Invasive USA Access to European Travel & Associated Data Also Involves Policing

Invasive USA Access to European Travel & Associated Data Also Involves Policing @WikiLeaks Passenger Name Record (PNR) -- computer database of travel reservation -- contains itinerary for passenger (or groups of passengers travelling together) United States–European Union -- Agreement on Passenger Name Records -- further agreement between USA & European union -- signed Dec 14, 2011 -- provides USA with information associated with air travel of Europeans -- data includes hotel bookings, car rental, train trips, transfers etc -- as well as credit card information, passport info & much more -- via access to Passenger Name Records (PNR) databases of Europeans -- subject to:  European Data Protection Law -- PNR transfer to take place to only countries with comparable data laws, according to:     -- Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD_         1980 Privacy Guidelines     -- 1995 European Union Directive on data protection   law enforcement supposedly permitted to access data only on set individual basis  -- standards defined by following organisations:     International Air Transport Association (ITA)     -- trade association of world's airlines     -- helps formulate industry standards     -- HQ Montreal, Canada     -- executive offices:  Geneva, Switzerland     Airlines for America (A4A)     -- formerly:  formerly known as Air Transport Association of America (ATA)     -- oldest & largest USA airline trade association     -- members & affiliates transport over 90% of US passenger & cargo traffic     -- based Washington DC     -- only org that represents main US airlines re lobbying Congress         Standards defined by AIRIMP     ie - ATA/IATA Reservations Interline Mesage Procedures - Passenger ('AIRIMP') Upon passenger booking travel -- travel agent / travel site will create PNR -- or, if made directly with airline, PNR created in database of airline CRS -- CRS = Computer Reservations System (where PNR database is hosted) -- CRS is an automated computer reserviation system (there's several systems/providers of these) -- the PNR referred to as 'Master PNR', re the passenger & relevant itenerary PNRs originally introduced for air travel -- airlines systems can now be used for booking:     -- hotels     -- car rental     -- airport transfers     -- train trips -- 2004 - US govt first obtains PNR of Europeans -- via '2004 Passenger Name Record Data Transfer' agreement with EU -- data usage supposedly limited to:      terrorism and related crimes      other serious crimes & interl organised crime      flight from warrants or custody      *agreement required Eurpean PNR to be supplied to USA -- agreement INVALIDATED by:  European Court of Justice (30 May 2006) -- reason:  lack of legal authority -- 2007:  new controversial PNR agreement between US  EU -- yet:  George W Bush - gave US Dept Homeland Security & others exemption from 1974 Privacy act 2008, Feb:  USA had signed in February 2008 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) -- with Czech Republic -- purpose:  exchange of visa waiver scheme -- did so without consent of Brussels -- USA also approached other European countries for MOU -- tensions b/w Washington & Brussels -- reason:  LESSER data protection laws in USA -- furthermore:  foreigners to not benefit from US Privacy Act of 1974 -- US 'Safe Harbour Arrangement' lacks data protection 2008, Nov:  new agreement re new agreement CRITICISM -- reductions of privacy rights Legal Service of the European Commission x2 academics [source, above:  Wikipedia] ____________________________________________________ -------/\/\/ EU-US PNR agreement found incompatible with human rights 29 Jun 2011 In a note sent on 16 May 2011 to the Director-General of DG Home Affairs, the Legal Service of the European Commission warns that the draft EU-US agreement on the exchange of PNR data is not compatible with fundamental rights. The EC’s lawyers found several areas of concern related to the planned agreement. Significant issues are the proportionality of the agreement which covers minor crimes as well, its extension to US border security “which is not linked to the purpose of preventing terrorism or serious crime”, a far too long (15 years) data retention period for the data collected for the agreement purpose, the lack of judicial redress for the data subjects, the lack of “guarantee of independent oversight”. After having reviewed the present draft, the Legal Service draws the attention over the fact that its earlier comments had not been considered in drafting the present variant of the agreement: “all (these) comments were already transmitted to your services in the course of the negotiations.” The Legal Service concludes that “despite certain presentational improvements, the draft agreement does not constitute a sufficiently substantial improvement of the agreement currently applied on a provisional basis, the conclusion of which was refused on data protection grounds by the European Parliament.” Moreover, the use of the PNR data for US border security is considered a step back from the point of view of data protection. The conclusion therefore related to the agreement is that “the Legal Service does not consider the agreement in its present form as compatible with fundamental rights.” Hopefully this opinion may weigh in the decision of the European Parliament which, according to the Lisbon Treaty, has the power to refuse it. “This Agreement does not meet EU data protection standards of proportionality or purpose limitation, nor does it provide judicial redress to data subjects or any guarantee of independent oversight” says Tony Bunyan, Statewatch Director who believes that it’s high time EU takes a firmer stand in the matter. “Secret Minutes of EU-US meetings since 2001 show that they have always been a one-way channel with the US setting the agenda by making demands on the EU. When the EU does make rare requests like on data protection, because US law only offers protection and redress to US citizens, they are bluntly told that the US is not going to change its data protection system”. MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, member of the European parliament’s civil liberties committee, believes that by pushing forward this agreement, EU is acting against its own legal advice. “The commission cannot simply continue to stick its fingers in its ears, and it is high time that it dropped its obsession with PNR. This means going back to the drawing board and renegotiating the draft agreements with the US, Australia and Canada on passenger record retention, ensuring these agreements are in line with EU data protection law. It also means dropping the proposed legislation on the retention of passenger data within the EU.” As regards the EU PNR proposal, this has been slammed also by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The Agency has issued an opinion on the Proposal for a Directive on the use of PNR data, identifying a series of issues regarding the compliance of the proposal with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. FRA is concerned by the risk of direct discrimination related to PNR data transmitted by air carriers, which may include sensitive or special data. “It would therefore be useful to introduce a prohibition on the transmission of such data by air carriers.” Regarding the limitation of fundamental rights covered by the proposal, FRA is concerned by the vagueness of several formulations and believes the explanatory memorandum of the proposal “does not sufficiently substantiate the necessity of the limitation for all crimes covered,” and that “the necessity and proportionality of the PNR system would need to be demonstrated.” For the compliance with the right to protection of personal data, FRA suggests the control should be provided by fully independent supervisory authorities that “can take action on their own initiative to protect proactively and effectively the interests of data subjects and have sufficient resources to do so in practice.” https://edri.org/edrigramnumber9-13us-eu-pnr-breaches-human-rights/ EDRi -- association of civil and human rights organisations from across Europe -- We defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT   What was supposed to monitor travellers to supposedly prevent terrorism in USA, has become a massive policing and invasion of privacy operation, that appears to have created something of one-sided world police arrangement, where the US is the cop and the EU meekly gives over European citizens' data to the Americans, who have inadequate data protection laws per se and Americans who deny Europeans the poor protections they offer their own citizens.  Americans with an exceedingly poor attitude to accommodating the legal requirements of the Europeans.  Americans who can do what they like with data that they've most likely bullied the European cretins into giving them. Why would anybody enter into agreements with those that are so arrogant they refuse to consider adapting their laws to provide like privacy protections for foreigners, let alone those that do not reciprocate when it comes to data sharing? The EU needs to get a backbone. Canada and Australia are also party to the EU PNR agreement.  But I'm not sure why.   Is the EU such a hive of terrorism that the Australians and Canadians have had to jump on the US data demanding bandwagon? European Union (EU)-Australia Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement. The PNR Agreement will allow for information about travellers flying into Australia on airlines using EU-based IT service providers to be disclosed to Australian Customs officials. The ability to access this key information on airline passengers is a vital border security tool for Australia.  It will assist in the fight against terrorism and serious crimes.  http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2008/fa-s080701.html It looks like Europe is Terrorist Central.  Gee, wonder why? Not sure if any of the points raised by the Legal Service of the European Union Commission were remedied in the final draft.  Doubt it. I think the issue of the moment is that this is a one-sided contract, where the European Union leaves European citizens wide open to violation of their privacy as well as their basic rights.   But, meanwhile, the US is not subject to the same terms & is not providing the European Union like access to American data. So the same Americans who make sure they cannot be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for criminal acts of war they have performed (and intent to continue to perform), are the very same party that demands to violate European privacy and rights and, it appears, also to insist on engaging in law enforcement pertaining to Europeans. It's creepy thinking how extensive US interference and reach across the globe is. It's a world-wide corporate dictatorship, headed by USA. The travel data sharing was first obtained by the Americans from the Europeans in 2004. So this probably explains the 'disappearance' of Assange's equipment: "... likely unlawful seizure of property belonging to me and to WikiLeaks while it was under the control of the airport authorities of Arlanda (Stockholm) or Tegel (Berlin) on 27 September 2010, inter alia three encrypted laptops containing privileged journalistic and legal materials  including evidence of a war crime; and this affidavit sets forth facts that form the basis of my belief that the aforementioned  property was the subject of an unlawful search and seizure and that the monitoring of my activities in Germany was also illegal." [1] "The suspected seizure or theft occurred at a time of intense attempts by the US to stop WikiLeaks' publications of 2010." [1] airline carrier refused to cooperate with Assange [2]  Assange Swedish lawyer request to prosecutor's office regarding seizure or theft received no reply [2] [1] Affidavit [2] https://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html