Printable View
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...2099%2C00.html
Religion and sex life among passenger details to be passed on to officials
Great, something else to lie about on a government document.
I'm certain that American society will become a better place, if you all can just be paranoid about everything and everybody.
;)
I think you're blaming the wrong people, we're just getting information from your government. Why does your government even ask those questions? Maybe I don't pay attention but I'm pretty sure no government official or document has ever asked me about my sex life or even orientation. And I'm betting the only one that asks about religion is census and you're under no obligation to answer that.
As Blog, I'm a bit perplexed. The form that would need to be filled is agreed between the European Commission and the US. If the EU was against it, I would assume it would not happen. At any rate, I don't see how any of the "highly sensitive" information is of any use, maybe save for religion, which is also bullshit because if you're a half-smart terrorist (and assuming you're muslim, but it doesn't have to be), you'd write a different religion. I mean, if, say, Peter Smith, became a Muslim, but didn't change his name, what would stop him from writing he is Christian? Noone would ever know or count on that information.
Do you even read the articles you get from the Anti-America Weekly circular, or do you just assume they are suitably biased when you submit them with unrelated topic descriptions?Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
Great, something else to lie about on a government document.
I'm certain that American society will become a better place, if you all can just be paranoid about everything and everybody.
;)
It's called a circular because of its reasoning.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
Do you even read the articles you get from the Anti-America Weekly circular, or do you just assume they are suitably biased when you submit them with unrelated topic descriptions?
No Darion. What I prefer doing is posting the link in the hopes you'll read it, then explain it back to me in the patronizing style of which you are accustomed. Then, I play the odds in the hopes that I'm right, to which then I can respond back saying:"A ha!! I told you so!!"Quote:
Do you even read the articles you get from the Anti-America Weekly circular, or do you just assume they are suitably biased when you submit them with unrelated topic descriptions?
Jackass!!
Quote:
In a strongly worded document drawn up in response to the plan that will affect the 4 million-plus Britons who travel to the US every year, the EU parliament said it 'notes with concern that sensitive data (ie personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning the HEALTH AND SEX LIFE OF INDIVIDUALS) will be made available to the DHS and that these data may be used by the DHS in exceptional cases'.
So, the EU parliament is making information it has collected available to the US. This information includes something on the health and sex life of individuals.
Conclusion: The fact that the EU collects zany information and then gives it to the US is the fault of the US for being overly paranoid.
Got it.
Here are my thoughts: Yes, it is creepy that such information exists in a database somewhere and it makes me wonder how it was acquired. That having been said, why are you offended at the notion that the US would like to have the collected information on passengers coming to the US?
Offended isn't the word I'd use.
I'm Canadian, however the idea of being asked about my sex life, as a matter of national security is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. The same goes for my political and philosophical leanings.
What's next? Are they going to ask if I found the bin Laden spoof on South Park funny, and assign a threat level based on my response? :rolleyes
Security: What's the purpose of your visit sir?'
Tourist: 'Ah, we are on Holiday.'
Security: 'And you are travelling with your wife?'
Tourist: 'Yes indeed. That is she, just behind me.'
Security: 'Good good. Now then, do you come in her mouth?'
Tourist: 'I beg your pardon?'
Security: 'You heard me.'
Tourist: 'Well, err...'
Wife: 'Oh just answer the question dear. Yes, he comes in my mouth. And before you ask, I spit. He smokes, and it makes it taste simply dreaful.'
Security: 'And you mrs, how many sexual partners have you had?'
Wife: 'On this flight or just in general?'
LOL, Heyyo!!! Zzzing!!
To be followed up by:
"but honey, you said you liked the taste of my cum!"
wife: "I say alot of things. It's what I like to call pillow talk!"
The Guardian is a main-stream left-center paper. It has a liberal slant, but is hardlyQuote:
Originally posted by Darion
Do you even read the articles you get from the Anti-America Weekly circular, or do you just assume they are suitably biased when you submit them with unrelated topic descriptions?
