SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - EU copies bad principles of the American model

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - EU copies bad principles of the American model (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=124603)

EU copies bad principles of the American model

Since longer time I am convinced that the socalled war on terror is only a stinking excuse to systemtically deconstruct civil liberties and freedoms from the Western former democratic societies, to bring political and economic lobbies into position where they can run and manipulate societies to their own personal needs and profit/power interests without needing to fear that the public has any legal means and independant information available to countercontrol these ursupators. And further, the thing is about enforcing a communal collectivism that even tries to make unwanted opinions and resistiong the official policies even almost unimaginable for the individual citizen. "Was ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß". What I do not know, does not worry my. What I am prevented to know, doesn't worry me either. Because I don't know that I don't know.

Fear of an external enemy and an always present - an omni-present - threat, as well as luring people into material dependecies from their national states (who in the time of economical globalization loose their meaning of beeing national more and more anyway) and free them from all self-responsebilities, are the shield and the sword by which this should be accieved. In different baölances, this is true both for Europe and the US.

I read today that the EU plans to implement the 13 years storing of PNR data of airplane travellers, copying the American model to a wide degree. This is excused by figbhting terror, of course. What else? Governments must be deeply thankful for terrorism. It allows them to do what without terror would have been so many times more difficult to acchieve.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/nov/01eu-pnr.htm

Quote:

The data to be collected is almost exactly the same as that being collected under the controversial EU-US PNR scheme. Every passenger's data is to be subject to a "risk assessment" which could lead to questioning or refusal of entry. The data is to be kept for 5 years (EU-US scheme is 7 years) and then for a further 8 years in a "dormant" database (the same as the EU-USA scheme).
(...)
One of the most controversial aspects will be the "profiling" (risk assessment) of all passengers, including visitors from the USA. The "profile" will be updated and held for 13 years. The "profiling" of all passengers raises fundamental questions of privacy, data protection and human rights.
It should be noted that this is a proposal for legislation by the Commission which the Council - in its secret working parties - can change at will (and ignore European Parliament's opinion under "consultation"). So will the scope be extended cover internal EU flights (ie: between EU countries) as well?

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:
"This is yet another measure that places everyone under surveillance and makes everyone a "suspect" without any meaningful right to know how the data is used, how it is further processed and by whom. Moreover, the "profiling" of all airline passengers has no place in a democracy.
We have already got the mandatory taking of fingerprints for passports and ID cards and the mandatory storage of telecommunications data of every communication, now we are to have the mandatory logging of all travel in and out of the EU.
The underlying rationale for each of the measures is the same - all are needed to tackle terrorism. Yet there is little evidence that the gathering of "mountain upon mountain" of data on the activities of every person in the EU makes a significant contribution. On the other hand, the use of this data for other purposes, now or in the future, will make the EU the most surveilled place in the world".

The original EU proposal:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/...r-proposal.pdf

The worth of such proceedings to tackle terrorism is questionable at best, and this is even being recongized in the US who invented the idea.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/102407JILOpen.pdf

Quote:

Some of the concerns stem from the sheer size of the watch list. It contained 158,000 names, including aliases, in July 2004. That grew to 755,000 names by May of this year and now stands at about 860,000 names just five months later. That’s nearly a 500 percent increase in three years. Of course, if there is a good reason to have each of those names there, the increase in the size of the list is good news. But if many of these names are mistakenly there, the credibility of the terrorism watch list and its usefulness will be compromised. (...)

Another concern of the Department of Justice, myself – and the traveling public – is providing an appeal for innocent individuals who are caught in the watch list system because they have the same name, or a similar name, to someone who deserves to be on the list .

In the most famous example, Senator Kennedy was denied boarding on five different airline flights because his name resembled that of an IRA terrorist. It took weeks to get this cleared up.

Since Octobre 2004, 53000 people had been (sometimes repeatedly) questioned becasue they ended up to be on the terror list. A german commentator commented that instead of starting to examine the names on the list and try to keep it as small as possible, so that the names on it actually would have a meaning concerning possible threads, the instead choosen strategy seems to be to blow up the list as big as possible, with theultimate goal of having all people ever travelling on that list. such a project, I conclude, cannot be about identifying terrorist, but necessarily must be about accumulating information for total control of the whole people.

Some critical notes by statewatch:

Quote:

THE PUI is to analyse the PNR data and reach a "risk assessment" for each passenger" - effectively introducing the "profiling" of all passengers. The criteria of "risk assessment" is to be based on national laws (Art 3.3). So the basis of each "risk assessment" could be different as each member state has different "watch-lists" based on different criteria and different national laws.
We now know that the USA has 755,000 people on its terrorist watchlist. However, it also uses watchlists to apprehend anyone who has broken any US law. How many people are on EU member states' lists? Will names and details be checked against the Schengen Information System (SIS and SIS II) databases whose scope goes well beyond terrorism and organised crime?
(...)
Under Art 4.2 "competent authorities":
"shall only include law enforcement authorities responsible for the prevention or combating of terrorist offences and organised crime"
But will the data be passed to internal/external security and the military defence agencies? The notion that this measure gives power solely to "law enforcement agencies" is nonsense - they may compile watchlists on organised crime but the one for terrorist suspects will be done by the security and intelligence agencies.
(...)
A key issue raised in the consultation process (see below) was which data should be transferred by the PIUs to other national agencies. Should "non-suspects" be screened out and only those presenting a risk passed to other national agencies? Or should there be the bulk transfer of all the PNR data to say MI5/MI6/GCHQ in the UK?
(...)
The Commission's own consultation options observed that a period long than 3.5 years:
"would be seen as excessive and not respecting data protection concerns"
Personal PNR data on every traveller is to be held in an active database for 5 years then a further 8 years in a "dormant" database (the EU-US PNR scheme: data held for 7 years then a further 8 years in "dormant" database).
Data is to be deleted after 5+8, a total of 13 years, except where data is being used for an: "ongoing criminal investigation or intelligence operation"
Why does data on passengers who have been cleared as a "risk" need to be kept for so long? This will involve millions of quite innocent people being kept on record - with the possibility that, in time, the scope of the measure is extend from organised crime, to serious crime then crime in general?
(...)
Art 10.1 says that
"The Council Framework Decision on the protection of data for police and judicial cooperation applies to the processing of data under this measure."
But this measure has not been adopted and is highly controversial having been completely changed by the Council ignoring the Opinions of the European Parliament, the European Data Protection Supervisor, and the EU's Article 29 Data Protection Working (Data Protection Commissioners from all 27 states) Party.
This Data Protection Framework Decision offers little or no "protection" to the individual and allows the unhindered exchange of personal data with third states like the USA. See: Statewatch's Observatory on data protection in the EU
(...)
During the negotiations on the new EU-US PNR agreement the number of categories of data to be transferred was reduced from 34 to 19. However, the 19 items included all the data from the 34 items.

The EU is set to adopt almost exactly the same 19 sets of PNR data to be accessed - which have been criticised by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on more than one occasion.

Quote:

Consultation process - EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party "opposed"
In the run-up to this proposal the Commission put out a consultation document listing options. The EU's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party in response was not convinced of the necessity of the measure and concluded that it:

"have not seen any information presented by the Commission that would substantiate the pressing need to process PNR data for the purpose of preventing and fighting terrorism and related crimes or law enforcement"
It further concluded:
"Evaluation of the necessity and proportionality of the measures can only be based on the experiences with the US PNR framework. A lack of available information in this context makes it problematic to assess the necessity, effectiveness and proportionality. Anecdotal information on the processing of API and PNR data by US authorities however concerns mainly passengers incorrectly identified as a risk to air security." and
"For the reasons mentioned above, and until the Working Party is provided with clarification on these fundamental points, the Article 29 Working Party cannot conclude that the establishment of an EU PNR regime is necessary. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Working Party would be opposed to its development."
Their submission further states that:
"To the extent that measures to be developed, be they at EU level or at national level, entail a breach of Article 6 of Directive 95\46\EC and limitation to the right to private life, they should in any case respect the limits of Article 13 of Directive 95\46\EC and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human ~rights.
The Commission will have to substantiate the pressing need for the processing of PNR data' in particular in light of the following:
· The operational need and purpose of collecting PNR data at the entrance of the European Union Territory.
· The added value of collecting PNR data in light of the already existing control measures at the entrance of the EU for security purposes, such as the Schengen system, the Visa Information System, and the API system.
· The relationship with Directive 2004/82/EC. Does the Commission already have information on the implementation of this directive and its effects?
· The added value of the processing of PNR data over the processing of API data.
· The use that is foreseen for PNR data. For identifying individuals in order to ensure air security? For identifying who comes into the territory of the EU? For general negative or positive profiling of passengers? Is there an interest in specific PNR fields for specific purposes of investigating and fighting particular crimes? Would PNR data be the most adequate data for these purposes?"

The future is named "total surveillance state". add to this thread the many examples of data collection, penetration of your private sphere and surveillance that all of you know (at least you should!) from living in your according national countries.

Fear not Skybird. Being a Government-led directive, it will probably be implemented after numerous 'feasibility studies' by 'think tanks' (read: it will take bloody ages to get off the ground, and be really badly planned and implemented when it does). But despite all the studies, the contract will go to some European MP's buddy, who once mentioned to him at their club that he 'has a company that does that sort of thing'.

Then, it will probably use a Windows-based system, so at some point it will crash and lose all the data. I'm not joking here, read about the Air Traffic control computer fiasco in the UK at Swanwick, it was over ten years behind schedule when it finally went operational, and it still has more bugs than a Sony RPG:

'The air traffic control centre at Swanwick in Hampshire is finally operational, ending one of the most embarrassing episodes in government IT history.
The centre will cover all of England and Wales except London and Manchester, and should be capable of handling 30 per cent more flights.
It was expected to have a 30-year life. But its operator, National Air Traffic Services (Nats) is already planning to replace its systems in around 20 years.
Yet another government IT project dogged by software problems and spiralling budgets.'

Then, seek further solace in how the European 'Union' lack of unity arses things up with the depressing regularity of an atomic clock. Half the countries in the EU cannot organise themselves vetoe 'get out clauses' quickly enough most of the time, because they'd have a hard time agreeing on what colour the sky is, let alone some kind of cross-border data-sharing protocols. The Euro bank notes are a case in point here, there were so many squabbles about what they should look like, and what illustrations they should have on them, that in the end, they couldn't agree on it, as a result, all the drawings of buildings on the Euro notes are not actually real buildings at all, but fictional ones. Which, ironically, is probably more symbolic of how the EU operates than they would likely prefer!

The EU, more a case of 'Big Brother would like to be watching you, but can't decide on what colour his binoculars should be' than Orwell's vision.

:D Chock

I do not share your optimism, since so many legal projects already have passed, and are aiming in the same direction. 80% of all laws being passed in Germany over a range of 3 years - had been EU demands that even where not analysed or discussed in parliment - they just waved them through, uncritically, whcih already is a violation of the constitutional rule of what the obligations of Parliament are. Senior judges publicly have given different estimations of at least one third, if not more thna one half, of these Eu laws being in violation if the german constitution.

Do you see any resistance forming to these proceedings? No. Only ex-Bundespräsident Herzog (ex-judge at the highest constitutional court in Germany) blogging in newspapers about the dark sides of the EU treaty - a treaty/constitution which is also illustrating that governments have agreement on rejecting european people the powers and insights to stand up against EU command, and reject them.

I don't know where you come up with this nonsense. As a US citizen, I don't feel that any of my civil liberties have been infringed here in the US due to the war on terror. You don't even live in the US but you talk as if you are some expert on our civil liberties and how they have been infringed comparing it to what the EU is now doing. From what I can tell from actually living across the pond for a short period of time, you guys are tied down a hell of a lot more than we are.

