Don’t these conditions sound reasonable, conditions for sharing SWIFT financial transaction data with the United States for anti-terrorism purposes:
On the issue of bank data transfers, Parliament argues in a resolution adopted by show of hands, that bulk data transfers infringe EU legislation. It urges the Council and Commission to “address this issue properly in the negotiations”. In addition, the new agreement should include “strict implementation and supervision safeguards, monitored by an appropriate EU-appointed authority” on the day-to-day extraction of and use by the US authorities of all such data. The maximum storage period must not exceed five years and the data may not be disclosed to third countries. [MEPs] believe that “the option offering the highest level of guarantees” would be to allow for the extraction of data to take place on EU soil, in EU or joint EU-US facilities. In the medium term, an EU judicial authority should oversee the extraction of data in the EU. Meanwhile, select EU personnel should take part in the oversight of the extraction process in the USA.
Reciprocity would require the Americans to allow EU authorities to obtain and use data stored in servers in the US.
The scandal was that EU member states agreed before on a deal which didn’t meet these simple conditions as I covered on this blog before. Parliament rejected the previous deal. US VP Biden was yesterday in Brussels and addressed the European Parliament.
Sköne Oke 
Unfortunately theyy only “sound” resonable, but are not. Here is why:
– MEPs need to understand by now that bulk data is an requirement for the whole TFTP programme to work. Without it, there is no TFTP. So MEPs should speak clear words and argue against the TFTP as such.
– Why should the data transfer only “on the medium” term be controlled by an EU judicial authority? It should now, and as of the first day.
– Nice that they put what reciprocity means, but why are they not making this a requirement? It woult stop the discussion immediately 🙂
One more point: MEPs (and the Commission) should make clear that we are talking about EU data only. Because according to SWIFT the international data (and every transfer made in USD!) is still stored in the US and still accessed every day by the US authorities.
[…] Parliament has issued a press release and the Sköne Oke blog commented it. I have also left my comments there (which I encourage you to read) but had not seen the full […]
I wrote a follow-up to my comment, looking in more detail at the adopted text: http://brusselsblogger.blogactiv.eu/2010/05/07/swift-why-the-eu-parliaments-new-conditions-could-be-worthless/
[…] Parliament sets SWIFT conditions Don’t these conditions sound reasonable, conditions for sharing SWIFT financial transaction data with the United States for anti-terrorism purposes… […]
Well,
a) such an authority does not exist yet.
b) “no bulk data” looks useful as a principle.
All these discussions are not about to terminate soon.
a) Does it really take that long to assign a European court the responsibility to oversee the data transfers? Given the pressure to conclude a deal I think it’s do-able.
b) No TFTP but (if needed) a European monitoring system sounds like an even better principle 🙂
I just feel as long as nearly all (including those opposing the transfers) hide between largely wrong arguments (“let’s improve the safeguards”) instead of saying “we don’t want this” nothing will happen (meaning the TFTP will soon continue).
My main point is: the European Parliament, nor the Commission, would ever agree to a European TFTP would the US not make such pressure.
+1
Even more it was the US which spied on EU financial data first and when it was caught sought to legalize their access. Politicians are pragmatists, they agree that the data is useful for anti-terrorism purposes. Still the last SWIFT interim agreement proposal was simply outrageous, and the EP rejected the deal.
Though the whole scenario follows a Van Helsing principle, light kills the undeads.
It does not feel very good that fear of terrorism made the US cross the line and inspect the toxic SWIFT data. When we think of nuclear technology you need certain safeguards to prevent proliferation, human error and abuse, the same applies to SWIFT data. There seems little care, little sensitivity for the toxic nature of the data, otherwise they wouldn’t push that hard but start to satisfy the demands.
In Transatlantic talks EU-US you always have this relevance argument: EU institutions want to demonstrate their ability to be a partner. But I think this transition is now over, it was an affront that the US diplomates threatened the Parliament to seek a national deal.