6 ms·

Euro MPs block bank data deal with US

37 points by bensummers 17y ago

lutorm 17y ago
It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.
- dantheman 17y ago
  The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous. 1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it. 2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it. There is no need for the ICC except to lend legitimacy to illegitimate claims. I agree though, I can't believe that other countries are willing to hand over data of their citizens that should be protected by them.
  - lutorm 17y ago
    If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given that the US has never had a problem trying foreigners in war crimes courts (e.g. Nürnberg, or the whole Guantanamo/terrorist deal), they apparently don't think their constitution is good enough to apply it in a more wholesale fashion. I remember Noam Chomsky saying something like "An argument whose validity depends on who is using it is merely an attempt at justification without any substance", and that seems a lot like what we're seeing here.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      1. After Nuremburg it was a show trial put on by Stalin, there was no justification for the court -- it wasn't like the laws they broke existed in some sort of international context. 2. Not to defend Guantanamo -- I think it's abhorrent, but it is not a war crimes court, it's a place where prisoners of "war" are being taken. As I said before, I think the entire concept of war crimes in nebulous and if there is any enforcement it should be done by country affected.
  - dmoney 17y ago
    The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court [citation needed]
    - dantheman 17y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#Claimed_incompatibility_with_the_U.S._Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...
      - dmoney 17y ago
        From what I understand, one objection is that trying an American citizen in an international court violates the right to due process. How? There presumably is a process defined by a treaty which the US has agreed to. The other objection: ...implies that the Court does not have the power to try Americans for crimes committed on U.S. territory. Is it not in Congress' power to grant jurisdiction to a court? Edit: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    > The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Except that we don't have the problem with ICC when it benefits us. If they rule against our interest we declare "that doesn't apply to us." Well, fine then, Germany should have declared "Nuremberd trials don't apply to us", Serbia should have said "Milosevic's trial doesn't apply to us." and so on. The reason ICC exists it so enforce human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. These are perpetraited by terrorist states that use fear and intimidation around the world without any regard to human life. It seems to me there is a need for ICC today just like there was a need for it after WWII.
- bensummers 17y ago
  Here's a lovely example of the US declining to make things reciprocal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 It annoys a lot of people that the US can extradite someone from the UK without providing any evidence, yet the US never got around to ratifying it so the UK can extradite someone from the US without providing any evidence. Of course, it may just be that the UK government is a bunch of idiots who think it's a good idea to give foreign legal systems this much power over their citizens, and the US has more sense.
  - iujhygfbh 17y ago
    No it was very deliberate on the UK's part. The concerns were that there are a few members of certain Irish cultural organisations happily living in the US and it would wreck the peace process to extradite them, while NOT extraditing them would raise objections from the other side. And, it's rather easier to bring a private prosecution for say war crimes in the UK - and the government didn't want the embarrassment of having to arrest various senior US politicians. This happened recently with an attempt by a human rights group to prosecute an Israeli gerneral over the west bank 'invasion'. The government couldn't stop the warrant being issued but got round it by the politican not leaving the plane when it landed in London and the police claiming that an El Al plane was Israeli soil and they didn't have jurisdiction.
    - bensummers 17y ago
      [citation needed] If this were the case, wouldn't it be better not to have the treaty in the first place? Then no questions are asked at all. And what was wrong with the old treaty, apart from the inconvenience of having to produce enough evidence to satisfy a British judge?
      - iujhygfbh 17y ago
        If you don't have a treaty then you are part of the axis of evil - or at the very least they don't let your soldiers play with their soldiers and your politicians don't get to stand on the Whitehouse lawn looking like a world statesman.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Hey, all we did was ask. Your guys keep saying yes, so we keep asking. I would love to see the EU keep the US in check by saying "no" to us more often. (The US has no trouble telling the EU "no", after all.) China does it, so why not the EU?
  - stse 17y ago
    That's just the thing. The US didn't ask the EU, they just secretly subpoenaed the records from SWIFT, which had a mirror server in the US with all the records (incl. transactions inside the EU). Breaking several countries privacy laws in the process. SWIFT has changed their infrastructure to no longer mirror to the US, So the US pressured the European Council to create an interim agreement allowing the US to access EU banking data. This agreement was made one day before the Lisbon Treaty went into effect, which gives the European Parliament increased powers. So while the EP can't cancel the interim agreement, they've now voted against the continuation of the deal. The resolution & Some background: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2010-0013+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//... Council overrules Parliament: http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/council-overrules-parliament-banking-data-deal/article-187834 http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/council-overrules-parliam... Recommended search term: "swift tftp"
pelle 17y ago
This is good news, but somehow EU governments think it's ok to use stolen bank data: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-offers-germany-secret-swiss-bank-data-1884062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-off...
- danik 17y ago
  What do you mean? First of all that was Germany, so 'EU governments' does not apply in that case. Second it is a big difference between buying information about your citizens and selling information about you citizens.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    Denmark is also considering it. Yes, there's a difference, but it's still very wrong. We're talking about governments buying illegally obtained information, thus sanctioning the crime. How is this different from the government not being allowed to wire-tap its citizens, but if they go on the black market and get a black-hat to do it, it's suddenly OK? The only reason is the presence of an international border.
    - schwit 17y ago
      Illegal by whose standards? How the information was obtained outside of Germany may be a crime, but not in Germany. As a citizen of Germany you are required to provide to the German government information that determines taxes owed. Any attempt to evade this obligation is a crime in Germany. In this case Germany has a right to the information.
      - mseebach 17y ago
        > Illegal by whose standards? The law of any country anyone would consider civilized. Including Germany, Denmark, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. > In this case Germany has a right to the information. Well, states don't have rights. Their citizens are required to hand over the information, and the government is entitled to punish citizens that fail to do so. But that's a minor point -- Yes, Germany is entitled to that information, but they don't have a right to break the law of another country to get that information. What happened to Lichtensteins right to sovereignty? And what if it wasn't tax information, but information on ethnicity? Seriously, information about citizens that one government "has a right to", that another government doesn't mind helping you conceal. Not to bash Germany in particular, but we have privacy laws for a reason. I'm not a fan of tax-evasion, but tax collection is not, in itself, such a holy venture that it warrants any means.
bjelkeman-again 17y ago
Is this type of monitoring legal in the US when monitoring bank transactions in the US? Does it already happen in the US? Imagine the reaction if this had been the other way around, the damn Europeans spying on US bank transaction in the US.
- nkassis 17y ago
  Well, I believe transactions in the US are monitored. At least large cash withdrawals and deposits are. 5,000 or more is usually reported by the banks.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
siculars 17y ago
This will most certainly be a setback for tracking and disrupting terrorist/rogue state/criminal financing operations. I personally know someone who used to use Swift data (among other financial transaction tracking data) to track "bad-guys" doing very, very bad things. They are out there, they are gaming the system, they are hiding behind loop holes and they do mean us harm. Hopefully the privacy concerns can be worked out asap.
- iujhygfbh 17y ago
  The problem is when this is used to give eg. Raytheon the details of payments made to a European company for eg a radar system in some 3rd country - which lets them put in an advantageous position to bid for the next bit of work.

37 points by bensummers 17y ago

It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for you, another for us" mentality.

dantheman 17y ago
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous. 1. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their country to handle it. 2. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to handle it. There is no need for the ICC except to lend legitimacy to illegitimate claims. I agree though, I can't believe that other countries are willing to hand over data of their citizens that should be protected by them.
- lutorm 17y ago
  If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given that the US has never had a problem trying foreigners in war crimes courts (e.g. Nürnberg, or the whole Guantanamo/terrorist deal), they apparently don't think their constitution is good enough to apply it in a more wholesale fashion. I remember Noam Chomsky saying something like "An argument whose validity depends on who is using it is merely an attempt at justification without any substance", and that seems a lot like what we're seeing here.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    1. After Nuremburg it was a show trial put on by Stalin, there was no justification for the court -- it wasn't like the laws they broke existed in some sort of international context. 2. Not to defend Guantanamo -- I think it's abhorrent, but it is not a war crimes court, it's a place where prisoners of "war" are being taken. As I said before, I think the entire concept of war crimes in nebulous and if there is any enforcement it should be done by country affected.
- dmoney 17y ago
  The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court [citation needed]
  - dantheman 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#Claimed_incompatibility_with_the_U.S._Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...
    - dmoney 17y ago
      From what I understand, one objection is that trying an American citizen in an international court violates the right to due process. How? There presumably is a process defined by a treaty which the US has agreed to. The other objection: ...implies that the Court does not have the power to try Americans for crimes committed on U.S. territory. Is it not in Congress' power to grant jurisdiction to a court? Edit: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  > The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court. Except that we don't have the problem with ICC when it benefits us. If they rule against our interest we declare "that doesn't apply to us." Well, fine then, Germany should have declared "Nuremberd trials don't apply to us", Serbia should have said "Milosevic's trial doesn't apply to us." and so on. The reason ICC exists it so enforce human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. These are perpetraited by terrorist states that use fear and intimidation around the world without any regard to human life. It seems to me there is a need for ICC today just like there was a need for it after WWII.
bensummers 17y ago
Here's a lovely example of the US declining to make things reciprocal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 It annoys a lot of people that the US can extradite someone from the UK without providing any evidence, yet the US never got around to ratifying it so the UK can extradite someone from the US without providing any evidence. Of course, it may just be that the UK government is a bunch of idiots who think it's a good idea to give foreign legal systems this much power over their citizens, and the US has more sense.
- iujhygfbh 17y ago
  No it was very deliberate on the UK's part. The concerns were that there are a few members of certain Irish cultural organisations happily living in the US and it would wreck the peace process to extradite them, while NOT extraditing them would raise objections from the other side. And, it's rather easier to bring a private prosecution for say war crimes in the UK - and the government didn't want the embarrassment of having to arrest various senior US politicians. This happened recently with an attempt by a human rights group to prosecute an Israeli gerneral over the west bank 'invasion'. The government couldn't stop the warrant being issued but got round it by the politican not leaving the plane when it landed in London and the police claiming that an El Al plane was Israeli soil and they didn't have jurisdiction.
  - bensummers 17y ago
    [citation needed] If this were the case, wouldn't it be better not to have the treaty in the first place? Then no questions are asked at all. And what was wrong with the old treaty, apart from the inconvenience of having to produce enough evidence to satisfy a British judge?
    - iujhygfbh 17y ago
      If you don't have a treaty then you are part of the axis of evil - or at the very least they don't let your soldiers play with their soldiers and your politicians don't get to stand on the Whitehouse lawn looking like a world statesman.
jrockway 17y ago
Hey, all we did was ask. Your guys keep saying yes, so we keep asking. I would love to see the EU keep the US in check by saying "no" to us more often. (The US has no trouble telling the EU "no", after all.) China does it, so why not the EU?
- stse 17y ago
  That's just the thing. The US didn't ask the EU, they just secretly subpoenaed the records from SWIFT, which had a mirror server in the US with all the records (incl. transactions inside the EU). Breaking several countries privacy laws in the process. SWIFT has changed their infrastructure to no longer mirror to the US, So the US pressured the European Council to create an interim agreement allowing the US to access EU banking data. This agreement was made one day before the Lisbon Treaty went into effect, which gives the European Parliament increased powers. So while the EP can't cancel the interim agreement, they've now voted against the continuation of the deal. The resolution & Some background: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2010-0013+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//... Council overrules Parliament: http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/council-overrules-parliament-banking-data-deal/article-187834 http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/council-overrules-parliam... Recommended search term: "swift tftp"