Working in a financial institution, the Patriot Act is a way of life and let me tell you, it works well. I have already witnessed financial transactions and loans stopped by the Pat act because the folks doing it were dirty, or were tied to terrorist organizations. I personally would like to see more in the way of profiling and what should be common sense types of things that aren't allowed due to political correctness.

Quote:

As a US citizen, I don't feel that any of my civil liberties have been infringed here in the US due to the war on terror.

You don't consider illegal wiretapping an infringement? Do you believe that by taking the Judiciary Branch out of the chain as an overseer to this kind of survellience, that your personal and civil liberties aren't being compromised? Let's say, for example, that YOUR position at the financial institution you work for comes under scrutiny due to "faulty intelligence" (it happens, look at WMDs) and you're suspected of co-operating with a "terrorist cell". Your phone is tapped, your workplace is brought under survellience, and one night, you're whisked away to Gitmo and held as a "terrorist sympathizer".

The very same system that is being put in place to "protect" you, is revoking your personal and civil liberites. Your recourse to legal counsel and representation vaporizes under the guise of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

Intelligence has seldom been 100% accurate. Ask some of those who lost years of their lives at Gitmo due to inaccurate intelligence and faulty accusations...

Quote:

I have already witnessed financial transactions and loans stopped by the Pat act because the folks doing it were dirty, or were tied to terrorist organizations.

We didn't need the Patriot Act to freeze or stop "illicit or illegal" transactions before. Why does it need to happen now?

There is a much larger and more sinister picture... This system, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act aren't just for the here and now, it's for the future. And anyone who thinks it's "protecting them" is being deluded...

Quote:

I personally would like to see more in the way of profiling and what should be common sense types of things that aren't allowed due to political correctness.

Be careful what you wish for...

I am not a fan of the Patriot Act. It was an OK device for just after 9/11 to get things in order and get to work on cracking down on various things, but today it needs to be re-evaluated. You will never catch the crooked people of this world using an act like this, just slow them down. By now, they have found ways to circumvent its policies.

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Quote:

As a US citizen, I don't feel that any of my civil liberties have been infringed here in the US due to the war on terror.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Thus, the Court outlined seven constitutional requirements: (1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted; (3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time); (4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date; (5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized; (6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and (7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations.

Nothing has changed since 1978.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Quote:

As a US citizen, I don't feel that any of my civil liberties have been infringed here in the US due to the war on terror.

Quote:

I have already witnessed financial transactions and loans stopped by the Pat act because the folks doing it were dirty, or were tied to terrorist organizations.

Quote:

I personally would like to see more in the way of profiling and what should be common sense types of things that aren't allowed due to political correctness.

Be careful what you wish for...

Wiretapping? The government has been wiretapping the same way it has since Clinton and Project Echelon. Bush didn't change anything about it. Further, the wiretapping they were doing were outbound calls to overseas nations, not some crazy NY Times dreamt up bullocks story they came up with. These conspiracy people really need to calm down with all this CIA and Dick Cheney listening into your phone calls and your insane hypothetical situations. Do you sit in your basement all day and dream this crap up? Whisked away to Gitmo....you've been watching too many Hollywood movies pal. The day I worry is when the cops come knocking on doors to take peoples guns away. The day they do that is the day you should start worrying, not about all this other silly nonsense.

Further, hell yes I want profiling. If statistics show that muslim men between the ages of 17-45 are most likely to be terrorist then the TSA or the airport security should put more emphasis on them then an 85 year old grandmother. That is just common sense.

I also question your expertise in financial transactions. Do you work in a financial institution? Do you have any experience in that or running the patriot act or seeing the types of things it has stopped? I would wager your answer is no but everyone in this forum is an expert. As part of federal regulation, I, along with all the other folks I work with, each year have to take a course on the Pat Act, money laudering, CCAP, etc. You want to talk about overbearing legislation, lets talk about Sarbanes/Oxley that the morons in congress gave us.

