European Union (EU) is a little bit upset with the United States federal
government after it caught wind of a possible plan to swipe EU citizens'
private data from cloud service providers, in violation of EU laws. And
the U.S. government can blame software giant Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)
for letting the secret out of the bag.
I. PATRIOT Act: Policing the World
People often get caught up in possible domestic spying issues of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"
(USA PATRIOT Act of 2001) as it authorizes the gathering of "foreign
intelligence information" from U.S. citizens.
But the bill, which was renewed for four years by President Barack Obama in
2011, is primarily aimed at gathering intelligence from foreign nations.
In that regard, much of its authorizations deal with "spying"
on foreign nations -- not solely U.S. citizens.
With citizens in the U.S. and Europe increasingly using "the cloud"
-- services from companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Google Inc. (GOOG),
and Apple, Inc. (AAPL)
-- the question becomes how secure these resources are.
While the U.S. does not guarantee the privacy of its citizens online, the EU
has a law titled the Data Protection Directive, which mandates that the EU protect
the privacy of its citizens. The Directive demands that citizens be
informed any time private data is obtained. The problem is that mandate
does little to stop the U.S. from secretly seizing cloud data in the name of
the PATRIOT Act according to warnings from Microsoft and top lawyers.
II. Our Laws Are Greater Than Yours
Microsoft warns that under the PATRIOT Act, it might not only be forced to hand
over EU citizens' data; it might also be forced to do so secretly, without
informing the EU. This would directly violate the privacy protections the
EU promises to enforce.
The company writes, "In a limited number of circumstances, Microsoft may
need to disclose data without your prior consent, including as needed to
satisfy legal requirements, or to protect the rights or property of
Sophia In't Veld (Netherlands)
an EU parliamentarian, voiced outrage at the prospect, stating, "Does the
Commission consider that the U.S. PATRIOT Act thus effectively overrules the
E.U. Directive on Data Protection? What will the Commission do to remedy this
situation, and ensure that E.U. data protection rules can be effectively
enforced and that third country legislation does not take precedence over E.U.
"I hope Commissioner Reding will respond soon, as this is really a key
issue. Essentially what is at stake is whether Europe can enforce its own laws
in its own territory, or if the laws of a third country prevail. I hope the
Commissioner will ensure that the U.S. and other countries respect E.U. laws in
E.U. territory. I don't think the U.S. would be amused if Europeans (or other
non-U.S. authorities) were to get access to databases located within U.S.
The EU and the U.S. already have an agreement called Safe Harbor, which allows
for the sharing of data under certain restrictions such as the promise of
reasonable data security, and clearly defined and effective enforcement.
In these cases the EU is informed of the request, so it can inform the
affected citizens about it.
The problem is that the PATRIOT Act offers a far easier secret backdoor to the
same information. And there's little the EU can do to stop it.
Theo Bosboom, IT lawyer with Dirkzager Lawyers comments, "I'm afraid that
Safe Harbor has very little value anymore, since it came out that it might be
possible that U.S. companies that offer to keep data in a European cloud are
still obliged to allow the U.S. government access to these data on basis of the
PATRIOT Act. Europeans would be better to keep their data in Europe. If a
European contract partner for a European cloud solution, offers the guarantee
that data stays within the European Union, that is without a doubt the best
That could spell big trouble for companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft,
and Apple should the EU decide to apply restrictions or mandates to their
services in order to protect its citizens' privacy from foreign powers.
Such restrictions could for the companies to switch to local, isolated
serving to prevent the U.S. from having access to the data. However, such
schemes would be pricey to implement.
III. Does U.S. Privacy Bill Provide an Answer?
One potential solution may lie with the pending online privacy protection legislation proposed
by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The bill has received much resistance from the online data mining and
advertising community, as it suggests the creation of a mandatory opt-out of
data gathering. Such an opt-out could be cost-prohibitive for smaller
sites and could seriously undermine online advertising's profitability.
The bill could also make it harder to use the PATRIOT Act to grab information
without public notification.
