[HN Gopher] US Government demands direct police access to Europe...
___________________________________________________________________
US Government demands direct police access to European biometric
data [pdf]
Author : diimdeep
Score : 444 points
Date : 2022-12-27 17:51 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (digit.so36.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (digit.so36.net)
| hardlianotion wrote:
| One question that always seems to be unclear and insufficiently
| negotiated is reciprocity. What is the US going to offer in
| return. If they do offer to reciprocate, it actually needs to be
| delivered before the deal is live.
|
| That said, I think it is a shitty deal for these leaky, insecure,
| bad faith entities to be able to negotiate off to the side with
| our sensitive personal data like this.
| pmontra wrote:
| The USA offers to continue the free visa agreement. If that
| ends, for reciprocity there won't be free visas for USA
| travelers to Europe too. It's lose lose but one of the two
| parties is always going to lose more than the other one. Which
| one? In the case of tourism probably Europe loses more from
| less USA tourists because of visa friction than the USA loses
| from European tourists staying at home. Business? It will take
| more time to setup a travel but people that have to travel will
| travel anyway.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Business can be conducted via webex and zoom ornon neutral
| 3rd party grounds if need be.
|
| I would feel sorry if american tourists would need a visa for
| europe, as the americans which do travel and get aroynd are
| the nicest people, first timers get to see the world from
| another perspective.
|
| I prefer if americans travel for holidays rather
| than....forgive me...in military uniforms.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is just a protection racket. Demanding something new to
| maintain an existing mutually beneficial arrangement is
| simple greed.
| [deleted]
| 0xBDB wrote:
| "What is the US going to offer in return."
|
| Well, not our biometric data, certainly. You could get that on
| eBay.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/technology/for-sale-on-eb...
| astrange wrote:
| It's not especially valuable or private anyway. If you leave
| something everywhere you go (ie you can't protect it without
| a spacesuit), and there's nothing special about it compared
| to anyone else's (in terms of economic value), it can't be
| either of those things.
|
| People are especially sensitive about their DNA since they
| think pharma companies can somehow develop new expensive
| drugs just by looking at it. (There's actual discrimination
| issues on this one of course, not to mention family drama...)
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is not thoughtful. Everything is somewhere, so
| therefore nothing is special as compared to anything?
| Nevertheless, businesses and dictatorships somehow find
| value in the information collected and organized in files
| and databases.
| astrange wrote:
| I didn't say anything about "the information collected
| and organized in files and databases". And I don't think
| businesses find your fingerprints very helpful in selling
| you things.
|
| Mostly the value in tracking you comes from profiling
| you, i.e. building relationships between facts, mostly
| metadata about what you do over time. But biometrics
| aren't metadata and aren't what you do.
|
| I did mention "discrimination" but redacting data in case
| future governments are racist isn't all that useful;
| they're the government, you can't hide from them, and
| since discrimination isn't based on real objective
| categories then you can't predict what it will be based
| on. There's no biometric for being a Cagot.
| narag wrote:
| _What is the US going to offer in return._
|
| I suspect, without proof but read next paragraphs for some
| evidence, that the US offer their surveillance net. If EU
| police is searching for someone, even in our own territory,
| it's easier for US intelligence agencies to locate and
| eavesdrop on the suspect with the tech that we know.
|
| _El Pollo_ Carvajal [0] was arrested in Madrid, September
| 2021. Although it was our police that made the arrest, it was
| the US that provided his exact location. Some say that local
| authorities had no desire to catch the man, actually he had
| already been arrested in 2019 and "disappeared" apparently due
| to some bureaucratic error. If I'm not mistaken, he's awaiting
| extradition.
|
| The end of terrorist band ETA [1] (that Wikipedia charmingly
| defines as "separatist group") happened after a continuous
| string of high-profile arrests in France. Again, our neighbours
| haven't been always very collaborative, but had no option when
| alerted of exact location of people in the Interpol watchlist.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Carvajal
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| This all worked without this approach, this is why interpol
| and fbi have collaborative projects.
| narag wrote:
| Sure, I was responding to the question "what are they going
| to offer in return" with "probably they're already giving
| us something in return," it's an ongoing collaboration,
| only their part is not always public, so the deal seems
| one-sided.
| flanflan wrote:
| > What is the US going to offer in return.
|
| Nothing, it's a hostage situation.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait
| comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing this
| repeatedly (e.g.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34151395). It's not what
| this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We're trying
| for something different here.
|
| If you'd please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to
| the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| Then we should decouple a little bit.
| flanflan wrote:
| Probably, and the EU was talking a big game about that a
| few years ago. But between Nordstream 2 and the Ukraine war
| the EU seems to have shown how willing it actually is to
| decouple...
| miguelazo wrote:
| Exactly. Even when the harm to Europe is as blatant as
| the examples you cited, the cowardly leadership does
| nothing. This lack of representation for citizens'
| interests will lead to a lot of resentment and perhaps
| even extremism, as it has in the past.
| jeltz wrote:
| But is it really? The EU can just respond with: "no". And
| while that would hurt the economy of the EU it would also
| hurt the economy of the US. I do not really see any reason
| for the EU to say yes to this unless the EU gets something in
| return.
| miguelazo wrote:
| What is Germany getting in return for having Nordstream 2
| blown up by the US/allies? Besides 10x energy prices and
| its industrial economic base set back 10 years.
| eppp wrote:
| Did Germany own the pipeline? A cursory search indicates
| that it was owned by the hostile Russian government
| unless I am mistaken?
| miguelazo wrote:
| Nord Stream AG is a Swiss holding company. Try a little
| harder next time. And the Russians have only been hostile
| towards the far-right controlled Ukrainian government
| (which murdered over 10k of its own Russian-speaking
| civilians in the Eastern oblasts before February 2022),
| not Germany.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Are you saying that the US/it's allies destroyed
| Nordstream 2?
|
| Is there any proof of that?
|
| What lead you to believe this?
| miguelazo wrote:
| LOL... you guys are extremely naive, and now quite behind
| on the news. Even the Western press is now quietly
| admitting the obvious.
|
| (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-
| security/2022/12/21/...) https://archive.vn/UpsuY
| epolanski wrote:
| US is the only party that both benefits financially by
| this and has the capabilities to strike targets in the
| midst of NATO waters.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What is Germany getting in return for having Nordstream
| 2 blown up by the US/allies?
|
| Nothing, because that didn't happen. (Most likely, Russia
| blew up the not-being-used pipe as a capacity
| demonstration aimed at Baltic Pipe, to raise the
| perceived cost by government decisionmakers of continuing
| support for Ukraine; they probably also juice the
| propaganda about the US being behind it, to promote
| internal strife in the West between the people that can
| be influenced by that propaganda and their governments.)
|
| > Besides 10x energy prices and its industrial economic
| base set back 10 years.
|
| Since NS2 wasn't being used, that didn't happen as a
| result of it being destroyed, either.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Get a grip. Smoked too much of that Russiagate reefer?
| Even the Western press now quietly admitting the
| (extremely) obvious.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-
| security/2022/12/21/... (https://archive.vn/UpsuY)
| hcks wrote:
| It's impossible that it was the US that blew Nordstream,
| because it would have made the European allies very
| upset, and there is NO WAY the US wanted to make them
| upset.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Haha, nice. You forgot the sarcasm tags, though. Some
| people still don't get it.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| Reciprocity is a well understood legal precedent when it comes
| to things like deportation, I can imagine the European courts
| asking things like this when the Feds start clamoring for
| access.
| InTheArena wrote:
| Reading through the slides, it appears that what has been
| discussed is sharing signature and fingerprints for travel into
| the USA. There is a lot of weasel words, but it's probably worth
| nothing that the USA currently collects this information for
| foreign nationals coming into the USA (as the EU does for
| Americans traveling into the EU). This is being done in the
| context of a DB query as part of the e VISA application.
|
| It's worth noting that almost all of this is still the output of
| the 9/11, where US and Saudi systems did not communicate and
| resulted in known terrorists in Saudi Arabia being able to travel
| at will into the USA.
|
| I don't like biometrics, but the hyperbole needs to be tuned down
| a bit here.
| hammock wrote:
| Considering that 9/11 was in part a Saudi kingdom operation,
| I'm not convinced having more US-Saudi cooperation would have
| helped
|
| Edit: what's with the downvotes?
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| It might have helped the Saudi terrorists.
|
| I am thankful that the EU is standing up against this threat.
| lakomen wrote:
| What threat again?
| bombolo wrote:
| You mean USA won't misuse this data?
| EGreg wrote:
| We have had the Five Eyes and ECHELON for decades. Since
| before the Snowden revelations. How is this different?
|
| They don't spy on their own citizens but they exchange info
| with the other spy agencies, so...
| filiphorvat wrote:
| >We have had the Five Eyes and ECHELON for decades. Since
| before the Snowden revelations. How is this different?
|
| Because the EU is not part of either?
| filoleg wrote:
| Well one of the countries in the Five Eyes (UK) used to
| be a part of the EU, until fairly recently.
|
| Note for those in the thread who haven't heard of ECHELON
| until now (just like me) - it is the exact same list of
| countries as for the Five Eyes.
|
| > [...] Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United
| Kingdom and the United States, also known as the Five
| Eyes. [0]
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
| Gasp0de wrote:
| Maybe this is the reason they started demanding this now,
| that before they could just ask Britain but because of
| Brexit, Britain has lost access to European biometric
| data?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > They don't spy on their own citizens
|
| Correct, that would be illegal.
|
| When NSA need to spy on an american, they ask GCHQ to do it
| for them and buy the data. Or buy it off a private company.
| EGreg wrote:
| That's what I meant. But the sibling thread somehow
| devolved into making fun of this idea!
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| > They don't spy on their own citizens
|
| They sure do; whatever gave you the impression they don't?
| aatd86 wrote:
| From what I get, countries ask friendly countries to spy
| on their behalf.
| EGreg wrote:
| Their mandate doesnt allow it
|
| https://www.aclu.org/other/nsa-spying-americans-illegal
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| Yeah, like the siblings I can't be sure whether you're
| joking or not.
|
| In the off chance that you're not, remember that Gitmo
| exists so they can do things that their mandates wouldn't
| allow.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Gitmo exists so they can do things that their mandates
| wouldn't allow.
|
| No, Gitmo exists so they can do things _openly and
| shamelessly_ that their mandates wouldn 't allow.
|
| Otherwise they can use black sites, or just lie about it.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Funniest thing I've read all week.
| monocasa wrote:
| And yet, part of what Snowden leaked was that they were
| storing all Americans' data, somehow making the internal
| legal argument that searching their databases was when it
| became an actual search, not when they stored that
| information about Americans in their db.
| IncRnd wrote:
| I know that wasn't a serious comment, saying that federal
| government agencies follow their mandates and never break
| the law.
|
| PS I see that you have edited your comment to add a link,
| https://www.aclu.org/other/nsa-spying-americans-illegal.
| That link shows that the government illegally spys on
| citizens, which is the opposite of what you meant to
| show.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Why break the law to spy on Americans? We give all our
| private information out to any website that asks and
| shout out political opinions out into the void on
| Twitter. Just buy the list of people really interested in
| fertilizer and _not_ farming from some data broker.
| Totally legal private sector transaction!
| IncRnd wrote:
| I'm not sure what you are asking or why. See the start of
| this thread, where the Snowden revelations were
| mentioned.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| yes an unaccountable agency that does not have to report
| to anyone, and can classify all of their actions under
| national security directives would never violate their
| mandate. Never..
|
| Let me tell you about this new crypto investment I
| have...
| IncRnd wrote:
| It's different in that it doesn't require misuse to get
| certain data about citizens.
| petre wrote:
| What difference does it make? They already lost it and it
| fell into the hands of not-so-nice people like the Taliban.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| > where US and Saudi systems did not communicate and resulted
| in known terrorists in Saudi Arabia being able to travel at
| will into the USA.
|
| I'm not even sure how to classify this sentence...
| str1k3 wrote:
| Naive.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| I'm leaning more towards deliberately obtuse.
| petre wrote:
| Yeah, we should 'trust' them after they lost the biometric data
| for all of the Afghanis they fingerprinted. I was going to have
| my visa application but I guess I'll defer it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm not sure that hyperbole is possible when you're discussing
| the necessity of having worldwide biometric "terrorist" lists
| that countries like Saudi Arabia would participate in.
|
| -----
|
| edit: How would you code "terrorism through public
| demonstrations of driving while female" or "terrorism through
| being Yemen?"
|
| "Terrorism though applying for a marriage license after being
| mildly critical in the WaPo."
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Finance background here.
|
| All these PEP, sanction lists, ofac monitoring, financial
| sanction lists already exist and every company with a
| worthwile monetary turnover ever facing an audit runs these
| background checks.
|
| The laws are there, they are called the aml directives, the
| lists are there.
|
| And most of the entries there are provided by eitjer uk or us
| entities, youll usually find foreign military personells data
| there, dob, rank, id number, name but not much else.
|
| It is bit of a joke as many muslim people have similar names
| and joe shmoes get flagged for nothing very often.
|
| Meanwhile, the people on these lists are very high up within
| their own government hierarchy, they probably have 5 differe
| t passports.
|
| Btw, these lists are csv files often...some sophistication.
|
| Yea, monitor peps, fugitives and terrorists, but find a way
| without combing through the whole worlds innocent citizens.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| > Btw, these lists are csv files often...some
| sophistication.
|
| And surely this critically sensitive data is not left on a
| shared location with loose permissions, or sent around as
| an email attachment, right? ...right?
|
| I'm worried about the ability of this data to enable
| authoritarianism and I'm also worried about it being
| handled by those with the competence of the average
| government official.
|
| "Never blame on malice what you can blame on stupidity",
| however the problem is government has both of those in
| spades.
| u10 wrote:
| Critical sensitive data? You can access the lists
| directly in several different formats, all publically
| available... Wouldn't be much of a sanctions list if you
| couldn't
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-
| sanctio...
| kanzenryu2 wrote:
| In Saudi Arabia atheists are terrorists. And they also have
| the death penalty for terrorism.
| Guthur wrote:
| I suppose on the plus side at least they actually sentence
| them, some countries just lock them up in extra judicial
| camps or orders a drone strike and never says a word.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I wish we lived in a world where our governments had
| integrity, prioritized the interests of the masses, and could
| be trusted to use powers like this in pursuit of those
| interests. Sadly we don't.
| vinay427 wrote:
| > (as the EU does for Americans traveling into the EU)
|
| This doesn't seem true unless the US citizen is resident in a
| Schengen area country or (as a technicality) is also an
| EU/Schengen area citizen, as the EU seems slightly more in
| favor of government collection of biometric data for automated
| immigration purposes. I'm not sure about the reverse, as even
| the CBP seems to be moving towards facial recognition in place
| of fingerprint data, but it seems like most non-US/Canadian
| visitors are required to provide fingerprints.
| ubercore wrote:
| I didn't have to provide a fingerprint or signature to travel
| to Europe, only when I applied for residence in a Schengen
| country.
| wolfi1 wrote:
| the problem with such treaties is they are very shady in their
| wording and if there is a possibility to interpret it in this
| direction it will be interpreted in this direction
| rvba wrote:
| Saddest is that in order to fight tax avoidance, when an European
| creates an account in an European bank you need to sign a
| separate statement that you are not an american citizen. I am not
| sure if they share data only of US citizens (or those with two
| citizenships), or all... but I also doubt that americans have to
| sign a document where they admit if they have a second
| citizenship in one of EU states. It feels very one sided.
| guitarbill wrote:
| That's solely down to the US and things like the Foreign
| Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
|
| Not sure what you're arguing for? To make EU or EU state tax
| law as insane as the US tax law? The US is effectively able to
| bully other nations because of the US dollar and access to the
| banking system...
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Rogue state
| muxator wrote:
| How would the US react to the same request from EU's police?
| Would they give direct access to their people's biometric data?
|
| Conversely, what would the EU do if that same request came from
| another nation instead of the USA? What about Brazil, Japan,
| China?
| wheelerof4te wrote:
| I know those are all rethorical questions, but for any
| anglophiles here:
|
| The answer to all these questions would be hard "No.", possibly
| followed by sanctions for even daring to ask them.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| Anglophiles?
| marricks wrote:
| Given the US has army bases all in and around Europe, more than
| any European country, I bet the US wouldn't comply.
|
| It's rarely talked about, but you gotta imagine, the fact the
| US controls most of the land and sea is a big factor in how
| diplomatic issues are resolved.
|
| I don't think this is a great thing, btw.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| _Given the US has army bases all in and around Europe, more
| than any European country, I bet the US wouldn 't comply._
|
| That's been declining: 430,000 US troops in Europe in the
| '50s, and about 60,000 at the beginning of this year.
|
| https://www.boisestate.edu/bluereview/troops-in-europe/
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Numbers like that don't mean anything out of context.
| Military deployments are best estimated in terms of
| firepower; a cruise missile battery may have a greater
| strategic impact than 1000 troops. Likewise, the strategic
| situation in the 1950s, along with its recent past and
| foreseeable future, was vastly different from that of the
| present.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That's been declining: 430,000 US troops in Europe in the
| '50s, and about 60,000 at the beginning of this year.
|
| That's been increasing, up to over 100,000 in June of this
| year.
|
| https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/30780
| 5...
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| All there to coerce France and Germany, no doubt!
| pessimizer wrote:
| Only if they want to have pipelines.
| mihaaly wrote:
| You think that the US could play the army card against
| countries (allies) with troops in when the most spectacular
| failures of armed conflicts after WWII belong to the US (not
| least because how the US population relate to conflicts
| abroad, here including WWII as well)? Just to forget about
| the economic ties for a moment.
|
| We are talking about a sub-set of security instruments and
| preventions, one of the many available, are we sure that an
| armed conflict - or just threat - would worth the trouble?
| marricks wrote:
| I don't think they'd ever play it, directly. I imagine it's
| more like the tip of the iceberg in terms of regional
| influence the US has.
| johnywalks wrote:
| > US controls the land and seas of most of the Earth
|
| They do so with the help of allies which they seem to forget.
| bombolo wrote:
| And by "help" you mean harass civilians and get away with
| it, and bomb the middle east.
| bombolo wrote:
| https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisi_di_Sigonella
|
| In the 80s USA sent troops in italy to kidnap a terrorist
| that had surrendered himself to italy. They had to call up
| all the available carabinieri on the island to counter the
| USA troops.
|
| Not one has in mind with "allied nation".
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| In 2003 we (USA) kidnapped Abu Omar off the street on Italy
| and shipped him off to Egypt where he was tortured for
| years. We have vassals and client states, not allies.
|
| https://www.icij.org/investigations/collateraldamage/cleric
| s...
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Oh dear, dear EU, please show some teeth on this matter, god help
| us if you do not.
|
| The EU is the only place on earth having kinda sensitive big
| data/privacy laws and enforcements thereof.
|
| I am familiar enough with data aggregators like lexis nexis, you
| do not want to be there or end up there without knowing or
| without having an option for removal of the entries.
|
| Do not share anything, this paper speaks of fingerprints, damn,
| even my god damned government and the government where I reside
| do not have my fingerprint. Some countries have a biometric
| passport, but usually, taking fingerprints is done on suspects of
| major crimes.
|
| Hell no, share nothing, for an entry to the us, there is
| paperwork that needs to be filled and of the us govt requests
| fingerprints then, that fine.
|
| But an information exchange of personal data like fatca?
|
| Thanks, but no thanks.
|
| Did europe ask the USA for their citizen data? Thought so.
|
| I know for sure the usa does not have access to some very
| important data from some european countries, and that is good the
| way it is.
| [deleted]
| zajio1am wrote:
| > Oh dear, dear EU, please show some teeth on this matter, god
| help us if you do not.
|
| > The EU is the only place on earth having kinda sensitive big
| data/privacy laws and enforcements thereof
|
| Only for corporations, not for governments. EU already has
| mandatory ID cards with biometric data (fingerprints), while
| AFAIK there is no such systematic collection of biometric data
| in US.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| You have the 5 eyes and NSA instead, whatever they do not
| have, apple, ms, aws and google will have.
|
| If we put all these things aside, AEoI exists and if a bank
| does due diligence on mortgages, loans and car leases, they
| collect plenty of stuff, if they have it, the government can
| have it.
|
| The EU mindlessly signed up for that, now the US gets all
| that insight, meanwhile, its almost impossible for americans
| to open a bank account abroad. The europeans do not share
| fingerprint data, cept for criminal interpol investigations.
|
| You are mistaken if ypu think your government is collecting
| less data than the euro governments.
|
| There are more issues with governance there, but I will not
| go the esclation route, my message is simply to not trust
| governments with your data.
|
| All on a need to know basis.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > You are mistaken if ypu think your government is
| collecting less data than the euro government
|
| I am EU citizen and i think that my government is
| collecting much more personal data than necessary. Whether
| they would also share these data with the US government is
| for me much smaller concern than the fact they collect it
| for themselves.
| Kukumber wrote:
| They'll accept and they'll give them the keys, oh wait, Microsoft
| already has it all
| sneak wrote:
| What Microsoft doesn't have, AWS does. Several european
| governments store all passenger/traveler data (including
| biometric photo scans at the very least) in S3.
| Kukumber wrote:
| Oh you are right, it was the Health Data Hub that i had in
| mind, and looks like the plan was scrapped [1]
|
| [1] - https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-
| consumers/news/frenc...
| jacquesm wrote:
| I sincerely hope that the EU will give the appropriate but
| unprintable response to this request. At the time the biometric
| data was first collected plenty of people warned about this exact
| thing and we were repeatedly assured that it would never happen.
| Let's see if that is still true today. Never is such a long
| time...
| bodhiandphysics wrote:
| [flagged]
| monksy wrote:
| Wanna spend some time out in Gitmo because your phrasing had
| wrong speak?
|
| This is the introduction to draconian policies/laws in which
| you have no rights to opt out of this, representation caring
| to uphold your rights, or courts that are principled. Wanna
| get out, but still have family.. oh wait better give up more
| rights/risk going to jail to see them in the us. (Or they'll
| be interrogated back at home).
|
| The point in this post is not to criticize you, but to
| criticize the lack of caring that a 6 month waiting for a
| visa is a systematic failure in need or ability.
| Filligree wrote:
| I have no interest in visiting the USA. It hasn't been "the
| land of the free" for a long time now.
| jeltz wrote:
| Sure, why not? If the US wants to go isolationist I say we
| should let them.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I haven't been back there since 2007 and have no intention to
| ever go back there. I missed a couple of funerals of friends
| because of that but the typical 'welcome' (I use the term
| loosely) afforded by DHS to visitors to the USA has persuaded
| me that I have better things to do with my life.
|
| The decision not to re-visit was made somewhere between the
| point where my shoes were confiscated because they might be
| used as weapons and the time when I spent 6 hours on a bridge
| trying to get into Canada because they could not imagine a
| person carrying a Dutch passport had a legitimate interest in
| crossing the border into Canada.
|
| At one point I had a company in the US, spent a ton of money
| there annually and was seriously considering immigration, go
| figure.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Did you read TFA? It would only be used for people entering
| the US.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Besides complaining about people reading the article
| being against the guidelines, yes, I read it and yes,
| that would be exactly my position.
| adventured wrote:
| Nobody in this thread apparently read it. This has turned
| into a Reddit America-bad thread, it's embarrassing for
| HN.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Sorry, I did read it and by my reading it looks like a
| non-reciprocal request for access to a lot of EU data
| that isn't supposed to leave the EU at all, ever,
| especially not in bulk.
|
| What alternative reading do you have?
|
| The problem with the approach outlined in the document is
| that it tries to break open the EU by approaching member
| states individually, possibly even to access data from
| _other_ member states, something that I have a serious
| problem with.
| loeg wrote:
| > the time when I spent 6 hours on a bridge trying to get
| into Canada because they could not imagine a person
| carrying a Dutch passport had a legitimate interest in
| crossing the border into Canada.
|
| The US doesn't operate Canadian border control?
| jacquesm wrote:
| They checked outbound as well at that time, not sure if
| that is still the case.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| AFAIK that only happens with planes and boats, where the
| transporting company is on the hook for sending you back
| if the border at the destination turns you away. I've
| driven into Canada numerous times and never encountered
| any sort of American checkpoint before the Canadian
| border. But when I get onto a ferry in America that goes
| to Canada, they _do_ check my passport first before I get
| onto the ferry.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This was the bridge into Canada at the Sault Ste. Marie
| checkpoint. The traffic was backed up for a very long
| stretch and it is the only time I've been stopped there
| outbound from the USA so maybe they were looking for
| something specific, still, it really upset my plans at
| the time, and I was already pretty tired from the trip
| and only about 45 minutes driving time from home.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| > So... you want to spend six months waiting for a US visa?
|
| Whoever said I wanted to visit the US?
|
| Not just "no", but "hell no".
| eCa wrote:
| If those two options are the only available choices, then
| yes.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| It is a wise idea to not visit countries where rule of law
| does not exist.
| Mo3 wrote:
| I can assure you almost nobody here has any interest in ever
| visiting the US for prolonged periods of time.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| Add it to the list of authortarian demands. Many have already
| been waiting more than six months for the US to drop the
| outdated Covid vaccine requirement.
| ptero wrote:
| As a US citizen I would absolutely _love_ that (a short,
| unprintable answer from the EU to the US). And would cheer if
| the EU were in a position to deliver this. But...
|
| The way it looks to me (sorry, not trying to offend) is that
| while the EU may be an OK construct for the peacetime
| prosperity it is not functioning well during the times of
| conflict. As of today, it does not have military strength,
| energy security or economic strength from which it can deliver
| such an answer. And when you have to depend on someone else for
| the protection you have few options for saying "no". My 2c.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The thing is that every time the EU shows any interest in
| integrating its military forces into a something new that
| would be under the control of the EU rather than individual
| member states, the US argues against it at both the
| diplomatic and PR levels. This pattern has been going on
| since at least the Clinton administration.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Since the Kabul withdrawal disaster there has been some
| more strength behind the EU battle group concept.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| That isbthe spirit, much love from across the pond.
|
| Here, everyone left to right were saying, this will never
| happen.
|
| The people who said that are all retired wealthy, their
| parties still exist, let us hold them accountable.
|
| They always say they will get something in exchange, but it
| is all lies, the moment you are bargaining for something in
| exchange, youve already lost.
|
| Keep in mind, never give anything to the EU either, they
| cannot be trusted blindly either, theyre just somewhat more
| accountable. If they would be the worlds superpower, I am not
| sure how benevolent they would be.
|
| Everywhere on earth, the regular citizens have the same
| domestic nuissance, snoopi governments, all parties somehow
| collecting big data as if it were their business model.
|
| Anyone who knows a lawyer, a govt tax agency worker and such
| will know, the data tue govt has will never be used for good,
| it will even be twisted in their favor.
|
| Left or right does not matter, probably never did, if we had
| democracies, theycall such things bipartisan, the total left
| or right wing goverments had leaders like franco, pinochet,
| mao, stalin and such.
|
| Anarchists keep saying the biggest atrocities were always
| from governments, not sure what to say about that,
| governmnents are always humans as well.
|
| There is some issue at hand with power. Even in Switzerland,
| with its "direct democracy", the police state is quite
| invasive, discretly in the background.
|
| Maybe human civilization is simply still in its infancy
| regarding governing the population.
|
| 100 years ago we had ww1, bit more back, feudalism etc.
| kkfx wrote:
| Unfortunately UE is on an even worst path:
| https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.03.023 and the "underway"
| https://www.soprasteria.com/newsroom/press-releases/details/...
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The EU is subservient to the US. The war in Ukraine has not
| improved things as the US have also become a key supplier of
| LNG...
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > I sincerely hope that the EU will give the appropriate but
| unprintable response to this request.
|
| I hope not normally the EU just complies behind the scenes. I
| understand why that's unprintable but I wish they wouldn't lie
| to the population about how they handle this.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| Are there any folks here to whom it is starting to dawn what is
| really going on here; a transatlantic prison planet where you can
| do nothing without your prison wardens, formerly known as
| politicians, bureaucrats, and generally awful people knowing more
| about you than you do and being able to terrorize and torment you
| if you oppose or inconvenience them?
| chadlavi wrote:
| Not sure you know what a prison is frankfrankfrank
| [deleted]
| diffxx wrote:
| I'm working through the stages of grief.
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| They don't include revolution though.
| seydor wrote:
| It's a tough geopolitical situation, and europe does not protect
| itself. The US already has access to european data through
| datacenters anyway, so it seems prudent for the western world
| police to cooperate as well.
| [deleted]
| quantum_state wrote:
| hope it should be clear by now Europe needs to stand on its own
| on all things ...
| sfusato wrote:
| 2022 should have been a wake up call on that, but it seems our
| bureaucrats are still sleeping in Bruxelles.
| lstodd wrote:
| Of course they are sleeping there, the question is - with
| whom, and how much coke is consumed per night. Gimme that
| biometric data... oh wait, it's all out there already.
|
| /s :~(
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Europeans can trust the US government to keep this data as secure
| as they keep data on Americans
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chine...
| cm2187 wrote:
| or more recently
| https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2022/afghanistan-biometrie
| [deleted]
| jscipione wrote:
| This is yet another violation of the forth Amendment right to
| privacy by the United States federal government as outlined by
| the Bill of Rights which applies to all people, not just US
| citizens and is self-evident and inalienable. Democracy worldwide
| is in absolute shambles as the United States government abandons
| the rule of law in favor of absolute dictatorship.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Unfortunately the First is the only Amendment that still exists
| to some extent, the others are long time broken in court, by
| federal and local government and police forces.
| chadlavi wrote:
| as an American: this seems like an insane overreach
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I think it is vital we continue to discuss it here, but at the
| same time my conversations with my extended family show that
| people overall do not share my concerns over these at all. I do
| not get upset, because coming from a former soviet union country,
| I am trying hard to understand their frame of mind ( partially to
| see if there is a way to counter it ) and lot of it seems to a
| result from a deep trust in the system.
|
| In fact, just yesterday, the related conversation resulted in and
| I am paraphrasing 'you need to let go of some control and trust
| the system.'
|
| I will never understand this level of trust in your own
| government institutions.
| patrec wrote:
| Well, you could try mentioning that Turkey managed to leak the
| personal data of more or less its entire adult population (50M
| people or so; https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/0
| 4/database-...).
|
| Or, maybe closer to home, that several European states were
| complicit in helping the US to kidnap, torture and imprison
| their innocent citizens (the euphemism for accidentally
| kidnapping and torturing some completely random person is
| "erroneous rendition" https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10618427).
|
| Both the US and European allies went through great pains and
| costs to provide the Taliban with detail biometric data for
| kill lists https://theconversation.com/the-taliban-reportedly-
| have-cont....
|
| For just $68 you can even get the collector's edition on ebay,
| which includes not just lots of biometric and personal data but
| also comes with the original capture device
| (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/technology/for-sale-on-
| eb...).
| jylam wrote:
| It's not even your own government institutions, it's another
| totally separate government asking for your biometric data.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Disclaimer: I'm totally against any normalization of the
| collection/sharing of biometric data. But just to play
| Devil's Advocate:
|
| Let's say I'm a boring white midwestern HVAC contractor with
| a mortgage and 2.5 kids. Big Bad China acquires a picture of
| my face and my fingerprints. Also my DNA, why not, just for
| argument's sake! I never plan to visit China. How does this
| biometric sharing affect me, my rights, my safety, monetarily
| or otherwise? Connect the dots for me because it's hard for
| me to argue the privacy angle if I can't even explain the
| danger of a simple scenario like this.
| cesarb wrote:
| The problem with a _totally separate government_ having
| your data, is that they are not bound by your government 's
| laws. What prevents a foreign government from selling your
| data to private entities, which then resell these data to
| criminals? Or, a more likely scenario, said foreign
| government isn't as careful about vetting who has access to
| that kind of data (because they don't have the GDPR there),
| leading to criminals from your own country getting access
| to it?
|
| That is: even if you never plan to visit the remote country
| in question, the data can come back to your country (or a
| third country you might want to visit). And it might not
| even get there intact: what happens if your fingerprints
| get mislabeled as someone else's?
| mach1ne wrote:
| Write some anti-CCP stuff on social media, become randomly
| targeted by China's "Magic Methods". Whole lot easier when
| they have your biometric data.
| lodovic wrote:
| There are lots of scenarios.
|
| - Your data could be sold by China to your insurer.
|
| - Or they could buy your insurer and use the information
| they have on you.
|
| - They could use it for some corporate espionage.
|
| - Perhaps you or your boss need to be convinced that you
| should sell Chinese HVAC equipment instead of Korean.
|
| - Maybe one of your kids will get married to someone from
| China and you have been critical of their government
| online. They may visit China and be punished for that.
| consumer451 wrote:
| > Disclaimer: I'm totally against any normalization of the
| collection/sharing of biometric data. But just to play
| Devil's Advocate:
|
| > Let's say I'm a boring white midwestern HVAC contractor
| with a mortgage and 2.5 kids. Big Bad China acquires a
| picture of my face and my fingerprints.
|
| 1) If you cannot imagine the potential problems, then why
| do you believe the contents of your disclaimer?
|
| 2) Let's say you are not "a boring white midwestern HVAC
| contractor"
| robin_reala wrote:
| The typical counter argument goes something like China
| installs a webcam in your bathroom and broadcasts the
| stream on purely national TV. How does that affect you?
| It's just some personal video that's never going impinge on
| your life.
|
| Another way of putting it: all personal information should
| by default be kept private, until there's a specific need
| from you for that information to be processed by known
| people.
| sneak wrote:
| This doesn't actually answer the question, though, as
| people value their home interior video privacy a lot more
| than they value their biometric privacy.
| prottog wrote:
| I very much share your concern and frustration, but even I take
| convenience over principle in some matters. I happily use TSA
| PreCheck, despite hating the fact that you have to put yourself
| on a government list to restore a level of dignity while
| traveling that the same government took away in the first
| place.
|
| It's a constant struggle with a lot to sacrifice for your
| principles. See Richard Stallman for an example of someone who
| no doubt endures many inconveniences in his life in his ardent
| avoidance of nonfree software.
| nixgeek wrote:
| Global Entry and TSA Pre probably saved me >100 hours of
| queuing in the last 3-5 years, and I imagine I'd also have
| missed a handful of flights had I needed to endure the
| regular checkpoint queues in order to make a tight
| connection.
|
| It's definitely a concern for me too, but like you,
| convenience trumps principle sometimes and travel is already
| unpleasant enough that "taking a stand" and making travel
| more unpleasant (including being an "Opt Out" at checkpoints
| and making the TSA do a pat down) isn't something I've been
| willing to do.
|
| Likewise, this will become a mandatory integration for states
| to participate in VWP starting in 2027, and there is a _LOT_
| of additional burden for those states citizens in having to
| apply for and be granted a U.S. visa over and above just
| using ESTA - paperwork, >= 10x filing fees, an Embassy or
| Consulate visit, then getting your passport (collection)
| after the visa has been inserted. Plus at the end of the day
| the U.S. is getting _all the same information via the slower
| process_.
|
| I would guess most European states will integrate and this
| will be short-lived indignation (a "storm in a teacup")
| followed by it being the new normal.
| landemva wrote:
| > convenience trumps principle
|
| There it is. We make our choices and our children live with
| the consequences.
|
| I have always opted out of TSA body scans and have been a
| 100k flier. Frequent fliers know which cattle lanes to use
| for no scans. Arrive a few minutes early and they even wipe
| your hands with a cloth and let you know if your hands are
| dirty.
| hotz wrote:
| It's mindblowing that people aren't bothered by it.
| larsrc wrote:
| We're bothered, but maybe not enough to do away with visiting
| family/friends/coworkers/conferences/cons/national parks/etc.
| Also having various privileges (white, Western European,
| male, middle class, etc) dulls the concerns.
| sschueller wrote:
| How did that go with the bio-metric data you collected of the
| Afghan population? /s
|
| [1] https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2022/afghanistan-biometrie
| [deleted]
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| At least this seems like a cross-superstate* request, which makes
| it less likely without reciprocity: my analysis
| Oceania : US + Airstrip One + ... (5 eyes, etc.) Eurasia
| : EU Eastasia : CN / RU+BY+RS (disunited ATM)
|
| * Was Orwell reading James Burnham (1941) to come up with his
| superstates?
| hunglee2 wrote:
| Huge challenge for EU sovereignty. I'm guessing they are going to
| fold, as it is too important to keep US happy for fear of
| potential repercussions. Citizens of course, will have no say
| whatsoever
| anonym29 wrote:
| Fuck the US government, full stop.
| Gasp0de wrote:
| So the same government that has just lost the biometric data of
| millions of afghan people (including afghan employees of ISAF
| military whose life is now in danger because of this) and merely
| shrugged when asked about it now wants access to my biometric
| data? No thanks.
| [deleted]
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Whether it's good local privacy laws in your country or a good
| privacy-respecting TOS from a company, both are basically
| worthless when a bigger entity comes barging into the picture.
|
| So your government collects biometric data but passes laws
| promising not to misuse it... you may very well find that those
| promises are worth less than dirt when a country with leverage
| over your own starts making demands that your government feels
| obliged or coerced to obey.
|
| Or you give lots of your personal data to a software company that
| promises privacy in their TOS. Great.. until that company gets
| bought out by the likes of Google or Facebook, then those
| promises evaporate and good luck doing anything about it.
|
| The solution is to never trust any promises of privacy, and don't
| hand over personal data to anybody unless it's taken from you at
| gunpoint. It doesn't matter what promises are given, because all
| promises can be broken with enough leverage.
|
| I recommend that Europeans petition their governments to delete
| such databases now, so that compliance with American demands
| simply won't be possible. Delete the databases now so your
| governments can't fold to pressure later.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I sense that many people consider organizations and groups of
| people as a definite thing. A country, the Google, the
| Facebook, etc, talk about these like if they were a reliably
| formed predictable object or entity. While those are an ever
| changing blob composed of ever chaning composition of people
| with ever changing views, intentions and agenda in an ever
| changing environment. Any relationships with those are
| momentarily only. Relying on promises from those? Like building
| a house on a solid cloud. No such thing. The saying is
| especially true in case of big entities formed of humans: a
| promise is like a fart, you hold it while you can.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Exactly, and the same is true of the laws themselves. "I'm
| not breaking the law, so I have nothing to hide," is wrong in
| so many ways that it's hard to enumerate them all.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Sounds like we can either have nice things and demand better of
| leadership, or not have nice things and let leadership go
| fallow. Losing faith in leadership means the whole thing falls
| apart anyways. I for one think the former is the way to go.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > I recommend that Europeans petition their governments to
| delete such databases now, so that compliance with American
| demands simply won't be possible. Delete the databases now so
| your governments can't fold to pressure later.
|
| LOL dude the EU is one of the driving forcing on making sure
| there is a complete history of ever person.
| astrange wrote:
| Google and Facebook are both very good at protecting your
| personal info. Their business value is based on nobody else
| having it. Their security teams are much better at their job of
| protecting it than, say, you are.
| survirtual wrote:
| This is very correct. However, I would amend your solution: the
| solution is modern encryption and open source. These two in
| conjunction allow you to verify trust.
|
| ToS is like HR: they both exist to protect only the company.
| lisper wrote:
| > These two in conjunction allow you to verify trust.
|
| No, they don't. They only allow you to verify that some
| entity that possessed some private key made some claim about
| some set of bits. It tells you absolutely nothing about
| whether any of those claims are actually true, including
| whether the possessor of the private key is who they claim to
| be.
| survirtual wrote:
| I didn't mention anything about signing?
|
| I said encryption. You can do encryption all kinds of ways.
| In this case, I am talking about encrypting your own data
| on a client and not allowing a server to see it. This would
| just require a secret key derived from a password ran
| through a password hashing algo.
|
| You only need asynchronous crypto when you involve another
| party, so it would play a role in a trustless architecture,
| but I am unsure what your point is.
|
| When I say "verify trust" of a system, I am referring to a
| product making a claim, such as "your data is private and
| we don't sell it" -- then backing up the claim by building
| the product in such a way such that it is _impossible_ to
| sell it. Encryption + open source is just about all the way
| to proving that claim, and it can be verified that way.
| astrange wrote:
| > ToS is like HR: they both exist to protect only the
| company.
|
| This is, of course, not true about HR and yet another thing
| people just say to sound cool.
|
| HR's job is to hire people and run your payroll and benefits.
| If you have a health insurance question are you going to
| avoid them because they're going to fire you as soon as you
| look at them? No.
|
| If you're a first level manager molesting a distinguished
| engineer are you totally safe from HR because you're "the
| company"? No.
| awesomegoat_com wrote:
| Well, HR as any other power structure is to protect status
| quo.
|
| They will sack anyone if they see it necessary to protect
| the status quo.
|
| But more importantly, HR will create mindless policies to
| show you how powerful they are. As border force forcing
| your sneakers of.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > to show you how powerful they are
|
| To show you how useful they are. It's very much a matter
| of misaligned incentives I think. Of course HR has all
| day to execute their own policies, so they don't see them
| as an overt burden.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Let's say hypothetically, Facebook buys Signal. They get all
| the code and signing keys, then use those to push a new
| update to the Signal app. This update decrypts your messages
| using the key on your device, then sends those decrypted
| messages to Facebook.
|
| What are you going to do about it? Call your senators, who
| are now in love with Facebook for giving the federal
| government access to these previously private communications?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Fork signal, put together a non-profit to run the nodes,
| start paying $1/mo or somesuch, and stop using the
| facebookified version.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| That's great if you stay on top of the news, see it
| coming and get your data out of the way before the
| compromised app is pushed to your phone. Maybe habitual
| HN users are safe, but I think most Signal users would be
| compromised like this.
| [deleted]
| fsflover wrote:
| This is why I do not recommend centralized walled garden
| called Signal. Try that with Matrix.
| ecef9-8c0f-4374 wrote:
| ok. now the US government demands not to use modern
| encryption and open source. And we are back at square one.
| devmunchies wrote:
| That could go to the supreme court, maybe violates the 4th
| amendment?
|
| _" The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
| houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
| and seizures, shall not be violated"_
|
| meaning, I got the right to secure my sh*t.
| survirtual wrote:
| If nothing else, it definitely violates the spirit of the
| second amendment. My digital self should be as secure and
| protected as my physical brain under the eyes of law.
| [deleted]
| synkarius wrote:
| Citizens of other countries have no rights under the US
| constitution.
| rnk wrote:
| It's more complicated than that. They have many rights
| inside our border. Outside our border I'm not sure. Web
| search found
| https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/constitutional-
| rig...
| synkarius wrote:
| That's true about rights inside the US border, but in
| context, this thread was talking about non-US citizens in
| their home countries when said countries are being
| pressured by the US government.
|
| I could have been clearer there. I can see why you
| replied as such.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Great, but this news item is about the government of the
| USA demanding rights over the personal data of people in
| other countries. Not being citizens, the US govt
| considers them lesser people with no Constitutional
| protection.
| devmunchies wrote:
| I was responding to "now the US government demands not to
| use modern encryption".
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Basically the same right is in the human rights
| convention, which has no caveats about citizenship and to
| which the US is a signatory.
| jolux wrote:
| > I got the right to secure my sh*t
|
| I don't know if you've noticed, but the Supreme Court
| routinely flouts long-held interpretations of statute for
| nakedly ideological reasons. Rights don't mean anything
| if the government isn't willing to grant them,
| unfortunately. I would not bet on this court preserving a
| right to encryption as you describe it.
| jolux wrote:
| > These two in conjunction allow you to verify trust.
|
| Not when it comes to server-based software.
| survirtual wrote:
| Yes, actually.
|
| - If you host your own servers you can still verify.
|
| - if you are using well-designed, human-centric software,
| untrusted servers (read: all servers you do not have
| control of / cannot audit) would not have any access to
| private data due to encryption, and clients can be verified
| to make sure decryption only occurs on the client side
|
| The trouble is, this kind of software is a poison pill to
| advertising. It will be a long time before it takes over.
| murderfs wrote:
| You say "human-centric", but you really mean "what I
| want". Many more humans would be upset at being unable to
| recover their data if they forget their password than
| would be pleased by this.
| survirtual wrote:
| I said human-centric and I most certainly mean it. Humans
| cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to
| mass scale, nameless faces. We need to be kept in check,
| and we have the mathematics to do it.
|
| Custodial services can always still exist for those among
| us that are incompetent.
| jolux wrote:
| > would not have any access to private data due to
| encryption
|
| It's pretty difficult to fully scrub yourself of the
| metadata involved in making a connection to a server. For
| sure it can be minimized, like Signal does. But this has
| inherent UX tradeoffs that most people are not willing to
| make, like requiring you share your phone number to use
| the service, and not having server-based backup (yet, at
| least).
| survirtual wrote:
| It is difficult with the way things are now, yes. It will
| not be difficult for much longer.
|
| It was once difficult for me to communicate with you, me
| being a stranger to you and you being the same, having
| never met in person. But here we are.
|
| We are all experts at solving difficult problems & giving
| access to those solutions to everyone.
| [deleted]
| epolanski wrote:
| Why would we have to give two damns about American demands, I
| don't see that having any chance.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I am not sure why this is downvoted, the guy is exactly
| right.
|
| I would have thought HN is more on the small government
| political spectrum, it appears this does not count for
| foreign policy?
| pc86 wrote:
| HN is on the small government side only insofar as it
| relates to tech legislation and adjacent regulations. It's
| pretty typically left-leaning California-esque politics
| otherwise.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| hn has as much of an identity as reddit
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| [flagged]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Well it's look how Americans are big on freedom for
| themselves, but view people in other countries as something
| like movie extras. The most extreme example of this is the
| emerging nationalist caucus which has elevated hypocrisy to
| an art form and has every intention of leveraging similar
| tactics against its domestic population.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| I get the sense you do not quite understand how much
| essentially all of Europe is a vassal state of the group of
| people that also has a stranglehold on America.
| bloppe wrote:
| I think you're giving American leadership way too much
| credit.
| eternalban wrote:
| I don't think you parsed the comment correctly.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/991680.The_Anglo_Amer
| ica...
|
| https://archive.org/details/pdfy-A7-BNmZpG-RLOXZZ
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
|
| -- preface snippet (1981) ---
|
| _The Rhodes Scholarships, established by the terms of
| Cecil Rhodes 's seventh will, are known to everyone. What
| is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous
| wills left his fortune to form a secret society, which
| was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of
| the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to
| anyone is that this secret society was created by Rhodes
| and his principal trustee, Lord Milner, and continues to
| exist to this day. To be sure, this secret society is not
| a childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does not
| have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secret
| passwords. It does not need any of these, since its
| members know each other intimately. It probably has no
| oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation.
| It does, however, exist and holds secret meetings, over
| which the senior member present presides. At various
| times since 1891, these meetings have been presided over
| by Rhodes, Lord Milner, Lord Selborne, Sir Patrick
| Duncan, Field Marshal Jan Smuts, Lord Lothian, and Lord
| Brand. They have been held in all the British Dominions,
| starting in South Africa about 1903; in various places in
| London, chiefly 175 Piccadilly; at various colleges at
| Oxford, chiefly All Souls; and at many English country
| houses such as Tring Park, Blickling Hall, Cliveden, and
| others.
|
| This society has been known at various times as Milner's
| Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes
| crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as
| the Cliveden set. All of these terms are unsatisfactory,
| for one reason or another, and I have chosen to call it
| the Milner Group. Those persons who have used the other
| terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware
| that all these various terms referred to the same Group.
|
| It is not easy for an outsider to write the history of a
| secret group of this kind, but, since no insider is going
| to do it, an outsider must attempt it. It should be done,
| for this Group is, as I shall show, one of the most
| important historical facts of the twentieth century.
| Indeed, the Group is of such significance that evidence
| of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where
| to look. This evidence I have sought to point out without
| overly burdening this volume with footnotes and
| bibliographical references. While such evidences of
| scholarship are kept at a minimum, I believe I have given
| the source of every fact which I mention. Some of these
| facts came to me from sources which I am not permitted to
| name, and I have mentioned them only where I can produce
| documentary evidence available to everyone. Nevertheless,
| it would have been very difficult to write this book if I
| had not received a certain amount of assistance of a
| personal nature from persons close to the Group. For
| obvious reasons, I cannot reveal the names of such
| persons, so I have not made reference to any information
| derived from them unless it was information readily
| available from other sources.
|
| ...
|
| I should say a few words about my general attitude toward
| this subject. I approached the subject as a historian.
| This attitude I have kept. I have tried to describe or to
| analyze, not to praise or to condemn. I hope that in the
| book itself this attitude is maintained. Of course I have
| an attitude, and it would be only fair to state it here.
| In general, I agree with the goals and aims of the Milner
| Group. I feel that the British way of life and the
| British Commonwealth of Nations are among the great
| achievements of all history. I feel that the destruction
| of either of them would be a terrible disaster to
| mankind.
|
| ... _
| bloppe wrote:
| Sounds to me like a highly ineffective secret society,
| given the slow but steady decline of Anglo-American
| hegemony since the cold war.
| eternalban wrote:
| Ineffective is an ungenerous appraisal, when we consider
| what the world looked like mid 19th century when this
| project got started, and how it does now. They were quite
| effective up to the demise of USSR. The entire world
| speaks English.
|
| William Engdahl's book _Gods of Money_ [ch. 18 - Theft of
| a Nation] addresses the period you mention and what was
| happening. There was also an ideological shift in this
| period, since after the end of Cold War, _Neo-
| Conservatives_ have been (and remain) in ideological
| charge. The Wolfowitz Doctrine always struck me as
| decidedly un-Anglo given its willfully provocative
| stance, lacking any nuance or subtlety. In fact the
| behavior of US post Cold War remains somewhat perplexing,
| even in terms of purely American national interests.
| There may have been a regime change.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-
| plan-ca...
| bloppe wrote:
| In the mid 19th century, the British Empire was peaking
| as the largest empire in history. It was a long road to
| get to that point, and this secret society was created as
| the Empire was just beginning its decline.
|
| The 20th century saw the rise of American military,
| economic, and cultural imperialism, which carried Anglo-
| American culture further as the British Empire declined
| relatively.
|
| Sure, I'll concede that there are shady people in
| government trying to do things that are broadly
| objectionable and sometimes illegal, but to think this
| means certain individuals or secret societies have a
| "stranglehold" on global politics or economics goes much
| too far. There are far too many factors at play for a
| small group of people to wield the level of outsize power
| necessary to guide these processes. It's really a very
| large and ever-changing group of people who "control
| everything", and this happens in a highly uncoordinated
| manner.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Please explain.
|
| This might be true on military/nato matters, but
| economically, Europe and the EU can quite take care of
| themselves.
|
| As for america, who has a stranglehold there?
|
| If we leave conspiracy theories out of the equation, it is
| always the 2 parties un power and their corporate or
| institutional buddies.
|
| I do not think anyone is thelling Trump or Bidens team who
| to invade or bombard next.
|
| The US is the remaining superpower and thats all there
| really is.
|
| Look at Musk, richest guy in the world, Trump was making
| fun of him.
|
| It is not the people with money who have the power, money
| is a pre requisite to even be allowed near power.
|
| The people with power un the us are simply the people
| with....power.
|
| USA, with all its flaws, is nobodys vassal state.
| bloppe wrote:
| I just formed a secret society. We have a secret
| handshake and are very powerful. In fact, we control
| everything.
| tpush wrote:
| > [...] group of people [...]
|
| What group of people are controlling everything? Please
| don't let it be Jews...
| bee_rider wrote:
| Life in Europe looks pretty nice from the outside at least.
| Could America sign up for self-vassalage or something?
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's because the US allowed Europe to do social
| spending instead of military spending in order to keep
| them from going Communist. And anyway, the result was a
| monstrously armed US and a defenseless Europe, so it was
| ultimately a win-win for America.
| rnk wrote:
| The US wanted to block communism for sure but we aren't
| organized enough to do subtle things in Europe. We didn't
| "let you" choose social safety nets over military
| spending, I say that in part because I've been hearing
| about insufficient euro military spending for many years.
| We must have advocated for block commies and military
| spending. ;-) The US must have tried to suppress
| communist parties in Italy etc after ww2, probably did
| terrible things.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Just from the outside
| dzikimarian wrote:
| I'm inside and I'm pretty happy comparing to
| alternatives.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Happy to hear that.
|
| I am inside the US and have been inside and lived in many
| countries. As an immigrant from Asia, I am happy most in
| the US and so are millions of permanent immigrants
| including tens of thousands from Europe every year :)
| sfusato wrote:
| Uhmm, you may want to update your knowledge on the history of
| the 1945-2022 period
|
| _tldr: USA is the current world empire; EU are their
| vassals_
|
| Homework: (1) find how many European military bases there are
| on US soil; (2) find how many US military bases there are on
| European soil;
| crote wrote:
| The USA is rapidly losing that status, though. Its European
| bases were a holdover from the Second World War, extended
| by the Cold War - their presence should not be seen as any
| indication of its current political status.
|
| In the last 20 years the USA has involved its allies into
| _multiple_ pointless unwinnable wars. Human rights in the
| USA have been significantly eroded, and many values
| essential to modern society are currently being undermined.
| Additionally, Trump 's presidency has done significant
| damage to a large number of diplomatic relations and
| resulted not only in widespread doubt about its democratic
| process, but a genuine coup attempt.
|
| Meanwhile, during the same 20 years the European Union and
| China have risen in power significantly - and both are
| making significant effort to curtail the power the USA has
| over them. Those military bases exist because the USA is
| still somewhat of an ally and the EU has _real_ threats
| right on its border - as long as the USA is not actively
| hostile towards the EU, having direct access to the
| firepower of a gun-drunk nation is quite convenient.
| tbihl wrote:
| > (1) find how many European military bases there are on US
| soil
|
| To do what? Counter the Canadian threat to US American
| territorial integrity? Prevent war between California and
| ethnic Nevadans? Monitor unmanaged flows of migrants from
| unstable regions? Hmm, well maybe that one.
|
| But really, one of the great blessings of the US is a lack
| of any home-front excitement, which makes this comparison
| pretty silly. Not that that disagrees with the hypotheses
| that the US is a world empire and the EU's present
| existence is predicated on US military size and operations.
| sfusato wrote:
| Right, so what for are the US military bases on European
| soil then? (Please spare me the part about _protecting
| Europe_ from outside threats story). Would they leave if
| we asked nicely enough? Like _Pretty please_? Would it
| really take just that?
| RandomLensman wrote:
| They probably would, and a lot of US forces left after
| the end of the old cold war. Right now, not sure a
| majority/the median voter in Europe actually wants the US
| to leave, though.
| sfusato wrote:
| I want to believe you they would, but I wasn't born
| yesterday. I'm within less than 2-hours drive from two
| such US military bases that have nuclear weapons deployed
| there. US military bases are considered US soil de-facto,
| they don't need to ask permission to do anything. They
| can launch an attack on anyone without consulting first
| with the host country. Yet, on paper, we're _sovereign_.
|
| They've been plenty of protests in Europe over this
| matter this year, but they won't show them on CNN, that's
| for sure.
| tbihl wrote:
| In some cases, raising the rent will do it [0]. This one
| looks like political brinksmanship gone wrong for all
| sides, and the article suggests that it's being undone
| right now.
|
| Random citizen asking obviously does nothing, but foreign
| base COs are always desperately trying to keep their
| forces on best behavior to minimize frustration. That's
| not easy when you import a bunch of guys in the age range
| that most often causes trouble, give them significant
| spending money, and remove them from past anchoring
| influences. It's worse when the receiving society is more
| orderly; I have Japan in mind.
|
| Fighting against those problems is that all political
| leadership generally benefits from the arrangements. The
| foreign host nation gets economic activity and some
| amount of bargaining power, and the US gets a location
| that obviously is helpful for some strategic objective.
|
| >Right, so what for are the US military bases on European
| soil then? (Please spare me the part about protecting
| Europe from outside threats story).
|
| An anomalous, peaceful Europe is the water that you're
| swimming in, and I'm trying to point out that it's wet. I
| recognize the limited prospects of the endeavor. Though,
| if it's the _outside_ part you 're rejecting, I'll
| acknowledge my imprecise wording. Russia is the outside
| threat, being outside the _Western_ European culture that
| is defended, but threats come from within Europe too.
|
| [0]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay
| 8note wrote:
| To ensure the American government passes EU friendly laws
| pasquinelli wrote:
| > Not that that disagrees with the hypotheses that the US
| is a world empire and the EU's present existence is
| predicated on US military size and operations.
|
| oh, so why are you replying?
| xiphias2 wrote:
| The whole EU economy depends on the USD-EUR liquidity swap
| line between the two central banks. Basically EU has to do
| whatever US wants.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| While without swaps between central banks there will
| (probably) be more issues in non-domestic funding markets,
| the whole EU economy isn't just depending on the swap line
| between the ECB and the Fed.
| coob wrote:
| How?
| xiphias2 wrote:
| It's quite nicely explained on the official EU site (much
| better than how I understand):
|
| https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/liquidity_lines/
| htm...
|
| Without a swap line banks couldn't just treat EUR as USD
| whenever an entity needs to keep USD for import/export
| purposes.
| monocasa wrote:
| That goes both ways. The US economy is dependent on
| having markets for consumer goods. Losing the EU as an
| easy market nukes the US economy as well.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yeah, one would think post-Brexit and post-pandemic and
| post-Russian invasion of Ukraine people would in general
| be more aware of interdependence in trade, finance,
| manufacturing, etc. but apparently not. (Yes, they did
| say that before WWI, and today it's a million times more
| intertwined)
| sofixa wrote:
| You should check out the GDPR and the Shrems judgements if
| you think that.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Because sovereignty ends at borders.
|
| Europeans want to vacation in the US. The US demands
| biometric authentication upon crossing the border. So you
| either give them that data or the US stops letting Europeans
| in.
|
| And I doubt Europe is going to be any better at not demanding
| biometric data than the US is, because Europe has the same
| underlying incentives to do so (i.e. a restrictive
| immigration system, a large portion of the population who
| want to NIMBY entire races of people, and a large body of
| laws to enforce).
| petre wrote:
| We already have biometric passports in the EU. Why the need
| to collect biometric data when I have it on me and in my
| passport as well? This is worse than PII, it should be
| covered by data protection laws like the GDPR.
| psychphysic wrote:
| I a glass is always nearly empty kind of guy.
|
| Have no plans to visit the US still expect my government
| would fold like napkin if US county police faxed over a
| request.
|
| The US tapped even NATO ally governments if they want
| fingerprints they'll get them.
|
| At any rate don't you have to sign, fingerprint and stand
| infront of a camera to pass most countries passport
| control?
| mihaaly wrote:
| The US needs relationship with EU citizens just as much as
| the other way around. Or even more, like in the case of
| people like me (I rather avoid the US after being there
| several times and experienced the mentality). The vacations
| are especially weak argument for sharing highly personal
| data with an entity that is prone to repeatedly and
| shamelessly abusing it, misusing it.
|
| Will the relationship being more difficult if not yielding
| to the demands? Ok then. We are not made of cotton candy to
| melt in a drop of rain that easily when some difficulty
| comes along, especially if it is a bureaucracy thingy. The
| vacations will be a bit more difficult - for those
| attracted by the US instead of beautiful spots elsewhere.
| Business relations too, of course, but that one has double
| edge actually.
| hcks wrote:
| Yeah ahah no chance sure. What are these silly Americans
| thinking lol we are strong sovereign nations aren't we ;)
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Even if you're certain America today and _into the
| indeterminate future_ has no leverage over your country, can
| 't subvert your elections, bribe or blackmail your
| politicians, threaten sanctions or worse, then you still have
| to worry about American spies simply stealing that data.
|
| Such private data should never be collected in the first
| place. You may as well stack up gold bars in your home, in
| plain view of street-level windows. Such concentrations of
| data/wealth are asking for trouble. Get rid of it now and you
| won't have to worry about keeping it secure in the future, no
| matter what world events may unfold.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I live in America and I'm not convinced that America has
| leverage over my country. The steering wheel on this thing
| appears to be broken..
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I live in America and I'm not convinced that America has
| leverage over my country. The steering wheel on this thing
| appears to be broken.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| Understandable position, but I think you should be aware
| that the US Government is capable of moving fast and
| decisively in rare but unpredictable circumstances. Only
| 44 days elapsed between 2001/9/11 and the passage of the
| Patriot Act on 2001/10/25.
|
| Things usually don't change that fast, but nobody can
| truly predict the geopolitical landscape even half a year
| into the future.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I'm fairly certain nobody will be passing a patriot act
| over something this banal though.
| [deleted]
| EGreg wrote:
| [flagged]
| akudha wrote:
| The battle is lost the moment data is collected. It _will_ be
| leaked, misused, stolen etc. The question is not IF, the
| question is WHEN.
|
| All the laws, promises, good intentions etc are not worth the
| paper they are written on. If there is data to be stolen, it
| will be stolen.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Or you give lots of your personal data to a software company
| that promises privacy in their TOS. Great.. until that company
| gets bought out by the likes of Google or Facebook, then those
| promises evaporate and good luck doing anything about it.
|
| Sounds like the contract binds me, but does not protect me. It
| protects the company, but does not bind it.
|
| > Conservatism Consists of Exactly One Proposition, to Wit:
| There Must Be In-Groups Whom the Law Protects but Does Not
| Bind, Alongside Out-Groups Whom the Law Binds but Does Not
| Protect.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Please deliver first the full biometric data you currently have
| on your own citizens. Then we can maybe consider considering it.
| sebow wrote:
| ( Which it already has, just not officially. )
| coliveira wrote:
| Exactly, there is no question that this is already in some
| FAANG data center in one way or another, which is the same as
| in possession of the US gov. They just want to formalize the
| deal.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints and
| facial images" to be biometric data? When I think "biometric", I
| think hair samples, DNA, blood type, even though I know
| fingerprints and eye color are technically biometric.
| johnywalks wrote:
| No worries, all this is coming in a few years as well.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Whose DNA do they have though? Mine or my twin's?
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| What distinction would you draw between these two groups of
| data?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Intrusively versus non-intrusively acquired? It's just a
| feeling I have and I don't think that I'm alone on this.
| saltcured wrote:
| I think you might be conflating biometrics (literally
| measurements of your biology) with confidentiality? And
| it's not just you, the public discussions and system
| designs around these often seem to confuse this as well.
| There are two broad topics around biometrics, but they
| intersect a bit.
|
| One topic is around the dependability and practicality of
| such metrics as authenticators. The other topic is around
| surveillance and anonymity. The overlap is in the question
| of whether we have control over whether we are being
| authenticated or not. When used in a transactional system,
| we need to couple our authenticated identity with some
| positive action to give consent, i.e. that we want the
| transaction to occur and we accept the responsibilities of
| being one party to the transaction. In a surveillance
| system, we are being identified and our movements or
| actions attributed to us whether we want to or not.
|
| Both topics have a potential for false positives and false
| negatives. Can someone "steal" my identity by impersonating
| me and causing transactions or other activities to be
| attributed to me without my knowledge? Or can someone
| through violence or coercion cause me to participate in
| these transactions or other activities against my will?
| Does the introduction of the authentication system reduce
| the risks or make them worse?
|
| To what degree can we live our lives without displaying our
| identity to the public at large and/or while being able to
| assume some of our movements or activities can be kept
| confidential? We can choose whether to have our names or ID
| numbers emblazoned on our clothes. We can choose how often
| to present other non-biological identifiers like payment
| cards or mobile phones. It is much less practical to
| conceal our externally visible biometrics. The databases
| combining our biometrics and other identifiers continually
| shift the balance here, as it becomes ever easier to tie
| different observations together without our consent.
|
| To be honest, I am not even sure whether I should care
| about the biometrics access being discussed in the original
| post. Generally, international travelers are already
| exposing their identities and movements not just at border
| controls but also via commercial bookings and interactions
| throughout their travel. I think I am more disgusted by the
| commercial brokers trying to create total information
| awareness of consumers than I am of governments monitoring
| border travel. The commercial brokers are trying to create
| a much finer-grained record of activities for everybody.
| counttheforks wrote:
| And you think obtaining a hair sample is somehow intrusive?
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Just cutting some hair won't do it. Given that DNA is in
| the follicle, you would have to extract a hair, e.g. pull
| it out. Doing so without consent or demanding it is a
| violation of medical ethics and/or assault.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You drop hairs all the time. Same for DNA; cops regularly
| get people by grabbing their coffee cup out of the trash.
| bilekas wrote:
| Its easier for someone to obtain and identify your DNA than it
| is your fingertips or even your face.
|
| Just think of how much you leave around all the time. If that's
| all on records with facial images, your face is certainly an
| identifiable metric of your biology.
| rolph wrote:
| the shift from paper to digital, has ironicly, removed a
| method of obtaining samples.
|
| its amazing what you can find with HPLC and a gas
| chromatograph.
| Msurrow wrote:
| Obtain perhaps, but identify no. Identification requires a
| database of samples to match against. Way more FP and FI
| databases than DNA databases, so not much to use as a gallery
| for identification..
| super256 wrote:
| > Obtain perhaps, but identify no. Identification requires
| a database of samples to match against.
|
| Those databases already exists (just look at the
| MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA, 23andMe etc companies).
| Furthermore, DNA has the advantage, that you can find
| someone via relatives. The person to be identified doesn't
| have to be in the database. It's sufficient if his brother
| or father is in that db. Afaik this is not the case for
| fingerprints.
| Msurrow wrote:
| Fair point about those existing DNA databases, however I
| still think there is a sigbificant difference between
| "opt-in" databases, like MyHeritage, and the FP/FI
| databases in scope here (the OP) where its law mandated
| registration in case of travel (Schengen) or asylum, visa
| etc. There are a lot of the latter, and its not exactly
| opt-in or delete on request
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _Afaik this is not the case for fingerprints._
|
| Generally correct, but it's interesting that identical
| twins have similar but distinct fingerprints. The exact
| prints are different, but they tend to have the same
| broader patterns of print.
| xcambar wrote:
| That's a surprising statement to read. All your examples allow
| for statically significant unique identification (of a person).
|
| I think that's where the threat actually lies. I'm equally
| worried about traces I leave with my Visa/MasterCard than those
| I leave with my uncovered face or fingerprints.
|
| The main difference being that I can easily control the traces
| I leave with my cards, less so the traces I leave with my
| ohone, and it takes a significant effort to lkit traces from my
| face or fingers.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| Yes, you're the only one. These are biometric data types.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Am I the only one that doesn't really consider "fingerprints
| and facial images" to be biometric data?
|
| I would hope so. It appears that you are conflating 'biometric'
| and 'biological'.
| diimdeep wrote:
| Here is recording
| https://streaming.media.ccc.de/jev22/relive/49143
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Say no and hang up. If they start something, respond in kind, and
| ask our allied countries to stand united.
|
| The US needs the world far, far more than the world needs the US,
| and it's time the world realizes this. Forcing this nation of
| war-criminals and foreign policy bullies in line is long overdue.
| dwhitney wrote:
| As a US citizen, I whole heartedly agree, and I assume our
| government would do the same.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It is possible that you are missing a developing new axis of
| powers forming, which is part of the reason why those policies
| are slowly being implemented. As a globe, we are being divided
| into spheres of influence and US/EU happens to be one of those.
| [deleted]
| emodendroket wrote:
| Don't hold your breath.
| awesomegoat_com wrote:
| Yeah, and also please take your shoe off when boarding. Because
| you know, a family guy from Sweden is a threat to Uncle Sam
| Associates.
|
| Further, please prove you have survived certain medical
| procedures (Suddenly, border force can operate in violation of
| hipaa).
|
| Seriously, anyone who wants to justify current western procedures
| needs vacation. :-D
| cm2187 wrote:
| For once, I would expect at least reciprocity. If the US suspends
| its visa free programme with Shenghen area countries (assuming
| ESTA isn't a visa, which it really is), I'd expect US travellers
| to cease to have visa-free access to Schenghen too.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I wonder if this will be in the french, german, italian
| newspapers and where. And if it gets tv time.
|
| In Bruxelles, this will be discussed and qhile they arent
| elected directly, they cannot pass any crap whatsoever there,
| there is always oposition on everything there.
| pelorat wrote:
| EU is implementing their own version of ESTA in 2023. US
| citizens will have to register online and pay a fee to enter
| Europe starting sometime next year, and their biometrics will
| be collected.
| krisoft wrote:
| So what is the concern here?
|
| The USA wants to check those who turn up at their border is who
| they say they are, and they also want to know if they are a good
| egg as far as the authorities know where they are from. Both of
| these sound iminently reasonable.
| db1234 wrote:
| Will USA share the biometric data of its citizens with EU or
| any other country who may want to similarly verify the
| identities of people showing up at their borders?
| krisoft wrote:
| That would be certainly a reasonable thing to ask in return.
| Gasp0de wrote:
| The concern is they want to access biometric data in an
| automated fashion. The USA are known to be careless and/or evil
| when it comes to dealing with sensitive data. Why can't they
| just run someones fingerprint at the airport against their
| national databases and any international terrorist databases
| that might exist?
| krisoft wrote:
| > The concern is they want to access biometric data in an
| automated fashion.
|
| Anything happening at the scales international travel flows
| at needs to be automated.
