the Holder speaks only about the FBI’s questioning awesomeness. But might other entities like military, CIA, etc. also be involved in pre-Miranda interrogations? My suspicion might be informed by the scuttlebutt about military SIGINT drones circling over NYC during the Shahzad search, and the weird disjoint between Holder’s cryptic comment about never fearing that they’d lose track of him, vs. the news that LE had in fact lost track of him… but the trail was picked up again later. (Occam’s Razor says they resorted to SIGINT at that point.)

      I guess I’m wondering whether military + CIA + NSA + etc. might all spring into action in these cases, in parallel to LE efforts but behind the scenes, and perhaps without much (or any) communication with LE. When all goes well in the LE track, the other forces could just hang back and let LE do what they do — and that makes for a clean, presentable story for the public. But when LE doesn’t deliver, those forces would be there to backstop any LE slip-up and make the nab. Once the subject’s apprehended, mil + CIA + etc. could get first crack with the suspect, in this hours-long pre-Miranda interrogation we’re learning about, and use that info to make the critical initial determination whether to go Article III vs. the Mil Commissions route vs. straight to the secret dungeon. Under their new rules, anything collected pre-Miranda can still be used if they go Article III.

      Jeeeeesh. Yuck. Beer-frickin-thirty yet?

      • fatster says:

        You raised some very interesting questions. The only one I’m qualified to respond to is that “beer-frickin-thirty” occurred for me about 34 minutes after you asked. Mmmmmmm.

  15. Loo Hoo. says:

    Rachel is reporting the DOD kicking the good reporters out and quoting Ackerman. Called it a kangaroo court!

    • harpie says:

      This was meant as a reply to Hmmm @25. [Obviously, it’s been past beer-fricken thirty here for a while now.]

  19. JerseyJoe says:

    It has often been wondered, and feared, that the purpose of all the Patriot Act rules on surveillance would be used for political purposed. Surveillance of bank records and transactions would be part of this scrutiny.

    I know from talking to stock brokers that they hate Elliot Spitzer, as he is not shy about talking about their shenanigans. I will always wonder about the bank surveillance that led to the discovery of his transactions with the escort service and ultimately led to his resignation as Governor.

    I will always wonder if that was not the first case of the misuse of the Patriot Act for political purposes.

    • bobschacht says:

      I know from talking to stock brokers that they hate Elliot Spitzer, as he is not shy about talking about their shenanigans. I will always wonder about the bank surveillance that led to the discovery of his transactions with the escort service and ultimately led to his resignation as Governor.

      I will always wonder if that was not the first case of the misuse of the Patriot Act for political purposes.

      Did you see him sit in, once, for Dylan Ratigan (IIRC)? For the whole hour?
      Did a fine job, too. Much better than Chris Hayes, of The Nation. Chris does great as a talking head, but as host, he is so hyper that you just want him to calm down a bit. Make that a lot.

      Anyway, I think CNBC would do well to hire Spitzer to do a regular show. He’s proven that he has the chops, and he’d certainly be more informative than most of the chuckle-heads they have.

      Bob in AZ

Comments are closed.