States EU Data Protection Commissioner Viviane Reding, "I welcome a draft
Bill of Rights just introduced in the U.S. Congress as a bipartisan initiative
of Democrats and Republicans. The Commission also shares the main objective of
the Bill: strengthening individuals' trust in new technologies through
A compromise may be reached, but it's doubtful this will be the last we hear of
quote: What kind of stupid logic is that? The Patriot Act is the furthest from what it should be as you can be.
quote: The USA is less free and less privet towards its common citizens
quote: Every says it, but nobody can actually point to an incident where it made someone less free or took someones freedoms away. Unless you are talking about your freedom to make an international phone call to a terrorist.
quote: The patriot act may be specific in it's scope but that scope is interpreted/twisted by human minds... that's the issue. Do you even understand what slippery slope is? Obviously not...
quote: I would argue that it removes freedom that was there before, hence "less freedom"...
quote: Umm no. Before the Patriot Act they would get a judge or whatever to give them a warrant to tap your calls. You were NOT informed of the warrant at all. It was all done 100% behind your back. So how is there a difference in "freedom" between not knowing about a warrant wiretapping you and not knowing about the lack of one wiretapping you? Hello?
quote: Big difference - A Judge looked at it and determined that it was a reasonable request.
quote: "After the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Joe Biden drafted anti-terrorist legislation, which was ultimately defeated. He later claimed publicly on several occasions that the USA PATRIOT Act — which eased restrictions on the Executive branch in the surveillance and detention of those suspected of terrorism or facilitating it — was essentially a duplicate of the anti-terrorist legislation he had drafted years earlier. "
quote: Nope, sorry, but Obama could have let the Patriot Act expire but didn't. So it's idiots like YOU that put us on a "slippery slope". Ooooh this is fun, see how that works?
quote: No to me what makes this country less free is government mandates. Toilets, gas blends, fuel economy, air quality, emissions, what should be optional automotive equipment, health care, the list goes on.
quote: Just look at all the media attention that went around when the Obama Administration was going to release all this data on cases the Patriot Act was used and interrogation tapes. Both times they didn't.
quote: it's completely within the confines of the Constitution
quote: You are given freedoms by the public as a whole, as represented by elected leaders, not by your personal mandate.
quote: Further, they're not protected by the Constitution, they're protected by the government, which is an extension of the people. And just as 'overuse' is subjective, so are those inalienable rights.
quote: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added : And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
quote: The rights that the founders decreed to be 'inalienable' are given to you by everyone around you, not by the universe. Further, they're not protected by the Constitution, they're protected by the government,
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
quote: And who was responsible for the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2? The liberal hero FDR.
quote: How am I less free from buying more gas? It's my money so I can spend it on whatever I choose. If I gain more enjoyment from a less fuel efficient car, that makes me more free than being forced into a car I find less enjoyable.
quote: The world isn't as simple a place as it was nearly 250 years ago. As such sometimes things have to change. When trying to catch someone trying to blow up a building, you don't always have the luxury of being able to go through the process of getting a judge, presenting your case, and getting a warrant. Terrorists don't call the CIA before making their call to let them know what they'll be discussing
quote: FBI was on tail of terrorists responsible for 9/11
quote: That doesn't pass muster. FBI's charter is to operate w/i confines of USA, whereas CIA operates outside
quote: They were inside US and they are spoted by local FBI
quote: Simply being spotted inside the US is no cause for arrest and/or further surveillance. Unless. Unless the CIA would have been allowed to communicate the facts to the FBI that they were indeed persons of interest, and the reasons why. That law was later changed so that the CIA can now do just that, communicate with the FBI. Amazing, no?
quote: My point is that the system works, no need for ad hominem remarks against "irresponsible heads" in the aforementioned agencies. It were (largely if not fully) the politicians that didn't like law enforcement, w/ reputed lesbian and muslim ties. Hint, hint
quote: The Sept. 11 attacks were preventable, but the plot went undetected because of communications lapses between the F.B.I. and C.I.A., which failed to share intelligence related to two hijackers, a Congressional report to be released on Thursday says.The report, by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence panels, found that for nearly two years before the attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency knew about the terror connections between the two men, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi, who in 2000 moved to San Diego, frequenting Muslim circles that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had infiltrated.
quote: if u have little or no cooperation betwen agencies, how wiretaping and similar activities can help in that regard?