EU ruiling on Data Transfer to US

[Jordan D]

Just heard this on the 1100Z News here in the UK:

The EU has apparently ruled that it is illegal for EU airlines to transmit passenger data to the US.

No weblinks as yet.

Jordan

[LLuke]

BRUSSELS (AFX) - A senior judge at the EU's highest court has recommended that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) annul a decision by the European Commission and EU member states to transfer air passenger data to the US as a counter-terrorism measure.

More here (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/11/22/afx2350043.html) .

[The SSK]

The Advocate General has issued an Opinion that the legal basis for the agreement between the EU and the US, to transmit passenger data, is flawed.

(For example, it is based on a Treaty article which was designed to harmonise rules within the EU, not fight terrorism).

The opinion is not binding but there will be a follow-up ruling by the European Court of Justice, probably by the end of the year, which will decide one way or the other. If they support the A-G's Opinion, it could cause a great deal of grief in the transatlantic market - it's the Americans who are calling the shots on this one.

[obgraham]

So now our moronic TSA will simply hold all the EU arrivals on the tarmac till they finish their checking, or else build a big new cattle pen where everyone can wait. How's that an improvement?

[RevMan2]

OK, so it's illegal, but there's nothing to stop passengers from signing a waiver.

It's not as if it's forced deportation - people appear to either want or need to travel to the USA and they're free to decide whether they're prepared to provide their data to a range of paranoid and/or vindictive government bodies.

Don't get me wrong - I think the parochial agressive attitude that one encounters athe border stinks, but the decision's with the traveller.

The neighbourhood (which unfortunately encompasses the globe) bully doesn't give a toss.

[DA50driver]

Have you guys ever tried to enter the European Union as a non-member? It is a lot easier to come and go in the US than it is for me as a Norwegian citizen to enter the EU. And why should the US let you in that easy? Maybe if the US sensed that not every European wanted to kick their arse thay would be nicer to you guys.

Somebody needs to start by being nice and understanding. The US has done their part for 65 years now by providing money and security for a large chunk of Europe. What did they get i return? Jack s..t!! When they needed our help, most of Europe decided to take the side of the terrorists. There. It is said, it is out in the open. That is how a lot of my very good US friends see it. And I agree with them.

It is time to take a stand and stand up for what you believe in. Personally I believe that you should not cut someones head off because they don't have the same faith you do. And instead of being critical of everything the US does, how about coming up with some solutions? If the entire world came into Iraq we could settle that whole mess in a few weeks. I think that would be the right thing to do.

When it comes to sending names across for the TSA, what is so wrong with that? I had to apply for a visa to get into Russia. It is part of life, get used to it.

How about instead of trying to make yourself feel better by being defiant against the US you stop and think "Is this the right thing to do, or am I doing it only because I can". Your heads come off just as easy as a US head when you think about things long term. My kids are US citizens and I will do what I can to make them as safe as possible. Just as parents in Germany or Serbia or any other country will. It is time to put the small differences aside to focus on the big picture.

Visualize whirled peas.

[matkat]

Strange as I thought Us Brits went against the terrorists I must be wrong and We are not there after all,incidently how many Norwegians are in Iraq and Afghanistan? the other questions is why do the EU not require all flights originating in North america to divulge Pax info before the flight takes off? and also what type of visa does a US Citizen require for entry into the UK? answer NONE and lastly Norway decided not to join the EU by way of a referendum You cannot have it both.
p.s. ever tried entering Norway as a non-Norwegian

[steamchicken]

How many Norwegians are there in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Certainly a few, the Norwegian army is deployed in both..

[DA50driver]

I never wanted to have it both ways, but I am sick and tired of everybody bashing the US.

Norway is quite protective of their little country, it can be a hassle to get in, especially if you do not look scandinavian. In the US they can not legally profile based upon age, race, sex etc., which is why grandma in a wheel chair gets searched.

On the subject of visas requred I do not think Brits need one to enter the US as a visitor. Consult your local embassy. The US lets a lot countries in without visas. The next thing you will bitch about is having to have a biometric readable passport. That requirement is in there to cut down on the time you have to wait to clear customs. So there is no way for the US to win.

If the EU decided they needed paxlists, I am sure the US would be happy to comply. Anything that will cut down the chance of getting blown up is received favorably over there.