Profiling completely failed regarding the murderers in Madrid and London. We had two attempted serious terror bombing in germany in the past 12 months, and in both cases - the attackers completely failed to comply with imagined terrorist profiles, they were caught for other reasons. If terrorists know that profiles get established - they also know how to avoid themselves behaving in lines with such profiles. Police both in Spain and in England explicitly expressed their surprise and shock to realize how easily their profiles had been evaded. The attackers in London were totally inconspicious regarding assumed profiles of what terrorists look like, even more: they were representative for what was considered to be unharmful normality.

But I disgress, this thread is not about the Patriot Act, no matter how idiotic and dangerous it may be - and there are enough prominet voices inside theUS criticising it for having done serious damages to some very vital parts of the constitutional rights and the rights resulting form the amandements. This thread is about how the war on terror is used as a cheap excuse to raise more or less uncontrolled data volumes of ordinary citizens of Westerns states, and that almost nobody seem to care although the sheer example of the watchlist growing into the hundreds of thousands and now millions of names. If there are so many suspects, then everybody is a suspect a slong as his innocence is not proven, which is the total and complete reversal of one of the most important and major principles of Western legal systems: that you are pressumed innocent as long as your guilt is not proven. Police states make excessive use of these reversals. Also, if there is a list of names now starting to count in millions, the names on it means nothing the more names there are. It is a variant of what in science is known as the classical reliability-validity dilemma. You should have an interest to filter the names as much as possible, and keep the list as short a spossible - only then the probability that a name on it actually has any meaning, is rising into the realms of usefulness.

Also, there is no countercontrol by the public or the citizens concerning what happens with the data. you may asume this or that, you may believe that whoever deals with them, will do it with a sense of at least minimal responsebility - but you simply do not know if they get abused, given to third parties, will be used by insurances in the future, will land in the virtual maze from where everybody interested in them could access them. Considering job search. Insurrances. Minor law cases you find yourself in, about wrong parking, and suddenly you get smashed by hints popping up from nowhere that maybe there is more suspicious about you than just wrong parking, for this or that minstry has your name on their list. Or think aboiut customer trustworthiness that is checked by bank before they decide on your request for a new credit, or a credit card. Handy contracts. Confidentiality and protection of private sphere and pesonal data is what it is about - and this protection is heavily breached and compromised.

And since I do not assume all politicians are so totally stupid, I assume that many of them know all what I just said. Nevertheless it has become policy in recent years to push for these developements. So my conclusion, that the real intention for these databases is something different, and has little to do with fighting terror. It is about control, and securing power of lobbies and politcal-economical groups over the people. You cannot evcen say that these things are only pushed by the rightwinged, and all liberal and lefties are against it. Spain in England for example shows that the left can join the chorus as well.

This roots much deeper than in superficial labelling of parties as left or right, and political orientation. It is to establish an order that is beyond such stage sets.

Also creitical is that the separation between civil use and security-relevant use are fading, and the separation between well meant intention and possible abuse become transparent. This prject for example could work for the good and the bad at the same time:

http://ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/index.htm

Two weeks ago there was a complete longer docu on it on TV. Scientifically, it is interesting, but concerning the variety of possible abuses by governmental services and offices as well as the private business, it raises my neck's hairs.

We have measured and mapped all the globe. Now we map all mankind. If this does not frighten you, then nothing ever will.

Better than the US adopting the bad policies of the EU!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Here we go with the walls of text again. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ

The letter Z you can type flawlessly. Now try it with another one. I know two letters is a challenge for some - but give your best. Together hand in hand, we get you over your problems.

I sure wish you could get me over this overpowering need to fall asleep whenever I read your posts. I have neither the time nor patience to deal with it. Where I come from one doesn't get rewarded by sitting around all day while proclaiming to be an expert at everything. My time is money.

Wowh. You're my hero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The WosMan

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: