Posted on 11/25/2006 1:02:15 PM PST by NormsRevenge
BRUSSELS, Belgium - A report by an EU panel released Thursday said the bank data transfer agency SWIFT broke European privacy laws by handing over personal data to U.S. authorities for use in anti-terror investigations.
The Belgian-based company, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, "committed violations of data protection laws" by secretly transferring data to the United States, without properly informing Belgian authorities, the EU's data protection panel said.
The panel's report calls on SWIFT, financial institutions and EU authorities to "take the necessary measures" to end the transfer, which it said contradicts Belgian and EU data protection rules. SWIFT is still transferring data under U.S. subpoenas.
EU spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen said the report was adopted unanimously by the 25-member panel which also chided the role of the European Central Bank in the affair. It demanded clarification from the ECB over its role in the affair. ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet has acknowledged his bank knew of the transfers but could not prevent them.
"SWIFT is expected as well as financial institutions to take the necessary steps immediately to remedy the present illegal infringement," Ahrenkilde Hansen said, adding the group will monitor the implementation of the recommendation by SWIFT and the ECB and other national banks which sit on SWIFT's oversight board.
The data protection officers have been drafting their report since September and their conclusions come as no surprise following a similar finding by a Belgian commission, which was tasked by the Belgian government and the EU panel to investigate SWIFT's secret deal with the U.S. Treasury.
The European Commission, which could eventually launch a legal case against Belgium for failing to uphold EU data protection rules, has said it would await the final report of the EU data protection officers before deciding what action to take.
Ahrenkilde Hansen said the Commission would "ensure correct implementation" of EU data protection rules.
Belgian political leaders have already called on the EU to negotiate with the United States on fixing the apparent legal limbo SWIFT finds itself in.
The EU panel report echoes the Belgian report which said that while the company did all it could to live up to Belgian, EU and U.S. regulations to hand over the requested information, it finds itself in a legal black hole.
The company routes about 11 million financial transactions daily between 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries, recording customer names, account numbers and other identifying information.
SWIFT and top European bankers told a European Parliament committee last month it had no power to prevent the transfer of personal data to U.S. authorities.
The company and Trichet called for the EU to sit down with Washington and draft a new global deal to fix the legal quagmire which now exists over the transfer deal.
The transfer deal between the U.S. Treasury and SWIFT was launched by Washington after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The SWIFT case compounds legal and political clashes between Europe and the United States over anti-terror measures and highlights divisions over what lengths governments should go to in order to prevent attacks.
SWIFT officials have argued that it had no choice but to abide by U.S. subpoenas for bank data, saying that if it refused to hand over the information, it would have faced fines and possible criminal penalties like jail time.
"It is disturbing that none of the involved parties is willing to take responsibility for the failure to protect the rights of EU citizens," said Kathalijne Buitenweg, a Dutch Green member of the European Parliament. She called for a clarification of ECB and national bank rules in ensuring they report all violations of EU privacy laws.
It is even more disturbing, Fr. Buitenweg, that the American and European left refuses to take responsibility for their own citizens' safety.
I live in Europe. I don't like the idea that the US Government can get my bank details. I'm not a leftist.
The eu has already assumed the dhimmi position. Didn't Churchill say that appeasement is hoping the crocidile eats you last? The US is the only hope and I think that only about half know enough to give a rat's a$$ or they are actively working on the enemy's side (see the msm).
"I live in Europe. I don't like the idea that the US Government can get my bank details. I'm not a leftist."
Ditto. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider this a perfectly reasonable position.
I live in Europe. I don't like the idea that the US Government can get my bank details. I'm not a leftist.
"If you haven't been sending money to the middle east, they weren't looking at your bank details."
What's your source for this? And how would they know this before looking?
Continuing fallout from the treason committed by The New York Times.
I'm sure European governments were aware of these programs. But they don't like to have it made public, and they don't want the Arabs to know they are cooperating in any way in the war against the Islamofascists.
It also means less cooperation from our allies (such as they are) in the future, since they will fear more NY Times or Washington Post leaks of sensitive security information like this.
And why just the Middle East? There have been terrorist operations in Europe, America, not to mention Afghanistan and Pakistan are hardly unknown to terrorist groups!
"I'm sure European governments were aware of these programs"
That would make it legal?
What makes you think the US Government would have any interest in your bank details?
They wouldn't...unless, you've conducted a transaction with a known terrorist or terrorist front. In which case, they would have every reason to be interested.
Under the Napoleonic Code and similar European systems, I'm sure it is legal. It is also legal under the United States Constitution. In America, the information could (or should) not be used to prosecute for Income Tax evasion or similar purposes, but it could and should certainly be used to protect our country against attack by violent enemies.
The primary duty of ANY government is to defend the country and citizens against enemy attacks. That is the purpose of this program.
I don't like being spied on any more than anybody else, but I don't fret about it because I'm not a terrorist and have nothing to hide. I would be considerably more worried if privacy considerations were used to prevent security organizations from trying to stop terrorists before they actually blow up trains and buses and buildings.
Whether it's legal under the EU bureaucracy, I don't know, and I doubt whether anyone else does either, apart from the EU bureaucrats. They are unaccountable elitists who do whatever they choose, operating under a 300 page constitution too complicated for anyone to understand. That means that, like activist judges in the US, the law is whatever they say it is.
Well good. Stop all monitoring and go ahead and let Paris burn to the ground.
"Whether it's legal under the EU bureaucracy, I don't know, and I doubt whether anyone else does either, apart from the EU bureaucrats. They are unaccountable elitists who do whatever they choose, operating under a 300 page constitution too complicated for anyone to understand. That means that, like activist judges in the US, the law is whatever they say it is."
The bureaucrats don't actually create the laws. The directive cited (95/46/EC) is a directive of the European Parliament and can be seen here: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/eudirective/EU_Directive_.html. As a directive, implementation is through national law as passed by the legislature of each applicable state. So it is specifically Belgian law that SWIFT are in contravention of, being based there.
If you like it- fine. I don't want to change your mind.
I don't like it.
Have a nice day.
According to even the New York Times report, they were looking for specific transactions by specific people/organizations.
It was not a "give us all your records and we'll sift through them for something that might be of interest -- particularly Canard's checks to the butcher" kind of operation.
Let's say you send some money to a known terror organization & no, the transactions are not limited to those in the ME. They know you've sent money to the terrorist account, because they have a lawful warrant to look at that account. They take a peek at your account to see if you're sending money to any other known terrorist account or if you are receiving money from one. If you're not, there's no reason to look at your account further. If you have, they take out a secret warrant for all of your transactions. Everyone sending you money or receiving money from you then gets a peek.
If all of these transactions require a warrant, set up the full time court to take care of the flurry of paperwork. Your rights would be better protected that way, though there would a more lag time & more opportunity for bad actors to pull off their plans, before they get caught.
I'm wondering if posters here would be quite so sanguine about this subject if the story involved a US company providing identical data to the British government, or French government, or Belgian government.
If your views would be identical, then fine. If not, maybe that might give you pause for thought.
If France, Belgium & the UK wanna know where I buy my groceries & all of the other boring crap I send through my banking accounts, I don't think I'd panic. LOL
I would say the reaction of most would come down to the way they answer the question about whether or not they believe we are at war.
The civil libertarian in me wants to be bothered by stuff like this, but I know anyone worried about me enough to snoop on me would face an overwhelming case of boredom pretty quickly. I'd have to conger up a case of concern or outrage on behalf of someone else, someone far more exciting than little old me. Show me cases where it was not just used, but abused & I'll try to work myself up to becoming offended & concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.