Whereas we in the EU have our own dubious surveillance programmes, at least they are made by governments we can overthrow ourselves.
Also, European governments mostly grant us basic human rights, have no secret overseas prisons, no death penalty for "treason", no decade long imprisonments for whistle blowing or hacking, no secret military tribunals, no recent record of torture, almost no drones, small military, tiny intelligence budgets etc.
from my very basic understanding of EU privacy laws, the big win is that they treat everybody equally - the rules say what data you can retain, what data you can't, and that's it. What really scares me about all this FISA and PRISM stuff is that they treat foreigners as essentially non-persons. They at least make some effort at pretending there's a due process for american citizens, but if you're a foreigner with your data on a system owned by a US company, you literally have no rights at all.
IANAL but (Spain): there is NO way to get an order from the Government which you cannot legally make public. You cannot be forced to keep a secret you did not seek to know (unless you are a Gvt employee, which includes that explicitly).
It's interesting. There are few European countries where I can unconditionally refuse to speak to police or refuse them to search my home or person without a warrant. We don't have CCTV cameras like they do in the UK. And when it comes to being able to overthrow your government yourselves, much of Europe has the same sham democracy we do. (Berlusconi? Seriously? Twice?) We have guns, but the parts of Western Europe who really wanted to overthrow their governments within recent history were able to get all the guns and explosives they wanted too. So it's hard to really say one is any better than the other.
"European governments mostly grant us basic human rights"
In the US the traditional (but fading) attitude is that "The US government protects basic human rights". See, the problem is if government 'grants' you human rights, there's a potential for conflict of interest where the government could decide to no longer grant you that right if it becomes inconvenient.
At least with the US attitude, you can wag your finger and say, "you're failing to protect right X". And yes, that attitude means that the US is not obligated to protect the privacy of foreigners. BUT that is different from the question of whether or not the US should actively violate the privacy of foreigners.
It does simplify the issue for EU nations, but it doesn't mean this is the answer for the US. To my knowledge, EU nations get away with very small militaries in part due to the "umbrella" of the friendly US military.
Not to say the US needs a super-mega-ultra-huge military, but this is like when people compare country X to Norway. "Look at how successful Norway is! Look at how wealthy everyone is!" Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the tremendous quantities of natural resources in Norway. Point being, we need to compare apples to apples.
have no secret overseas prisons
How exactly would you know if the EU nations had secret overseas prisons? Aren't they secret? :)
To be fair, your governments lack the military strength to withstand the US. Germany is still under American occupation. To really throw off the yoke (which I support), you'll need to re-militarize.
The EU commission is a bunch of hypocrites. I am an European and I am appalled by the lack of integrity of our politicians: they hand over data on flights, credit cards, SWIFT transactions to other countries and keep trying to pass ACTA in its various forms despite strong opposition of the EU population, they created their own mass-surveillance laws (active in many european countries) and then they pretend to be outraged at the mass-surveillance of the US they themselves have helped facilitate in its full breadth. Cretins!
Indeed! I think the only reason Britain or France still don't have the same mass-surveillance systems in place is their lack of budgets. Otherwise I'm sure we wouldn't be better protected than the americans in the US. Although, the irony being that certainly the US knows more on us (europeans) than our own countries.
It's bullshit blaming the EU, given that it's countries like the UK, Ireland e.a. that are pushing for all of this on order to serve their great friends the US.
It's the EU that stands between us and corrupt national governments handing over our civil rights to US intelligence and business interest. If the EU didn't block this kind of crap half the time we would be way worse of.
While I appreciate this statement I doubt that Germany and the EU is fundamentally different from the US in that matter.
Sure, in Germany recently we've been quite successful in fending off planned legislation that would've allowed massive privacy intrusions but in general the political establishment over here isn't exactly a champion of civil liberties either.
Besides, I'm certain both German and EU administrative bodies closely cooperate with the US on intelligence matters and would more than gladly accept sharing those findings.
Yes, they closely cooperate. But EU agencies (except for UK) don't have a record of torture, abduction and overly use of secrecy. Comparing the budgets of the various secret services should be informative. US agencies are WAY bigger and I think much too big. UK is the exception - being in line with US.
> Europe, which lacks internet giants of its own, has long yearned to contain the power of the U.S. titans that dominate the Web,
Rubbish. The EU has quite strong notions of privacy and personal freedom, which the US doesn't have. It's not about 'containing' US internet companies it's about protecting the rights of EU citizens and fighting against the societal harms that come with the erosion of privacy.
"Statements from the U.S. government that the monitoring was not aimed at U.S. citizens but only against persons outside the United States do not reassure me at all." I couldn't agree more. It's no fun when they state in such a clear way that we're second-class users, whose rights aren't so important after all.
I think the biggest worry I would have if I were in Europe is the same worry I would have as an Amazon Marketplace Seller. An Amazon marketplace seller is essentially sharing all their sales performance data with Amazon. This pretty much guarantees that the best way to make money is to see lots of low volume items. Anything that sells in any considerable quantity will not go unnoticed by Amazon and they will start carrying the product themselves.
Anyone in the EU (or any other country) that frequently discusses valuable information via any US service is vulnerable to exploitation. This includes politicians, beaurocrats with gatekeeper positions, banks and other financial services firms, etc. all have information that in the hands of the right person in the US government can be used against them, their firm or their country.
What if the US government deems it appropriate to watch what people in a certain country is saying about the US dollar? That information can be used to manipulate currency markets in favor of the US and we'd be none the wiser.
Every single congressional subcommittee dealing with any foreign affair has an interest in asking the NSA to find out information on and private communication of their counterparts in other countries.
If you want to exercise soft control over all other countries, what better way than to get important people in all those other countries to centralize much of their communications via US Cloud services that the NSA can conveniently eavesdrop on. You get instant access to the words any thoughts of any person you may interact with geopolitically.
I think the worst part is that anyemember of congress could already be using illegitimately gained data and be none the wiser. At the end of the day they make an innocent request like "Get me all the information you have on XXX so I can make an informed decision." Next thing you know, this request is passed along like a game of telephone until a report is drafted up. Nothing stops those requests from making it to the NSA, where a rank an file employee deems it appropriate to spy on the personal communications of foreign nationals because they believe that it is in the best interest of the United States and its position in the World. That data is intercepted and distilled into a report and now that member of congress is operating with insider information, ill-gotten via PRISM, and he is none the wiser and can go on with his life thinking that its only being used for fighting terrorism.
"If you want to exercise soft control over all other countries, what better way than to get important people in all those other countries to centralize much of their communications via US Cloud services that the NSA can conveniently eavesdrop on."
While Mr. Hahn isn't directly involved in last week's Blockupy incidents in Frankfurt, one of his colleagues (the state's Minister of Interior) is and certainly benefits if public outrage is targetted on someone else for a while.
On the 14th of September 2007, Denmark initiated our Anti-Terroism Surveillance act, wherein ALL phonecalls, texts & internet traffic is saved for at least 2 years.
I wonder how China is thinking as it actively pushes its own web titans and forbids the entrance of Facebook and Google and the like within its national borders.
The title was "German State Justice Minister Calls for Boycott of US companies".
I think the only way to roll this back, if it even can be rolled back, is to attack from the states using state power. If CA, NY, TX, UT, VT, every state, starts making their own privacy laws to hamstring the Feds they may have to change their tune for practicality.
Federal laws will overrule state laws every time in this case. The gov't will just claim national security/intelligence laws aren't covered by the 10th Amendment.
The only thing the states could do is pass a Constitutional amendment but that has never been done through state assemblies before.
I'm not sure that the states have any power here. If there's a federal law legalizing it, it doesn't matter what the state laws are. It's basically the reverse of the medical/legal marijuana scenario.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Article 8
Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the
person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to
data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.
Excuse me? I am from a EU country which DOES have a constitution, and just like the US one, it is the most important document in the country, overruling any EU-law.
[+] [-] flexie|12 years ago|reply
Also, European governments mostly grant us basic human rights, have no secret overseas prisons, no death penalty for "treason", no decade long imprisonments for whistle blowing or hacking, no secret military tribunals, no recent record of torture, almost no drones, small military, tiny intelligence budgets etc.
[+] [-] notatoad|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfortuny|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dnautics|12 years ago|reply
In the US the traditional (but fading) attitude is that "The US government protects basic human rights". See, the problem is if government 'grants' you human rights, there's a potential for conflict of interest where the government could decide to no longer grant you that right if it becomes inconvenient.
At least with the US attitude, you can wag your finger and say, "you're failing to protect right X". And yes, that attitude means that the US is not obligated to protect the privacy of foreigners. BUT that is different from the question of whether or not the US should actively violate the privacy of foreigners.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sliverstorm|12 years ago|reply
It does simplify the issue for EU nations, but it doesn't mean this is the answer for the US. To my knowledge, EU nations get away with very small militaries in part due to the "umbrella" of the friendly US military.
Not to say the US needs a super-mega-ultra-huge military, but this is like when people compare country X to Norway. "Look at how successful Norway is! Look at how wealthy everyone is!" Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the tremendous quantities of natural resources in Norway. Point being, we need to compare apples to apples.
have no secret overseas prisons
How exactly would you know if the EU nations had secret overseas prisons? Aren't they secret? :)
[+] [-] stackedmidgets|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyjones|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doe88|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znowi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1morepassword|12 years ago|reply
It's the EU that stands between us and corrupt national governments handing over our civil rights to US intelligence and business interest. If the EU didn't block this kind of crap half the time we would be way worse of.
[+] [-] BjoernKW|12 years ago|reply
Sure, in Germany recently we've been quite successful in fending off planned legislation that would've allowed massive privacy intrusions but in general the political establishment over here isn't exactly a champion of civil liberties either.
Besides, I'm certain both German and EU administrative bodies closely cooperate with the US on intelligence matters and would more than gladly accept sharing those findings.
[+] [-] Ihmahr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Torn|12 years ago|reply
Rubbish. The EU has quite strong notions of privacy and personal freedom, which the US doesn't have. It's not about 'containing' US internet companies it's about protecting the rights of EU citizens and fighting against the societal harms that come with the erosion of privacy.
[+] [-] danmaz74|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kriro|12 years ago|reply
Hopefully the current developments provide a small chance of revoking those laws but I highly doubt it.
I agree on the cloud stuff though. Some companies even use it in advertising (your data stays here and is covered by our data protection laws)
[+] [-] malandrew|12 years ago|reply
Anyone in the EU (or any other country) that frequently discusses valuable information via any US service is vulnerable to exploitation. This includes politicians, beaurocrats with gatekeeper positions, banks and other financial services firms, etc. all have information that in the hands of the right person in the US government can be used against them, their firm or their country.
What if the US government deems it appropriate to watch what people in a certain country is saying about the US dollar? That information can be used to manipulate currency markets in favor of the US and we'd be none the wiser.
Every single congressional subcommittee dealing with any foreign affair has an interest in asking the NSA to find out information on and private communication of their counterparts in other countries.
If you want to exercise soft control over all other countries, what better way than to get important people in all those other countries to centralize much of their communications via US Cloud services that the NSA can conveniently eavesdrop on. You get instant access to the words any thoughts of any person you may interact with geopolitically.
I think the worst part is that anyemember of congress could already be using illegitimately gained data and be none the wiser. At the end of the day they make an innocent request like "Get me all the information you have on XXX so I can make an informed decision." Next thing you know, this request is passed along like a game of telephone until a report is drafted up. Nothing stops those requests from making it to the NSA, where a rank an file employee deems it appropriate to spy on the personal communications of foreign nationals because they believe that it is in the best interest of the United States and its position in the World. That data is intercepted and distilled into a report and now that member of congress is operating with insider information, ill-gotten via PRISM, and he is none the wiser and can go on with his life thinking that its only being used for fighting terrorism.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|12 years ago|reply
They actually did exactly that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%...
[+] [-] rb2k_|12 years ago|reply
He's "the justice minister for the German state of Hesse".
[+] [-] pgeorgi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] transfire|12 years ago|reply
Assuredly the U.K. and Israel say the same thing to their people.
Of course, never mind that all three countries swap information. Total surveillance is easily achieved. And it's all perfectly legal.
[+] [-] eaxbin|12 years ago|reply
Welcome to Denmark.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lambtron|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skrebbel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youngerdryas|12 years ago|reply
I think the only way to roll this back, if it even can be rolled back, is to attack from the states using state power. If CA, NY, TX, UT, VT, every state, starts making their own privacy laws to hamstring the Feds they may have to change their tune for practicality.
[+] [-] akiselev|12 years ago|reply
The only thing the states could do is pass a Constitutional amendment but that has never been done through state assemblies before.
[+] [-] smhinsey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] octagonal|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_o...
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Article 8
Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.
[+] [-] gambiting|12 years ago|reply