28 Jun U.S. and E.U. Near Agreement on Sharing Personal Data
This sounds complicated but important:
The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information — like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits — about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Most of the problems in reaching an agreement have been on the European side, especially since it hasn’t always been clear whether member states or the EU as a whole is authorized to make such an agreement. On the U.S. side, I am fairly confident we are talking about an executive agreement, perhaps without any congressional involvement since it is not clear it involves any changes to U.S. law.
One interesting note: there seem to be substantial areas of disagreement still, as well as lots of potential opposition from European privacy-rights advocates. Someone leaked the state of negotiations to the NYT, but in hopes of torpedoing the deal or of carrying it across the finish line? Hard to tell.
This IS very significant. I wonder whether any American privacy advocates such as EFF or EPIC have been on the US side. It would seem that privacy advocates on boths sides of the Atlantic should band together to explain to us mere mortals the manner in which our privacy is being sold farther down the river – always in the name of security as defined by someone.
On “security,” I am reminded by a colleague of this exchange from Alice through the Looking Glass:
`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’
Best,
Ben
The Humpty Dumpty approach to the word “security” would seem to have been applied by the House of Lords in Liversidge v. Anderson [1942] AC 206, where the statutory words “if the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe…” were interpreted as saying “if the Secretary of State thinks he has reasonable cause to believe.” That, at any rate, is how Lord Atkin, the lone dissenter, has seen things. He said: I protest, even if I do it alone, against a strained construction put upon words with the effect of giving an uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the Minister. To recapitulate. The words have only one meaning: they are used with that meaning in statements of the common law and in statutes; they have never been used in the sense now imputed to them […]. I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things. The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master… Read more »