There is a row going on about the Swift agreement between the European parliament on the one side and the Commission and the Spanish presidency on the other.
If this agreement comes into force the US can demand data about all our financial transactions, if they claim they need this for some completely undefined purposes of counter-terrorism. They can store these data indefinitely, give them to other countries, and if they cause damage, we have no right to sue. ( The US have a privacy law, but only for their citizens and residents!)
The agreement can only come into force if the EP gives its consent. The commission actually tried to let the EP vote on the agreement without giving them the chance to read it beforehand (saying that the translations weren’t finished). Some MEP’s found out that all translations had been published (!) 10 days before. The parliament was (quite unanimously) furious and refused to hurry up the proceedings.
The commission then tried to bring the agreement into force on 1st February without (“before”) the EP’s consent, but this time Swift refused: they found it illegal to give away our data under these circumstances (and they are right).
Yesterday the Civil Liberties Committee of the EP recommended that the EP reject the agreement. The committee states that the agreement violates the EP resolution of 17th Sept. 2009
"violates the basic principles of data protection law, i.e. the principles of necessity and proportionality" and that "this cannot be subsequently rectified by mechanisms of oversight and control". … the proposed agreement does not make data transfer requests subject to judicial authorisation nor to a time limit. The conditions for sharing data with third countries are not sufficiently well defined nor is the maximum period for which the data can be retained. Citizens' rights over their own personal data, notably rights of access, rectification, compensation and redress, are also not adequately defined.”
Additionally there is the legal opinion of the Legal Service of the EP confirming this view and saying that the Council broke the law by withholding the documents. This was confidential until a few hours ago.
After the Civil Rights Committees vote some MEP’s were visited by the US ambassador who urged them to vote differently in the plenary on Thursday. Others were visited by commissioners with the same message. There will be a lot of pressure during the next days.
This pressure should be countered by the voters. Do tell your MEP’s what your opinion is. Send them some e-mails. There is a good chance that the EP rejects the Swift agreement.
I must say, this lack of interest surprises me. In case I’ve not made clear enough what this agreement means, a few examples of what can happen if it comes into force:
A European with Egyptian roots supports an opposition organisation in Egypt with money: the Swift agreement allows the US to inform Egyptian authorities of this, and our citizen risks to be arrested and tortured when he visits Egypt the next time.
Israeli secret services would get exact lists of all European donators of, say, Gush Shalom.
The door to industrial espionage is wide open: US companies can get data about all costs of their European competitors—and there are no legal rights for Europeans.
Why am I the only one here who finds this infuriating and wants to prevent it?
Post new comment