Fourth Amendment

EU Parliament Approves Data Sharing Deal With U.S.


some of them are on the rights side

The European Parliament approved a deal with the United States that would allow the U.S. to collect data from airlines about European passengers entering the U.S. and retain it for 15 years (with a promise that the names will be redacted after six months, but presumably still accessible to make any potential criminal investigation possible).

The deal passed 409-226, a slimmer margin than such measures that come before the U.S. Congress get, when they do get to Congress. Increasingly, the government relies on secret interpretations of laws like the PATRIOT Act, and the protections of the Privacy Act of 1974 have broken down in the digital age.

Meanwhile, European opposition to the measure was articulated by Sophie In't Veld, a member of Parliament with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats:

[Despite years of negotiation the agreement] still falls short of the high standards of data privacy and legal protection that our citizens expect. In politics we make compromises but some things are not negotiable such as fundamental rights and respect for EU law. Apparently the European Parliament believes Transatlantic relations are more important than the fundamental rights of EU citizens

The European Union has some bizarre ideas about what constitutes fundamental rights, but it's not the first time a foreign government's shown more reticence about the U.S. government's disregard for a right to privacy increasingly rare at home.

NEXT: Steven Greenhut on America's Slide Toward a Police State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Eurocrats are more concerned about individual rights than your own government, you’ve got a problem.

  2. “passengers entering the country”

    Which country? I thought the EU was just a humble monetary union…

    Seriously, though, who gave the EU the power to do this stuff?

  3. It looks like Arizona is about to pass a law like Virginia forbidding cooperation with the NDAA’s detention provisions. Actual criminal penalties for state police if they do cooperate.

    Kind of strange considering the state’s immigration law.

    1. Good to see a state willing to poke DC in the eye. Since Congress can’t pass a budget, it’s harder for them to screw over AZ.

  4. Speaking for the UK specifically, my perception is that the ‘right to privacy’ is highly nuanced and nigh non-existent in some EU member states.

  5. – The Alternative Minimum Tax ONLY applies to a handful of millionaires
    – The Department of Education will ONLY supplement state and local actions
    – The Patriot Act is ONLY a temporary measure and surely won’t be renewed by the next Congress
    – Social Security Numbers will NEVER be used for indentification

    with a promise that the names will be redacted after six months

    What possibly could go wor.nng.//a]\

    1. I don’t get what the point of name redaction in this particular case means.

      The government is redacting the names they’ve collected from the public?

      Great, so TMZ doesn’t know who [name redacted] is if the report gets into the public sphere.

      But the shadowy guys whom we don’t actually trust with the names still… have the name if they really need it?

  6. My sister has a longchamp and she likes the Longchamp Bag very much. When people ask her why she likes her sac longchamp Bag so much, she just answers like that thee is no reason and because she likes my Longchamp Bag, so she likes it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.