The Brits are helping out in Iraq, and I am thankfull for that. Tony Blair had a big Q and A session yesterday on TV. The man has balls and a brain. Some of the questions he had to answer were childish at best, just some politico who wanted to show that he could ask the tough questions. Again trying to be defiant to the point that he is not making sense

I personnally do not think Norway is doing enough in Iraq, we are doing ok in Afghanistan. Thanks for backing me up steamchicken

[matkat]

Brits do indeed need a visa the only exception is the visa waiver programme in which You have to get all Your details on the green form prior to arrival i personally have had all of My worst immigration nightmares into the US I have been to the states on over 20 occasions both business and pleasure but would definately think twice about going again.I am aware that there is Norwegian troops in Afghanistan and Iraq however You implied that no other European Countries had not supplied any backup which is obviously untrue also I do not see anyone bitching about the US on this thread however I still fail to see how the invasion of Iraq has made the World a safer place.

[DA50driver]

Re-read the post by SSK, Obgraham and revman2. My worst experience is always in Amsterdam.

You should also reread my original post to see I said "most of europe".

France, Germany, Spain. Those are countries that should be fighting with the US instead of against the US.

If I was a terrorist I would love the division I see between old allies right now. I would feel I was well on my way to victory.

On the subject of Iraq it sounds to me like you think if we had not acted at all the terrorists would love you and cuddle you. The movement was already alive. It should have been dealt with a long time ago by everyone in the west. Having madrases preaching that every westerner is the devil is not a good policy long term.

I wish we all could sit around the campfire and sing Kum-ba-Yah, but I am realistic enough to realize that that won't happen for a while.

[matkat]

Saying most makes implications also of Your own Country try being specific at the beginning of Your post.Did I say(or imply)any such rubbish as the terrorists would "love and cuddle Me"FYI I spent 13 years in the military and still work for the Ministry of defence however I ask again why would the invasion of Iraq be a deterant to future terrorist acts?Also I can still not see where anyone on this thread is bad mouthing the US!!You seem to somehow conviently forget that all of the Western World was with the US after 9/11 and again on the bombing of Afghanistan the division only arose over the invasion of Iraq FACT.

[Wino]

Foreign carriers don't want to send their details to the USA? No problem at all. Plenty of US carriers cross the atlantic everyday.

Let KLM/BA stop sending the details immediately. They can feed NWA / AA at Amersterdam/London and all will be well.

I have no problem with that at all. Everyone is happy. No foreign carriers send any details to the USA, no problem, don't fly there. Plenty of US carriers to choose from.

Cheers
Wino

[LatviaCalling]

Interesting point. I travel on my American passport, although I have a Latvian passport for identity reasons only. The Americans more than strongly suggest that I do not travel on my Latvian passport, because in that case, if there is a stamp put into it, the Americans can't protect me if sh*t happens.

Even with an American passport, I have to fill in a visa waiver form aboard the aircraft if I'm flying to the UK. There a friendly immigration officer asks the purpose of my visit and stamps in a very well inked stamp which says: "Leave to enter for six months. Employment and recourse to public funds prohibited." Then date and airport, plus a hand written "IT" or "TIT."

The Germans couldn't give a flying fa*t. They punch in my strange perforated passport number (passport issued in Riga which doesn't have the swipe), wait a moment and then say "danke."

I've never had any problems anywhere and I travel quite a bit. The only problem I encountered, and that was minor to the others, when the Atlanta transfer point TSA drill sergeant yelled: "Shoes off! Belts off! Change in the box! Computers out of their bags! Let's move it man!"

The poor people behind me coming in on a JAL flight had no inkling what this guy was yelling about. I really felt sorry for them, because they individually had to be guided through the process. They were scared stiff, yet meek. Poor souls.

[GlueBall]

DA50driver:
...this is about BIG BROTHER America fingerprinting, photographing and storing forever personal data of all the world's citizens who come to visit. These "Homeland Security" police state tactics are the most dangerous challenge to personal freedoms and privacy the world has ever experienced :ooh:

[Globaliser]

Wino: Foreign carriers don't want to send their details to the USA? No problem at all. Plenty of US carriers cross the atlantic everyday.I'm going to stay out of the politics of it, but if this opinion is translated into a ruling by the Court itself, I think it will almost certainly apply to all carriers, whether they're US-based or not. The law must apply to all data which is to be transferred from the EU to the US, whoever holds it here. It won't be like the regulation of operations by the civil aviation regulator of the State of registry. So everyone will have to find some way out of (or around) the legal problem together.

[Final 3 Greens]

An interesting ruling.

Because of the nation state interests of the members of the EU, things do not happen as quickly or fluidly as in the US.

However, the old saying about where does an 800lb gorilla sit still applies.

The US is a big country and has global reach, but the EU is equally powerful if it acts in concert.

Much better if a bit of common sense was applied, but sometimes that has to start with a line on the ground and a push back.

[N380UA]

I see this thing going to JB rather soon…

I hold two passports. EU and Non-EU. I mostly travel on the Non-EU Passport. Not once have I encountered any difficulties in any EU nation. So much for that DA50. Now as for my personal data being send to the TSA, I couldn’t be bothered any more about the process. I ain't got nothing to hide so if the US needs to have that information to increase its self-worth, Ill be happy to make them feel better. I think most Europeans probably feel the same way. What is pissing the world of though, is the attitude that’s being extended to foreigners.

Wino, Globaliser is right in his statement. The A/C reg. is of no interest in this regard, it’s the origin. So no goodies for you I'm afraid.

F3G well said

[Wino]

Actually the ruling said between EU member states and the US.

That is because those foreign airlines are based in EU members states and therefore the transfer has to come out of there.

By booking on a US carrier, you would have already given the data in question to the US carrier which would have it in their dispatch/central offices/credit card processesing center (inside the USA)already so no further transfer would have to come from the EU.

The act of booking on a US airline would be effectively providing that info to the US government directly. Hence no problem with the EU. As I said, everyone is happy. Make your stand.

In order to convoy troops ships supplying britain during world War II before Pearl Harbor, we declared the Atlantic an American Lake. I guess its time we took possession.

Cheers
Wino

[Jordan D]

Wino - to correct you: if you book by credit card, your details could be sent to a number of locations round the world for processing - regardless of the point-of-sale: it could be inside the EU, in Japan, in the US or at few other locations.

Take it from someone with a close family relation who works for the largest credit card company.

Jordan

[mocoman]

we declared the Atlantic an American Lake. I guess its time we took possession.

Wino,

Have you ever considered that attitudes and comments like that are behind the resentment that some folks have towards the US? :ugh:

[Globaliser]

Wino: By booking on a US carrier, you would have already given the data in question to the US carrier which would have it in their dispatch/central offices/credit card processesing center (inside the USA)already so no further transfer would have to come from the EU.I see the argument, but I doubt that the EU law would be interpreted so as to allow this. Surely, the identity of the individuals who are actually travelling on the flight must be collated at the departure point? Only there can the airline know who is on board and who is not. If that is where that data is collated, the EU law will apply to its transfer to the US, whoever the airline is. I'd be very surprised if the EU allowed its ruling to have such a vast loophole run through it by technical means. But I'd be equally surprised if the airlines didn't together find a way of solving the problem.

[The SSK]

There seems to be some confusion about what is involved here.

The agreement in question refers to US government agency access to carriers' reservations systems. Passenger data is carried in a Passenger Name Record, which as well as containing stuff that is relevant (name and flight number for a start) may also contain things that the passenger wants the airline to know (that he is disabled, wants a special meal, will pay for his ticket with credit card xxx etc) but which under European privacy laws are protected.

Nobody likes the way the US are throwing their weight around but the European Commission recognises that the commercial consequences of refusing to go along with them would be disastrous for the European airlines. Hence the agrement, which seeks to limit the data the US can access, the way they can use it and the time they can hang on to it.

The European Parliament is much more hard-line when it comes to their citizens' privacy and have been anti the process all along - they don't seem to accept any arguments about the chaos that a disruption to air service would cause. (At least not enough of them do - it is supposed to be a democratic institution).

Unfortunately this latest ruling is about legalities, so even if the dissenting factions in the Parliament could be persuaded to take a more pragmatic view, illegal is illegal.

A completely different issue is US requirement for data which is not in the PNR and which the airline might have to collect on check-in, such as the passenger's address during his stay in the US. Nobody disputes the US right to demand this, but obtaining it from the passenger and typing it into the departure control computer could add a minute to the check-in process - multiply by a planeload of 360 pax, and you're talking about six extra hours of check-in agents' time for a single flight.

[manintheback]

If you are operating a business in the UK or EU you are bound by their laws. That includes the Data protection act

Location of the computer, location of the business itself are of no relevance. US carriers cannot forward your data legally if this ruling is upheld.

BUT. There are many occasions where operating in multiple countries, puts you at odds with different rules and regulations.

Those instances often end up being traded off at governmental level. But until it is, the playing field remains level and US carriers would not be allowed to utilise that data and gain competitive advantage.

[obgraham]

Maninthe back and others obsessing about your Euro-privacy rights: You missed my earlier point. You can harp all you want about how you don't want to send this info to the US. And you can stop sending it.
Then you can get on the plane, land in the US, and sit for two hours on the runway till the information has been collected, submitted, and pored over by the security agencies. Then they'll let you off.
What, then have you gained?

[TightSlot]

A gentle reminder to all - please keep this on the rails (as in most cases we have been) and avoid the JetBlast style rabid pro/anti US comments.

In view of the EU ruling - does anybody know for sure where this goes next?

[manintheback]

Obgraham

Suggest you might read a number of posts again including mine this time with less myopic eyes and rather more intelligence. Quite how you managed to equate a concise and accurate clarification of law with a personal opinion I'll leave you to fathom.

[striparella]

Well if i owned an airline i'd simply say allow us to send the APIS information or you wont be flying with us.

Get them to sign a waiver or make it part of the ticket contract.

Most pax don't know this happens anyways so i can't see it being a problem if you simply ask them!!

This'll just make it extra hard when we all have to inform the US where we'll be spending the first night of our visit next year.

[yggorf]

Sorry if I'm a wee bit pedantic, but read closely the posts of SSK and Globaliser. They state clearly that there is no ruling of the European Court of Justice yet (or, if I'm to be really pedantic, the Court of Justice of the European Communities).
The opinion of the Advocate General is the last procedural step before the decision of the Court. Until then, it is just what it says: an opinion, with no binding effect whatsoever.
This being said, if, as SSK says, the wrong legal basis was used for the Commission decision, then the Advocate General is absolutely right to say it's illegal and he will probably be followed by the Court.

[skydriller]

This'll just make it extra hard when we all have to inform the US where we'll be spending the first night of our visit next year.

This has been a reality since shortly after 9/11.

I know this because it affects every trip I do to the US for my work. I NEVER know where I will stay when I pitch up to the US for business, due to the nature of my job - and it never used to be a problem telling immigration this when I explained what i do. However about a year or so after 9/11 I was basicly told that if I couldnt give an address where I would be staying in the US then I wouldnt be coming again, despite being truthfull about it every time.....The guy basicly told me to lie and write somewhere on the form rather than nothing at all.....so much for security and honesty eh? And this is with a proper 10year work/business visa, not visa waiver scheme....

Regards, SD..

[Final 3 Greens]

StriparellaGet them to sign a waiver or make it part of the ticket contract. As I understand it, terms and conditions cannot overule a law.

[Globaliser]

Final 3 Greens: As I understand it, terms and conditions cannot overule a law. If the law allows the parties to a contract to opt out of the law, then the parties can by contract opt out of the law. The ability of the data subject to give consent for certain uses is one of the core elements of the EU data privacy directive. What the directive tries to prevent is the misuse of your personal information without your consent.

As I said before, if the Court agrees with the Advocate General, which is likely but by no means a sure thing, the airlines (that is, all airlines operating from the EU) will have to find a way around the ruling.

If they can do it by getting consent from the pax, I'm confident that they will try this. If that's the route, anyone who wants to avail themselves of the court's ruling would have a free choice given to them by the EU law as interpreted by the Court: You can choose to protect the privacy of your personal information from the US government in accordance with your EU law rights, or you can choose to travel to the US. Your call.

[Final 3 Greens]

In which case, onerus contract may apply.

[Globaliser]

Final 3 Greens: In which case, onerus contract may apply.If you mean that the Unfair Contract Terms Act (in the UK) may apply to void the contract term that the passenger has agreed which permits the transfer of the data to the US, then theoretically it could indeed apply.

But my gut feeling is that there is not a cat's chance in hell of that actually happening. We are asked for consent all the time in situations like this. For example: "Enter our free prize draw, subject to terms and conditions". The terms and conditions include "You agree that your personal data may be used by us in any publicity materials if you are a winner". You have a choice whether to enter the draw and agree to the contract term that waives your normal right to protect your personal data, or to protect your personal data and forego the draw. There's nothing unfair or unreasonable in this.

There are also many multinational websites that have specific European arms that also include an express condition that you agree to the transfer of data to the US (where their servers are located) - or else you cannot use the website. The data privacy directive requires that they have to get consent before they can transfer data outside the EU, just as is in question in relation to the airlines.

Similarly, given that the US government is making it a condition of your travel to the US (which the US government, like all governments of all countries, has a legitimate interest in monitoring and controlling) that you give it certain personal data, I expect that it would not be considered unfair for the airline to say to you that you have the choice between specifically agreeing to the data transfer and refraining from travel. You can't reasonably insist both on travelling to another country and on not supplying data that the other country demands. As I've said, the data protection laws are primarily intended to prevent the misuse of your personal data without your agreement.