On an unrelated note, some posters here are responding to this article without realising the article refers to two seperate bodies: the EC and the EU. The EC has agreed to something the EU isn't happy about.Quote:
the Anti-America Weekly circular
Okay, but this isn't what is happening. The US is being granted access to already-collected information, so you are not, in fact, being asked about anything for the sake of "national security".Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
Offended isn't the word I'd use.
I'm Canadian, however the idea of being asked about my sex life, as a matter of national security is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. The same goes for my political and philosophical leanings.
My point was not to doubt the veracity of the source, but rather the method of its delivery to the forums. By his commentary, Kestra has presented the information in the article as a program, institution, questionnaire, and/or census being conducted by the United States under the guise of national security.Quote:
Originally posted by Graeblyn
The Guardian is a main-stream left-center paper. It has a liberal slant, but is hardly
People coming to the States are not asked what their sex life is like - at some point in the past this data has apparently already been collected by an organization completely outside of the US.
There is no guise here. The Dept. of Homeland Security will be using this information, claiming it is a tool to fight terrorism, and you can be reasonably assured that it will be passed along to other government agencies.Quote:
Kestra has presented the information in the article as a program, institution, questionnaire, and/or census being conducted by the United States under the guise of national security.
There are legitimate questions that customs should ask. The ones pointed out in the article are completely ridiculous, and an invasion of privacy.
For the last time, the United States is not instituting any kind of personal questionnaire to determine details of passenger life. The EC is going to allow the US to access information that the -EC- has -already- collected. See also:
This makes the topic of this thread and most of your comments therein extremely disingenuous. I would accuse you of debating in bad faith, but I honestly don't know if you get the points being raised.Quote:
The EC is in the final stages of agreeing a new Passenger Name Record system with the US which will allow American officials to access detailed biographical information about passengers entering international airports.
The bottom line is the DHS will be using this information as another tool to, what they consider, combat terrorism.
The content of the information(personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning the health or sex life of individuals) is my objection.
Quote:
The EU parliament said it was concerned the data would lead to 'a significant risk of massive profiling and data mining, which is incompatible with basic European principles and is a practice still under discussion in the US congress.'
And to you, this does not beg the question as to what the EC is doing collecting this information to begin with, but instead implores you to criticize a US-based organization for having it given to them?Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
The bottom line is the DHS will be using this information as another tool to, what they consider, combat terrorism.
The content of the information(personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning the health or sex life of individuals) is my objection.
Looks to me like the EC is fully agreeing with this action and supporting it. It also sounds like this has already been happening however the point of contention is over it being able to be kept for 15 years rather than the old system of 3 years. Plus it giving the U.S the right to give to a 3rd party entity being another point of contention.
They used the headline to grab and work up the mob however after the first few lines they go on and on about who it can be given to and for how long it can be kept rather than the content.
Bottom line, 1 the EC does not have to agree to it and 2 if you do not like it then do not come to the U.S and you will not be a part of it.
Oh and P.S the U.S would not be gathering this data the EC will be, the U.S just wants the right to the information from those whom come to the U.S.
Very good point!Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
And to you, this does not beg the question as to what the EC is doing collecting this information to begin with, but instead implores you to criticize a US-based organization for having it given to them?
There have been major elections and long term protests revolving around the privacy and sovereignty issues associated with the European Union and its powers. Those battles are ongoing and will probably be revived by this news. Kestra doesn't need to give his opinion on the European collection of data to express his opinion on the American Government demanding they be given access to the processed information and demanding the right to hold it for 15 years instead of 3 years. But he already did when he said that there would now be more forms he’d have to lie on.
Why are people dodging the issue of the US government’s demand to know the sex life and eating habits of tourists by attacking Kestra for posting instead? Are you guys taking the piss or something?
At the end of the day Kestra and I can yell as loudly and be as outraged as we like by the current US administration’s actions, but we aren’t US citizens and can do very little to change what your government does. One of the little things we can do as foreigners is to point out stuff that upsets us and draw it to your attention so that you might do something if you wanted. There ARE liberal and left wing American readers of these forums who like to be made aware of this sort of stuff. I sure as hell know that I appreciate it when my foreign friends make me aware of something that Australia is doing that didn’t get traction in the media here.
I say this because I sometimes get the impression that people take criticism of a policy (such as demanding to know your sex life if you want to visit, or the Iraq war) as criticism of them personally. I doubt anyone here posts with that intention in mind.
Here is my contention: the US is already being granted access to detailed information on EU citizens by the EC. Some of this information is highly personal.
The topic of the thread and several posts insinuate that the US is now screening passengers coming into the country on their sexual preference, favorite color, religion, etcetera, etcetera.
This is precisely why - the US' demand? The information is being willingly given by a European organization.Quote:
Why are people dodging the issue of the US government’s demand to know the sex life and eating habits of tourists by attacking Kestra for posting instead?
No one has given an opinion on the EC's collection of such private data except to say that the US is clearly wrong for being given this information. I don't understand how the US is at fault for requesting passenger information that has already been gathered. What is it being used for by the EC? It comes of as rather disingenuous to imply that America is the one behind it all.
They are taking part in it, and that's enough!! What the DHS and the EC are subscribing to is wrong, and an invasion of privacy.Quote:
It comes of as rather disingenuous to imply that America is the one behind it all.
I think odds are on that the US made a request was put strongly enough for the EC to comply. If you read the Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, it’s not a simple thing to just hand this information out:.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
(T)he US' demand? The information is being willingly given by a European organization.
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/eudirecti...irective_.html
I am against a body (whether it be the government or a private institution) collecting and collating information about my religion, sex life, financial situation, political views etc. It pisses me off (to understate my opinion) that ‘The Age’ newspaper listed an intelligence file on me on their front page as one (of many hundreds also listed) that were kept on normal people and groups back in the early 90s. I am involved with an organization dedicated to defending citizens from laws that attack our civil rights and right to privacy at the moment, and the left in general has a long history of opposing the gathering of data like this, as do (I assume) right wing libertarian types in the US. For that reason I honestly don’t think we need to preface every argument we engage in with a reiteration our entire belief system and I think it’s fair to assume that there are some things that are just too obvious to mention.Quote:
No one has given an opinion on the EC's collection of such private data…
The EC is wrong for giving the US the information especially when they didn’t notify local bodies that have an interest being made aware of the deal.Quote:
…except to say that the US is clearly wrong for being given this information.
Just because information is available doesn’t mean anyone should have access to it. My doctor has all sorts of information that Joe Blow doesn’t need to know. If the doctor gave it to him when he asked you don’t think he’s got a problem? Why does the US need to know whether you’re a member of a trade union or whether you’re bisexual? What possible value could this have – even in 'the fight against terrorism'.Quote:
I don't understand how the US is at fault for requesting passenger information that has already been gathered.
I don’t know, and that’s a serious questions that many Europeans would have. Maybe it’s for medical emergency reasons, maybe it’s so they can gloat about how cosmopolitan they are with their trendy gay, atheist, communist, trade unionist majorities, whatever reason the EU has for having that information though, they didn’t collect it just so they could share it with a third country who has no interest in knowing any of that shit.Quote:
What is it being used for by the EC
No one is claiming America is behind it all, that’s just an invention. People are saying it's fucked up that America is going to get this information and hold it for 15 years. Do you think that's fucked up or not? If you think it's fucked up, are you going to do anything about it?Quote:
It comes of as rather disingenuous to imply that America is the one behind it all.
DHS is asking for the screenings, but they aren't controlling the information that is on them. As others have pointed out already, you can't blame the US for the content of these screenings. Has DHS actually said they want to know what passengers favorite sexual positions are as a screening mechanism? I didn't see that anywhere. I seriously doubt DHS wants the screenings for that sort of information. Any offense taken should be aimed at the ones who control the screenings and take the information in the first place.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
They are taking part in it, and that's enough!! What the DHS and the EC are subscribing to is wrong, and an invasion of privacy.
