

Euro MPs block bank data deal with US - bensummers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8510471.stm

======
lutorm
It's funny how the US feels entitled to do all these things, but when other
countries want the US to allow them to do the same, there's no way. The war
crimes court comes to mind as the most blatant example of this "one rule for
you, another for us" mentality.

~~~
dantheman
The United States constitution forbids anything like the war crimes court.
Also, the ICC and all war crimes courts are a farce -- they are show trials
for all practical purposes, and I think extremely dangerous.

1\. If a person commits heinous crimes in their country then it is up to their
country to handle it.

2\. If the crimes are committed in another country it up to that country to
handle it.

There is no need for the ICC except to lend legitimacy to illegitimate claims.

I agree though, I can't believe that other countries are willing to hand over
data of their citizens that should be protected by them.

~~~
lutorm
If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would
be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given
that the US has never had a problem trying _foreigners_ in war crimes courts
(e.g. Nürnberg, or the whole Guantanamo/terrorist deal), they apparently don't
think their constitution is good enough to apply it in a more wholesale
fashion.

I remember Noam Chomsky saying something like "An argument whose validity
depends on who is using it is merely an attempt at justification without any
substance", and that seems a lot like what we're seeing here.

~~~
dantheman
1\. After Nuremburg it was a show trial put on by Stalin, there was no
justification for the court -- it wasn't like the laws they broke existed in
some sort of international context. 2\. Not to defend Guantanamo -- I think
it's abhorrent, but it is not a war crimes court, it's a place where prisoners
of "war" are being taken.

As I said before, I think the entire concept of war crimes in nebulous and if
there is any enforcement it should be done by country affected.

------
bjelkeman-again
Is this type of monitoring legal in the US when monitoring bank transactions
in the US? Does it already happen in the US? Imagine the reaction if this had
been the other way around, the damn Europeans spying on US bank transaction in
the US.

~~~
nkassis
Well, I believe transactions in the US are monitored. At least large cash
withdrawals and deposits are. 5,000 or more is usually reported by the banks.

------
pelle
This is good news, but somehow EU governments think it's ok to use stolen bank
data:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-
off...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/informant-offers-
germany-secret-swiss-bank-data-1884062.html)

~~~
danik
What do you mean? First of all that was Germany, so 'EU governments' does not
apply in that case. Second it is a big difference between buying information
about your citizens and selling information about you citizens.

~~~
mseebach
Denmark is also considering it.

Yes, there's a difference, but it's still very wrong.

We're talking about governments buying illegally obtained information, thus
sanctioning the crime. How is this different from the government not being
allowed to wire-tap its citizens, but if they go on the black market and get a
black-hat to do it, it's suddenly OK? The only reason is the presence of an
international border.

~~~
schwit
Illegal by whose standards?

How the information was obtained outside of Germany may be a crime, but not in
Germany.

As a citizen of Germany you are required to provide to the German government
information that determines taxes owed. Any attempt to evade this obligation
is a crime in Germany.

In this case Germany has a right to the information.

~~~
mseebach
> Illegal by whose standards?

The law of any country anyone would consider civilized. Including Germany,
Denmark, Lichtenstein and Switzerland.

> In this case Germany has a right to the information.

Well, states don't have rights. Their citizens are required to hand over the
information, and the government is entitled to punish citizens that fail to do
so. But that's a minor point -- Yes, Germany is entitled to that information,
but they don't have a right to break the law of another country to get that
information. What happened to Lichtensteins right to sovereignty?

And what if it wasn't tax information, but information on ethnicity?
Seriously, information about citizens that one government "has a right to",
that another government doesn't mind helping you conceal. Not to bash Germany
in particular, but we have privacy laws for a reason.

I'm not a fan of tax-evasion, but tax collection is not, in itself, such a
holy venture that it warrants any means.

------
siculars
This will most certainly be a setback for tracking and disrupting
terrorist/rogue state/criminal financing operations. I personally know someone
who used to use Swift data (among other financial transaction tracking data)
to track "bad-guys" doing very, very bad things. They are out there, they are
gaming the system, they are hiding behind loop holes and they do mean us harm.

Hopefully the privacy concerns can be worked out asap.

~~~
iujhygfbh
The problem is when this is used to give eg. Raytheon the details of payments
made to a European company for eg a radar system in some 3rd country - which
lets them put in an advantageous position to bid for the next bit of work.