|
| > The USA are known to be careless and/or evil when it comes
| to dealing with sensitive data.
|
| What is the specific carelessness or evil you are worried
| about?
|
| > Why can't they just run someones fingerprint at the airport
| against their national databases
|
| I assume they do. But of course if someone has lived most of
| their life outside of the USA any criminal record they might
| have will be outside of the USA.
|
| > and any international terrorist databases that might exist?
|
| Why should they only be concerned about terrorism?
| Gasp0de wrote:
| Not every step needs to be automated, no. What's wrong with
| the way it is right now? I hand over my passport at the
| airport, it has my fingerprints saved on it and they can
| check those against whatever databases they have. No need
| to access European databases.
|
| The US government has just lost databases with biometric
| data of millions of afghan people, together with the
| information whether they worked for the ISAF forces which
| puts those peoples life in immediate danger. When
| confronted with that, the US government did not indicate
| that they care about it.
| sitkack wrote:
| This is clearly BoR (Bill of Rights) territory, any 1st and 4th,
| 5th amendment protections should apply equally to everyone
| regardless of citizenship.
| masswerk wrote:
| I guess, this means the US are starting to register the place of
| residence of their citizens, in order to provide data in due
| reciprocity? /s
| golem14 wrote:
| Maybe have travellers sign away their biometric data as part of
| the visa waiver? Then the EU can claim not to be beholden to the
| US (the travellers are) and the US still gets data of travellers.
|
| The demand is for travellers only according the pdf, not for all
| EU citizens.
|
| This does not seem too onerous - people working in the US from EU
| already have to submit to much fingerprinting, AIDS tests and
| what not, and you don't hear much complaining about it.
| boomskats wrote:
| In the less-famous-than-they-ought-to-be words of Victoria
| Nuland, "Fuck the EU" [0]
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGq_Xvzn_3I
| [deleted]
| diimdeep wrote:
| US government demands direct police access to European biometric
| data. The "Enhanced Border Security Partnership" poses an
| unprecedented threat to civil liberties in Europe.
|
| Talk is streaming right now
| https://streaming.media.ccc.de/jev22/hip1
|
| https://digit.so36.net
|
| https://pretalx.c3voc.de/hip-berlin-2022/talk/JYX7JA/
| monksy wrote:
| The streams seems to be down.
| dang wrote:
| (diimdeep replied here with
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34151569 but I moved
| that comment to the top of the thread so more people can see
| it.)
| seydor wrote:
| Don't they have facebook already?
| FpUser wrote:
| Starting from WWI western world is moving from what was basically
| complete freedom of movement to a corral. Think the best response
| would be something in line of go fuck yourself. No visa waiver -
| be my guest and have your tourism industry go belly up. Once
| tourism industry goes economic cooperation might eventually
| follow. Maybe this will teach our masters a bit.
|
| P.S. Being originally from USSR freedom of movement was one of
| the things I've admired greatly about the west. After 30 years it
| is being vaporized in front of my eyes. This is insanity and is
| very sad. And we are doing this crap to ourselves. Osamas and
| Putins of the world must be having time of their lives.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| This is asuming that EU will work in their (our) interest.
|
| For me it seems that most of EU works with interests of other
| actors, especially US, from Ursula downwards, so they might
| give the US access and ignore their own people... again.
| sofixa wrote:
| Where is this coming from? The vast majority of what the EU
| does doesn't concern anyone but the EU, and is sometimes
| actively hurting non-EU entities like American corporations.
| Be it the GDPR, the Digital Markets or Services Acts, the
| Covid recovery funds, farming subsidies, various projects to
| improve random hyper local infrastructure, etc etc etc.
| sneak wrote:
| > _No visa waiver - be my guest and have your tourism industry
| go belly up._
|
| Unfortunately for your plan, Yellowstone will still be
| Yellowstone, and New York will still be New York.
|
| I agree with your attitude, but this "well, let them hang
| themselves" attitude just means the US ends up with the money
| and the data (via a slower path). A lack of visa waiver won't
| significantly negate tourism; there are a lot of attractions in
| the US.
| bombolo wrote:
| The attraction density in europe is very much higher.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"there are a lot of attractions in the US."
|
| There are a lot of attractions everywhere.
| __jambo wrote:
| I hope we see some strong posturing from EU leaders. It seems
| like Europe is trying at least to fight in the right direction
| on this, while the anglosphere slowly becomes another version
| of China.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I understand before ww1 passports werent even a thing, it was a
| "temporary" measure.
|
| However, freedom of movement within the EU works flawlessly,
| its just that once youre in a new place and want to settle
| down, the old habits prevail, opening a bank account and such
| should be easy, but good luck with that.
| counttheforks wrote:
| Let's start with having the US register who lives in which state
| maybe?
| [deleted]
| nixgeek wrote:
| Probably the most interesting part of this is if states don't
| integrate by 2027 they will no longer be eligible for the Visa
| Waiver Program (VWP). That adds a lot of friction for citizens of
| that state to travel to the U.S. for any reason.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| So what? If the rules are the same for all eu countries and
| with reciprocity, then the US will be isolated, and any eu-us
| business will be harder to do, and EU will do more trade with
| other countries, which also won't give biometric data to US,
| and US will be locked out of them too.
| nixgeek wrote:
| Sure, but you're going to disclose all of the same biometric
| and criminal database information should you then do the U.S.
| visa application, so this does nothing to improve your
| privacy or stop the U.S. having this information.
|
| You need to travel to the U.S. with these changes? You still
| use ESTA and VWP, and the U.S. pulls what they need via an IT
| integration.
|
| You need to travel to the U.S. and these changes get a "No"
| from EU states? You go through the visa process for tourism
| or business, they get your biometrics and background checks
| through that process. It takes longer. It costs more money.
| It is more onerous to you as an applicant.
|
| Every time you cross the border as an alien you are
| fingerprinted and photos are taken (exceptions are given for
| diplomats).
|
| In short, it's the same outcome for U.S. travel and your only
| way to stop the U.S. having this information is to not travel
| there...
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| If you don't travel to usa, they don't get this data. Their
| country, their rules,... if they only let other countries
| alone, the world would be a lot nicer place.
| exitheone wrote:
| As a regular US traveler, I'm ok with that if the alternative
| is handing over EU citizens data to a known bad actor.
| nixgeek wrote:
| I mean it sounds like you'd be giving up all the same data
| just through a slower process.
|
| From the presentation:
|
| _For all travellers (and asylum seekers) before entry into
| USA_
|
| _Hit / No hit query of the foreign databases_
|
| _On hit: retrieval of existing data record in pull
| procedure_
|
| A part of visa issuance by a U.S. Embassy is a background
| check against both US databases and those of the local
| country. I believe all visa appointments perform digital
| capture of fingerprints, face, along with anything on an
| e-Passport.
|
| So this gets the U.S. nearer to equivalence in VWP with what
| they can already do with the visa processes?
|
| If you don't want the U.S. to hold your biometric information
| it sounds like you just won't be traveling to that country
| any longer.
| jalk wrote:
| Exactly and you shouldn't have traveled to the US after
| 2007 if the biometrics was your concern. Fingerprints and
| photo have been captured by the immigration officer at the
| port of entry, regardless of visa type, since that time.
| Received a long term B1 visa in 2011, after going to the
| embassy and had the biometrics taken. Reapplied in July
| 2022, and was able to get a waiver for the in-person
| interview, as the embassy still had my biometrics (my
| travel would have been delayed by several months otherwise)
|
| So the change is the "watch list" lookup / handover of
| records for hits. Hate to be in the camp saying that "if
| you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry
| about" but I honestly assumed that those checks were
| already done.
| pydry wrote:
| The EU should reciprocate on that threat.
|
| $350 and a minimum six month wait for an appointment at an EU
| consulate if a congressperson wants to vacation in Italy.
| bombolo wrote:
| They'd just come on an official visit to one of their navy
| bases in italy.
| cm2187 wrote:
| To be honest I am already avoiding to travel to the US as much
| as I can. No appetite for hours of queues at security and
| passport controls. Their airports are worst than many third
| world countries.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Visitor queue are typically miniscule if you are flying in
| from Europe
| nixgeek wrote:
| It varies massively by airport and by time of year, and you
| just go into "Non U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents"
| (there's almost never a "Europe" line).
|
| On airports, there are a set of U.S. airports like Los
| Angeles which always seem to have long queues, and a few
| where CBP is more prone to asking 20 questions of everyone.
|
| On times of year, visiting cities when a big convention is
| happening can be much slower, as can traveling near a
| holiday like Thanksgiving.
|
| I've witnessed and stood in a 3 hour queue at San Francisco
| and that was my #1 motivator to go get Global Entry sorted.
| nixgeek wrote:
| The U.S. has been expanding eligibility for Global Entry over
| the last decade.
|
| No idea where you live but:
|
| https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
| programs/global-...
|
| This also gives you TSA Pre. It's cut my average time spent
| queuing in U.S. airports and at the border by an order of
| magnitude. Worth the effort.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I remember when I went to the UK for the first time, I knew
| the language, but was never confronted live with a London
| accent. I did not know the postal code system(every little
| borough out there belongs to London, but has zones and postal
| codes) , nor did I know the public transport options.
|
| I simply went there to visit a friend which had moved there,
| that is all.
|
| So just before the transit area after coming off the plane, a
| ginger and a brown haired fellow stopped me and started
| asking questions, without showing a badge or identifying
| themselves. They were plain clothed officers, guessing they
| are police was rather easy, they had very bad choice of
| clothing style. So they ask where are you going and why.
| Purpose of stay and lenght, how will you get there and
| blabla, many follow up questions. Do you have a return
| ticket, whats her name.
|
| I told them, thats your job to find out and I intend to
| travel by cab, am I good to go now.
|
| They let me go on my way.
|
| This is the kinda people who will be dealing with our data,
| hell no.
|
| I will fill out whatever if I ever wanna go to the us, but I
| prefer to not hand over any data upfront.
| tigerlily wrote:
| Heh, the VWP already has a tiny bit of friction built in - you
| need a credit card to complete the application For the ESTA.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-27 23:00 UTC)