Think of it this way, if you wanted a log of some event one of my characters was at, and I told you I could give it to you, but there was also some other stuff in it would you tell me not to send it to you because it had extra stuff? Probably not, you'd take it and strip out what you didn't want. If what you had to take out happened to be a gnome/scorpien/canis/'mae orgy would that make you a pervert for asking for the log?
Your analogy doesn't hold, but if it did I would tell Aristotle and Dalaena that I was sharing a log with someone who had no connection to Threshold and that he was gonna do what he liked with it for 15 years.
I would beat myself up for not telling those at the orgy that I was going to log it and share it with complete strangers.
I would probably be ostracized and nuked within hours. It's a shame that European citizens, the EU and the dude in charge or Data don't have that easy option.
Given the current administration's penchant for intelligence distortion, I wouldn't be so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.Quote:
Think of it this way, if you wanted a log of some event one of my characters was at, and I told you I could give it to you, but there was also some other stuff in it would you tell me not to send it to you because it had extra stuff? Probably not, you'd take it and strip out what you didn't want. If what you had to take out happened to be a gnome/scorpien/canis/'mae orgy would that make you a pervert for asking for the log?
Go ahead and take their word at face value if you wish, but I for one am much more pessimistic about such an benign position.
I see. The administration is dishonest, therefore anything the administration does must be dishonest.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
Given the current administration's penchant for intelligence distortion, I wouldn't be so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Go ahead and take their word at face value if you wish, but I for one am much more pessimistic about such an benign position.
I'm biased here. I work for the government and I have played a direct role in catching terrorists. In that capacity I understand the usefulness of some of the information on the screenings. Other information is irrelevant, and would be good only for chuckles among analysts as they sifted through the data. Understanding intimately how this information would be used I can assure you that it isn't being asked for to get the sexual information. To further the point, any analyst would question the honesty of the people giving the information. So, you have information that serves no real purpose that is probably false...
I assure you, the US doesn't care whether you like to take it in the ass or not if you want to visit.
Starting out with "Possibly, X. Therefore, X" is not particularly heartening.Quote:
I think odds are on that the US made a request was put strongly enough for the EC to comply.
With you so far.Quote:
I am against a body (whether it be the government or a private institution) collecting and collating information about my religion, sex life, financial situation, political views etc.
Still tracking.Quote:
The EC is wrong for giving the US the information especially when they didn’t notify local bodies that have an interest being made aware of the deal.
Now I don't think we're in the same ballpark. The doctor analogy is flawed out of the gate, given that there is tried and legal precedent for STRICT doctor-patient confidentiality and it is obvious the EC owes no such obligation. On top of that, according to the EC bylaws that you linked earlier in the post, the information has to have been obtained voluntarily.Quote:
Just because information is available doesn’t mean anyone should have access to it. My doctor has all sorts of information that Joe Blow doesn’t need to know.
No. Forget America - how long will the EC hold it? Presumably forever, as I believe that their database will be constantly updated as new information becomes available.Quote:
People are saying it's fucked up that America is going to get this information and hold it for 15 years. Do you think that's fucked up or not?
Fallacies abound.Quote:
The administration is dishonest, therefore anything the administration does must be dishonest.
well, now I can rest easy......Quote:
I assure you, the US doesn't care whether you like to take it in the ass or not if you want to visit.
Okay, I would bet that what you say is true at the moment. However I have several friends who have been denied access to the US for their involvement in political campaigns in Australia. I have had friends who have been detained and questioned about their political activities and beliefs while in the US after being involved in legal activities (such as protests or conferences). Having sensitive and private information in your records about people gives you the power to use that information if you ever need to, like, I don't know, but if a state had anti-sodomy laws, and you had information that Fred was gay, then you could deport him for breaking the law if you wanted to get rid of him. Right?Quote:
Originally posted by Gadiantor
I assure you, the US doesn't care whether you like to take it in the ass or not if you want to visit.
Sure, in the same way jamming enough "if" probabilities into a sentence can make almost anything true.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
Having sensitive and private information in your records about people gives you the power to use that information if you ever need to, like, I don't know, but if a state had anti-sodomy laws, and you had information that Fred was gay, then you could deport him for breaking the law if you wanted to get rid of him. Right?
Political affiliations are important. Some terrorist groups have political arms. I'm in no way insinuating that your friends were terrorists, just pointing out why that information can be useful if you're trying to track terrorists. Of course the smart ones will just lie, as was previously mentioned.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
Okay, I would bet that what you say is true at the moment. However I have several friends who have been denied access to the US for their involvement in political campaigns in Australia. I have had friends who have been detained and questioned about their political activities and beliefs while in the US after being involved in legal activities (such as protests or conferences). Having sensitive and private information in your records about people gives you the power to use that information if you ever need to, like, I don't know, but if a state had anti-sodomy laws, and you had information that Fred was gay, then you could deport him for breaking the law if you wanted to get rid of him. Right?
Some states do have laws against sodomy, but now we're crossing the line between the federal and state governments.
Really this whole thing is getting a bit silly now. Instead of bashing the US I think the focus should be on the people collecting this information. If you don't like having information on whether or not you like to be sodomized being available focus your disdain on the people asking the question, recording the answer, and storing that information.
I know it was over 8 months ago that this was all in the news (I try to keep up with UK/Europe news), and there was a request for all kinds of information collected on passengers flying to the US to be provided to US authorities. It caused a fairly huge disagreement between the EU and the US and threatened to stop flights to the US (some agreement had to be renegotiated and this was the sticking point). It took them a while to hammer out an agreement, but something was reached, what I do not know. And no, I don’t have sources, this is just from memory. As for the EU ‘wanting’ to give this information up, I don’t think so. As I said, some form of compromise was apparently reached.
However, despite my hilarious earlier post, I do not know what (and if any extra) information regarding sexual information was ever requested. I only know that the request was in such a form that refusal was not really an option.
FFS stop inferring that all we're doing is complaining about the US. I've already said I'm fighting against the collection and use of such data in Australia. I can't fight against it in the EU cuz I aint a fucking EU citizen. I'm not a US citizen either. I'd fight australia if we used the EU information but to my knowledge we don't.
Anyways, we've gotten as far as we need to go in this thread. You guys don't give a shit that the US is holding onto irrelevant and private information about tourists from Europe.
Good on ya.
You're right, I don't care if irrelevant and private information about tourists from Europe is held on to, if it means that we're able to collect some relevant information about some terrorists that want to kill innocent US civilians.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
You guys don't give a shit that the US is holding onto irrelevant and private information about tourists from Europe.
Good on ya.
No, not really. Got to restate what Gad said - if it nabs even one bad guy, it's already worth it.Quote:
You guys don't give a shit that the US is holding onto irrelevant and private information about tourists from Europe.
The fact that the EC is collecting it is somewhat creepy, but I'm not unwilling to have a gander.
It's not so much your statements as Kestra's habitual and intellectually shallow ripping on American officials/government that we take as indication that "complaining about the U.S." is going on. To wit, from Kestra's first post:Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
FFS stop inferring that all we're doing is complaining about the US. I've already said I'm fighting against the collection and use of such data in Australia.
"I'm certain that American society will become a better place, if you all can just be paranoid about everything and everybody."
Other than particularly smug and critical (given that the argument "he was trying to raise awareness about American information gathering" has been eviscerated by the response that this was information ALREADY GATHERED BY THE EC IN THE FIRST PLACE), how else would you have us take that, Malacasta?
Probably true. I did like, appreciate, and agree with your earlier statement that a disagreement over policies does not constitute a personal attack or a personal vendetta, and think that is something that bears reiteration most of the time. Problematically, your (in this case) intellectual ally, Kestra, does not behave in such a manner so as to be consistent with this meme; in fact, his repetitive attacks - and yes, they're precisely that, attacks - on what he perceives as faults in the American government and/or society tend to give those of us who are not quite so much in his ideological camp a presumption that the things he says are MEANT through that prism. In short, when you behave like an unreasonable, rabid anti-American often enough, you shouldn't be surprised when people default to assuming that's what you're doing - or read otherwise ambiguous posts in that light, Kestra.Quote:
Anyways, we've gotten as far as we need to go in this thread.
Not really. I'm much more concerned about information that the U.S. government collects about Americans than I am about foreign nationals. I fall into the "right-wing libertarian" camp that you earlier mentioned, insomuch as I approach governmental requests for information with a very high level of scrutiny. I would be positively baffled if any nation-state asked me my sexual practices (politics being a bit different, as those, contrary to aforementioned stated positions in this thread, actually have something to do with behavior - that's a discussion for another time). I'm rather astonished the citizens of Europe went for such a measure. If they - or anyone else - has a problem with this, though, the EC would seem to me to be the political institution to lodge grievance with. An attempt to ham-handedly turn this into a forum by which to bitch about the American administration or make another tired complaint about "American paranoia" - not that I am speaking to you on this one, Malacasta - simply generates a rousing round of eye-rolling yawns.Quote:
You guys don't give a shit that the US is holding onto irrelevant and private information about tourists from Europe.
Good on ya.
Come to think of it, there's a saying, loosely bastardized off Churchill's statement on democracy, that I use often for this kind of situation, Malacasta: I distrust my government more than anything else on Earth - except for every other government.
Despite being a part of Europe (all the countries that are), Europe itself is 'over there' when it comes to most things it does. People have a hard enough time demonstrating their displeasure and disagreement with domestic policy. Most people don't even seem to make the connection that what happens in Europe affects them. I would wager 99.9% of the entire population of Europe don't know who their Euro MP's are.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaviani
I'm rather astonished the citizens of Europe went for such a measure. If they - or anyone else - has a problem with this, though, the EC would seem to me to be the political institution to lodge grievance with.
Yes they should take more interest if 'they' want to avoid crap like this being heaped upon them, but that just simply isn't happenning. To steal a Douglas Adams acronym, it's SEP.
It's a sad note that the only time people get involved in European legislation is when a tabloid picks up some new proposal and turns it into the last 'attack on our national pride', be it the banning of the 'great' British Sausage, or a law demanding that all bananas be the same shade of yellow. Utterly pathetic, and they've only got themselves to blame.
I'm not unreasonable. I simply disagree.Quote:
In short, when you behave like an unreasonable, rabid anti-American often enough, you shouldn't be surprised when people default to assuming that's what you're doing - or read otherwise ambiguous posts in that light, Kestra.
The "ripping" as you like to phrase it, shall continue on American officials.Quote:
It's not so much your statements as Kestra's habitual and intellectually shallow ripping on American officials/government that we take as indication that "complaining about the U.S." is going on. To wit, from Kestra's first post:
I hate it when my sarcasm gets lost on people.Quote:
"I'm certain that American society will become a better place, if you all can just be paranoid about everything and everybody."
This is why no one tends to take you seriously. 'I'm not unreasonable, but I'm going to keep bashing American officials'? How can you even say that with a straight face?Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
I'm not unreasonable. I simply disagree.
The "ripping" as you like to phrase it, shall continue on American officials.
As I recall, (this was indeed big news months ago), the US wanted the sex information to help them enforce the provision of U.S. law that bans HIV-positive foreigners from entering the country for visits. I think the belief of most news pundits was that the US wants to use sex information to profile which visitors should get more scrutiny in terms of being a possible violator of the HIV+ travel ban.Quote:
Originally posted by Kraxe
I know it was over 8 months ago that this was all in the news (I try to keep up with UK/Europe news), and there was a request for all kinds of information collected on passengers flying to the US to be provided to US authorities. It caused a fairly huge disagreement between the EU and the US and threatened to stop flights to the US (some agreement had to be renegotiated and this was the sticking point). It took them a while to hammer out an agreement, but something was reached, what I do not know. And no, I don’t have sources, this is just from memory. As for the EU ‘wanting’ to give this information up, I don’t think so. As I said, some form of compromise was apparently reached.
However, despite my hilarious earlier post, I do not know what (and if any extra) information regarding sexual information was ever requested. I only know that the request was in such a form that refusal was not really an option.
it's perfectly reasonable to "bash", as you call it, elected officials.
You may disagree with my reasons, however that does not make me unreasonable.
I agree it's perfectly reasonable to "bash". It's perfectly reasonable in any other forum, but Threshold's.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
it's perfectly reasonable to "bash", as you call it, elected officials.
You may disagree with my reasons, however that does not make me unreasonable.
Why you ask? Because debates here are a little more mature than your average forum debate. People here want to hear real reasons and facts, not "bashes".
That's a matter of opinion.Quote:
Why you ask? Because debates here are a little more mature than your average forum debate.
So it basically went like this:
Quote:
USA: Hey Europe. When your people fly to our country, we need information about them so we can cross-check it with our watch lists. Ok?
EC: Sure. Here you go.
USA: Woah. We were expecting names, employment history, residence, that sort of stuff. We really don't need to know that John Doe likes to be spanked.
EC: Well, that's the way we gather information about our people. Take it or leave it.
USA: Ok, well if that's the only way we can get information about passengers, I guess we'll take it.
Now, how is it the United States fault, and how is the USA in any way to blame, for the fact that the EC supplied the USA with Too Much Information?
They did not request the information. They requested OTHER, more benign information, and simply got more than they asked for.
The USA has a lot of problems right now with invading people's privacy... some VERY SERIOUS problems. But this sure as heck doesn't sound like one of them. This sounds like a 100% EC problem.
The funniest thing about this whole thread is that Kestra obviously did not read the article, placed blame in the wrong place, but is too stubborn to just laugh it off with a "mea culpa" and move on.
What's funnier still is despite admitting that the EC authored the information, people still cling to the notion that I believe the US did.Quote:
The funniest thing about this whole thread is that Kestra obviously did not read the article, placed blame in the wrong place, but is too stubborn to just laugh it off with a "mea culpa" and move on.
The US DHS is going to use this information, and it's going to be abused in one manner or another, be it another method of racial profiling, or otherwise.
Passenger Name Record system (or PNR) isn't a government database. It's a resource gathered by private industry, specifically airlines. This is explained a bit in this article about the controversy:Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
So it basically went like this:
Now, how is it the United States fault, and how is the USA in any way to blame, for the fact that the EC supplied the USA with Too Much Information?
They did not request the information. They requested OTHER, more benign information, and simply got more than they asked for.
The USA has a lot of problems right now with invading people's privacy... some VERY SERIOUS problems. But this sure as heck doesn't sound like one of them. This sounds like a 100% EC problem.
The funniest thing about this whole thread is that Kestra obviously did not read the article, placed blame in the wrong place, but is too stubborn to just laugh it off with a "mea culpa" and move on.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0707/070607e1.htm
The DHS says it wants this data for the following reason, as quoted from an official in the article:
"PNR data is primarily collected to protect against terrorism and serious international crime," the official said. "PNR data is not used or shared for purposes other than that under which it was collected."
Now, whether you are a Republican, Democrat, American or not, I think we can all agree that the DHS doth protest too much.
Also, consider for a moment how Americans would feel if Europe pressured the FAA into forcing airlines in the US to allow European law enforcement agencies to rummage through the company databases of the American airlines, with little to no idea what the Europeans want all that access for, or what the legal and privacy ramifications are for American consumers.
Sure Europeans should be angry with their own governments for being so accomodating to the US, but it is certainly fair to be annoyed with the US for wanting to invade people's privacy in this way. It isn't unreasonable to be afraid of what the US will do with this information, especially given the American track record in the last several years.
Along with 'bashing,' this is the kind of conjecture that can lead many forum readers to not take you so seriously, and discredits any good points you might make.Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
The US DHS is going to use this information, and it's going to be abused in one manner or another, be it another method of racial profiling, or otherwise.
As I read it, you were not being accused of clinging to the idea that the US authored/collected the information. Only that you sarcastically lashed out at the US for taking more information than what was requested in the first place.