Extended from a European Tribune story by afew
From an interview with a senior Member of the European Parliament (the legislative body, part of the European Union institutions, which gets, as a normal parliament, to approve a large number of decisions taken by the European Union):
I hope that the Americans will actually respect the agreement, because so far they have a fairly patchy record in implementing their so-called undertakings or promises.
US authorities have really given us very little reason to trust them blindfolded.
I'm sorry, but it creates an image of American authorities who feel that they are above the law.
What's at stake here is the requirements by the US to receive data on all travellers by plane to the US from airlines. Such transfers of data are strictly controlled in the EU under existing data protection laws, and a specific framework was thus required for airlines to transfer data to US authorities without falling foul of European laws.
An earlier agreement was killed by the European Court of Justice because the way it was reached was deemed illegal (the ruling was on a technicality, not on its actual content), but the European Parliament is not happy because it hasn't been consulted and has been trying to influence the deal - so far with little success (but the battle is not over).
Basically, European data protection laws follow two principles: electornic databases must be used only for purposes stated and agreed to by the people the data is about, and everybody has a right to correct- data about them or, for commercial databases, to be taken out of the base - and database provided are obliged to comply.
US requirements, of course, comply with neither principles.
Like the previous agreement, the Passenger Name Records will be accessible to the Americans, but from the start the European Parliament said that there was no adequate protection of EU citizens' rights. The trouble has been all along that in cases of abuse, or mistakes, there's hardly any means of legal redress for EU citizens, because US data-protection laws do not cover them.
Whereas, for example, we had a similar agreement with Canada, which has simply extended the data-protection laws that apply to their citizens to EU citizens entering Canada. I think that is elementary in a democracy: if we say `OK, we give up some freedom and some privacy with a view to greater security', then, as a counter-weight to that, the position of the citizen vis-à-vis the public authority should be strengthened - there should always be safeguards against abuse and mistakes.
That's the whole philosophy of the Bush administration, isn't it? There are no safeguards against abuse and mistakes.
How this is not an issue for the libertarian right is beyond me.
Just have alook at the data which is being provided:
Information about the passenger: name; address; date of birth; passport number; citizenship; sex; country of residence; US visa number (plus date and place issued); address while in the US; telephone numbers; e-mail address; frequent flyer miles flown; address on frequent flyer account; the passenger's history of not showing up for flights
Information about the booking of the ticket: date of reservation; date of intended travel; date ticket was issued; travel agency; travel agent; billing address; how the ticket was paid for (including credit card number); the ticket number; which organisation issued the ticket; whether the passenger bought the ticket at the airport just before the flight; whether the passenger has a definite booking or is on a waiting list; pricing information; a locator number on the computer reservation system; history of changes to the booking
Information about the flight itself: seat number; seat information (eg aisle or window); bag tag numbers; one-way or return flight; special requests, such as requests for special meals, for a wheelchair, or help for an unaccompanied minor
Information about the passenger's itinerary: other flights ticketed separately, or data on accommodation, car rental, rail reservations or tours.
Information about other people: the group the passenger is travelling with; the person who booked the ticket
And DHS wanted to be able to keep that info as long as they want, and to pass it on to other law-enforcement agencies without any restriction. The latest deal between the EU and the US puts some limits to this (data can be kept 3.5 years, and transmission to other agencies can only be done on a case-by-case basis), but the problem is of course that this depends on the US actually doing what it says:
The trouble has been all along that in cases of abuse, or mistakes, there's hardly any means of legal redress for EU citizens, because US data-protection laws do not cover them.
(...)
I have to say that the Americans promised this back in 2003 as well; it is technically possible, so there is no reason why they haven't implemented it so far. So, that's unfortunate.
(...)
I hope that the Americans will actually respect the agreement, because so far they have a fairly patchy record in implementing their so-called undertakings or promises.
(...)
The previous PNR agreement has been, to put it mildly, implemented in a `less-than-satisfactory' manner. There were all these things that the Americans promised, but the only guarantee seemed to be `Scout's honour'!.
The Americans have not lived up to their promises, that's very obvious; for example, there was the issue of `purpose limitation'. The agreement's undertakings state that passenger data can only be used for the fight against terrorism and related crime. However, in reality it turns out that it is being used for other purposes.
Not performing technically easy work
Not keeping their promises.
Building vast electronic files "for other purposes"
Again, all of these are typical of the Bush administration.
It's been suggested by a number of media commentators that the US has to a large extent squandered the worldwide goodwill that existed in the wake of 9/11. Do you agree, and is it also fair to say that the EU is increasingly resembling a US `poodle', with America forcing policy implementation?
Absolutely. Both statements are true. The US is squandering the goodwill that they had. I am very sorry about that, because I passionately believe that we should be allies and we should be sharing the same values, but it is increasingly difficult.
The second statement is true, because this is a European problem, because we do not have a proper Community policy in this area, we are divided, so the US determines the conditions of the fight against terrorism, and all we can do, the only reply that we have, is to simply provide a legal base for American policy.
Throughout the interview, the MEP takes pains to say that she is favorable to cooperation with the USA, to transfers of data and to atlanticism. She also violently criticizes European governments for letting themselves be steamrolled by the Bush administration.
Because that's what's happening: rule by intimidation, threats, bluster - permanently.
But why would they stop? It works, becuase our European governments have no spine.
What's important here is that we do not have our own policies in Europe, and for what we do have there is no parliamentary scrutiny. This agreement will now be put before national parliaments, but how many do you think will have the guts to say `No, this leaves citizens unprotected, it leaves the airlines in legal limbo'? They can't say `No' anymore, and the European Parliament has not been involved.
This is a very undesirable situation, and it's not just about PNR. We do not speak with one voice, but national governments are selling their electorate the illusion of national sovereignty. Give me a break! Terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon, but we see today that policies are not made in national capitals, nor are they made in Brussels, they are made in Washington.
We've seen it with the CIA renditions, we've seen it with the war in Iraq, we've seen it with many other things: individual European governments (even Britain, Germany or France) have absolutely no influence over the current White House and, when they are divided, get "picked upon" on an individual basis and agree - and become complicit - to the worst excesses of this administration. All European governments knew of the secret CIA flights and did nothing. All of them know that this privacy issue is hated by their citizens, but they are cowardly and pretend to ignore what's going on or that they are 'forced' to agree.
The most saddening thing is that this data transfer is required because of the Visa Waiver Program: citizens from a limited number of EU countries have the right to travel to the US without visas, and thus US Embassies do not have the info on them beforehand. But that Visa Waiver Program has not been extended to the new members of the EU, and the EU is too cowardly to force the issue.
Disruption of airline travel between the US and Europe would be an issue for the US as much as for Europe, but Europe is too scared and disunited to fight back, to protect basic rights of its citizens, and to defend the most basic equality between all EU citizens.
And so the stupid, useless and dangerous "War on Terror" continues, as does the electornic surveillance on all of us, with the full, if unacknowledged, complicity of most European governments and the EU Commissions.
Shame on them all.