Tech Daily Dose: EU Official Reacts To New Data Deal http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2007/06/eu-official-reacts-to-new-data.php?rss=1 en Copyright 2010 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:02:37 GMT http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification EU Official Reacts To New Data Deal Following news Thursday that European negotiators had reached a provisional deal with the United States on how to share information about trans-Atlantic air passengers that Washington says is necessary to fight terrorism, the European Union released a statement on what has transpired.

The EU said the U.S. has addressed its members' data protection concerns and set conditions concerning the handling of personal data originating from the European Union.

European Commission Vice President Franco Frattini welcomed the move. "The EU and its most important strategic partner in the fight against terrorism, the USA, have to join forces in this fight… These activities should be done in full respect of fundamental rights, including notably data protection rights and the right to privacy of EU citizens," he said.
-- Winter Casey

Clarification: The quote from Franco Frattini below was included in a release concerning a separate deal the European Union made with Washington for using bank-transfer data in terrorism investigations. However, an EU spokesman said Frattini's comment would apply to how he views the passenger agreement, too.

]]> http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2007/06/eu-official-reacts-to-new-data.php?rss=1 http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2007/06/eu-official-reacts-to-new-data.php?rss=1 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:02:37 GMT Ross Wolf responded on June 30, 10 09:23 AM <div class="ad" style="float:right;margin: 0px, 0, 10, 10;"> <h6>Advertisement</h6> <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/nationaljournalgroup/njonline;feature=techdailydose;series=techdailydose;medium=rss;sz=300x250,336x280;ord=182102252?" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/nationaljournalgroup/njonline;feature=techdailydose;series=techdailydose;medium=rss;sz=300x250,336x280;ord=182102252?" border="0" alt=""></a> </div> The European Union, U.S. will again share banking data to fight terrorism. Europeans have been more awake to privacy abuse by U.S. Government in the name of fighting terrorism, than Americans.

In the U.S. domestic spying increasingly Target Americans, not terrorists to arrest Citizens and forfeit their property.

U.S. Homeland Security recently got the power to monitor U.S. Citizens’ domestic private Internet communications; it appears Homeland Security can override Fourth Amendment protections, allowing government warrant-less searches to arrest Americans and forfeit Citizens’ assets not involved in terrorism? Government too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, Internet fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause someone's arrest or Civil Asset Forfeiture of their property. Any information that government derives from warrant-less electronic searches (that does not involve terrorism) should not be shared with law enforcement or allowed admissible in criminal and civil courts—when the purpose—of the surveillance, even with a warrant, was to prevent terrorism. It is unclear what agreement the European Union might have made with the U.S. in that regard. Despite (illegal wiretapping) being against the law in America, U.S. spy agencies, e.g. NSA appear to share their warrant-less electronic surveillance of Americans under Bush II with law enforcement agencies and it appears with private government contractors to cause the arrest of Americans and forfeiture of their property. In the U.S., government private contractors and their operatives, work so closely with law enforcement to arrest Americans and seize their property—sharing information, they appear to merge.

There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property, to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is only required to show “A preponderance of Civil Evidence”, little more than hearsay. That low standard of civil evidence lends itself to corrupt police to use perjured testimony of paid or coerced informants, to cause forfeiture of innocent person’s property. Increasingly police departments have become dependent on forfeiture to pay budget costs and officers’ salaries.

Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for U.S. Government to civilly forfeit Property. The statute now runs five years from the date police claim they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. With effectively no statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of civil Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors—will increasingly want access to Citizens’ private electronic communications and’ private records. Under the Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited for providing secret testimony. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws; those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “Retroactive Civil Asset Forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning " property already tainted by crime" provided “a property” was already part of or is “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress" when HR.1658 passed in 2000. The Hyde bill left the door open forever, to forfeit any asset that might remotely be connected to a government investigation that began before 2000—retroactively discarding the prior five-year statute of limitations.

Most U.S. property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt to the government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do it” may “involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution: any fresh denial of guild, even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S.

Recently Pres. Obama’s signed Executive Order EO 12425 that put INTERPOL above the United States Constitution. Obama’s Executive Order authorized INTERPOL to act within the United States without being subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure laws. It would appear INTERPOL can tap e.g., American phones and emails without a warrant. It is problematic U.S. Police will use INTERPOL to circumvent getting search warrants to bypass the Fourth Amendment to arrest Americans and forfeit their property by bringing INTERPOL into a criminal or civil investigation.

...]]> http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2007/06/eu-official-reacts-to-new-data.php?rss=1#1599530 http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2007/06/eu-official-reacts-to-new-data.php?rss=1#1599530 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:23:05 GMT