pelle 17y ago

This is good news, but somehow EU governments think it's ok to use stolen bank data: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-offers-germany-secret-swiss-bank-data-1884062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-off...

danik 17y ago
What do you mean? First of all that was Germany, so 'EU governments' does not apply in that case. Second it is a big difference between buying information about your citizens and selling information about you citizens.
- mseebach 17y ago
  Denmark is also considering it. Yes, there's a difference, but it's still very wrong. We're talking about governments buying illegally obtained information, thus sanctioning the crime. How is this different from the government not being allowed to wire-tap its citizens, but if they go on the black market and get a black-hat to do it, it's suddenly OK? The only reason is the presence of an international border.
  - schwit 17y ago
    Illegal by whose standards? How the information was obtained outside of Germany may be a crime, but not in Germany. As a citizen of Germany you are required to provide to the German government information that determines taxes owed. Any attempt to evade this obligation is a crime in Germany. In this case Germany has a right to the information.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      > Illegal by whose standards? The law of any country anyone would consider civilized. Including Germany, Denmark, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. > In this case Germany has a right to the information. Well, states don't have rights. Their citizens are required to hand over the information, and the government is entitled to punish citizens that fail to do so. But that's a minor point -- Yes, Germany is entitled to that information, but they don't have a right to break the law of another country to get that information. What happened to Lichtensteins right to sovereignty? And what if it wasn't tax information, but information on ethnicity? Seriously, information about citizens that one government "has a right to", that another government doesn't mind helping you conceal. Not to bash Germany in particular, but we have privacy laws for a reason. I'm not a fan of tax-evasion, but tax collection is not, in itself, such a holy venture that it warrants any means.

bjelkeman-again 17y ago

Is this type of monitoring legal in the US when monitoring bank transactions in the US? Does it already happen in the US? Imagine the reaction if this had been the other way around, the damn Europeans spying on US bank transaction in the US.

nkassis 17y ago
Well, I believe transactions in the US are monitored. At least large cash withdrawals and deposits are. 5,000 or more is usually reported by the banks.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

siculars 17y ago

This will most certainly be a setback for tracking and disrupting terrorist/rogue state/criminal financing operations. I personally know someone who used to use Swift data (among other financial transaction tracking data) to track "bad-guys" doing very, very bad things. They are out there, they are gaming the system, they are hiding behind loop holes and they do mean us harm. Hopefully the privacy concerns can be worked out asap.

iujhygfbh 17y ago
The problem is when this is used to give eg. Raytheon the details of payments made to a European company for eg a radar system in some 3rd country - which lets them put in an advantageous position to bid for the next bit of work.