Reply
Wed 21 Apr, 2004 10:01 am
The
European Parliament has voted to ask the
European Court of Justice to rule on the legality of an agreement to share data about passengers flying to the US and has called on European governments to "refrain from concluding" data sharing agreements with the US until the Court can make its ruling. Critics of the EU-US data sharing agreement, negotiated last December, have said that the agreement is "illegal under member state and EU privacy laws."
Quote:CBS 2 | cbsnewyork.com
Passenger Privacy Spat Heads To Court
U.S. Wants Extensive Passenger Data Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am US/Eastern
The European Parliament asked the EU's top court Wednesday to rule on an agreement to share data with Washington on passengers flying to the United States, saying they feared the pact violated privacy laws.
The lawmakers also called on EU governments "to refrain from concluding" the agreement with Washington until the European Court of Justice rules.
"This agreement represents a bad deal for privacy which is legally flawed," Liberal Democrat leader Graham Watson said. "There are legitimate grounds for requesting the court to rule on ... the substance of the agreement."
Washington has demanded airlines headed for the United States transmit extensive passenger information to combat terrorism -- from credit card numbers to meal preferences -- within 15 minutes of departure. Noncompliance can be punished with fines of up to $6,000 a passenger and the loss of landing rights.
The EU's executive body negotiated the agreement last December, but the parliament said the access granted to data was "illegal under member state and EU privacy laws."
Airlines, caught between European Union privacy laws and having to satisfy U.S. demands, have been operating under interim arrangements while negotiations were under way.
The EU parliament, meeting in Strasbourg, France, voted 276 to 260 with 13 abstentions to take legal action despite last-minute appeals by EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten and Ireland's Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche.
European Parliament President Pat Cox said he would refer the EU-U.S. agreement to the court later Wednesday.
Patten said not having a deal would lead to "complete disarray" for airlines that are struggling financially and said lawmakers ought to be sympathetic to the American position.
"If we had been through what New York went through on Sept. 11, 2001, I think we would have wanted our governments to do everything possible to secure our freedom," he said.
Roche acknowledged the deal wasn't perfect but there wasn't likely to be a better one.
"The agreement which is on offer is the best we are going to get, and certainly much better than what we will get if we enter into some form of standoff situation with U.S. authorities," Roche told the parliament.
SOURCE
Walter, Walter - now you know that the US does not recognize any authority but its own.
Yes, Joanne, but that has got to change.
The Mexican Human Rights Commission has decreed that airline passengers should have their privacy respected, and that there should be no discrimination whatsoever in registrating them or their luggage.
This was in response to the Mexican government's measures when the used turned it's alert to a higher level and supposedly had information regarding terrorists trying to board planes from Mexico City directed to Los Angeles.
So, in these cases, the Mexican government is between the pan and the fire. US pressure (they can actually send a plane back if they fear something) and national human rights pressure, backed by the huge majority of the public opinion.
Recently I heard that the Doctor the DEA kidnapped in Mexico prevailed in his court case against the US. Good for him.
And today they played audio of the US Supreme Court questioning the Solicitor of the US argument on the status of the Guantanmo Bay detainees. It was cool Scalia and Kennedy led the charge that the detainees (POWs) at our military installation in Guantanmo Bay have rights under our constitution. I believe that if they, the Supremes, accept the US argument then the executive branch would be immune from and separate from the other two branches of our government.
The US government's argument would be unacceptable, I hope, because the three branches: judicial, the courts; Congressional, the Senate and House; the executive, the president; this separate but equal provisions of the constitution are the fundamental underpinnings of this Republic.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace