SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BRUSSELS — The European Parliament narrowly (285 vs 281 votes) adopted a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution on Thursday urging the 28 nations of the European Union to recognize Edward J. Snowden as a "whistle-blower and international human rights defender" and to shield him from prosecution.
On Twitter, Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked documents about electronic surveillance by the American government, called the vote a "game-changer."
But the resolution has no legal force and limited practical effect for Mr. Snowden, who is living in Russia on a three-year residency permit. Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and thus far, none have done so.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:43AM
Hmmm, Really?
The EU seems to be genuinely pissed, at several different levels, at the US spying, and the data mining by NSA/CIA of European Citizens.
Declaring the US safe-harbor agreement no longer legal not only slaps the US government in the face, but simultaneously threatens big business in the US (who are somewhat the innocent bystanders left holding the bag). Those companies are pounding on Government desks as we speak.
That was a pretty big kick in the balls delivered by a bunch of guys you seem to regard as a feckless rabble.
If Germany says Snowden is free to stay in Germany, then what? How much noise will US makes? Probably not enough to get kicked out of Ramstein Air Base [militarybases.com].
But I wouldn't be surprised to see the Germans make their point by inviting the US Army to leave Ansbach, Bamberg or Baumholder.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:59AM
Then why will they not grant Snowden asylum?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @09:07AM
Nukes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @01:44PM
Nukes come to play only if your nation is about to be genocided out of existence. For anything smaller deal than that, they cannot be used as a direct threat because firing them runs the risk that the whole world, including your own part of it, will burn in flames.
This does not dismiss their strategic value, though.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday November 01 2015, @02:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:04PM
"government of the people, by the people, for the people" yeah right
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:34PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:46PM
the constitution is supposed to be legally binding
apparently 'legally binding' doesn't mean what it used to
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 02 2015, @01:57AM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 01 2015, @11:04PM
Snitching on government is not only NOT a betrayal, but an obligation.
NOT Snitching on Government is a betrayal.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:39AM
Declaring the US safe-harbor agreement no longer legal not only slaps the US government in the face, but simultaneously threatens big business in the US (who are somewhat the innocent bystanders left holding the bag). Those companies are pounding on Government desks as we speak.
If you think big business is an innocent bystander, you haven't been paying attention. The US spying uncovers much commercially valuable information that somehow makes its way to US corporations. Some companies may be innocent, but pretty much anyone with a connection to the military industrial complex is deep in bed with the spies.
That's what has really got the Euros pissed. Not that they were being spied on, everyone expects that, but that they are being commercially fucked.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 01 2015, @11:06PM
Look, how can you blame Google when Armed US Marshals show up with a warrant and demand data?
How many Google employees to you expect to spend 10 years in jail to protect your email?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday November 02 2015, @09:54AM
We seem to be mixing levels here. I'm talking about the CEO of Lockheed-Boeing being on the golf course and finding out from his friend in the .gov that the Airbus quote for Somewheria Airlines is going to come in at $1.24 billion, but that if they come in at $1.235 they can swing the deal by leaning on the chief of the evaluation committee, (who is cheating on his wife and has an embarassing fetish for smelly feet).
It is not just pricing info. It's stuff like who to lean on, how to lean on them, who is really making decisions, what parts of a deal are negotiable up or down and what is the real level they will agree at. This is all very valuable info in the business world.
We are not talking just legally mandated terrorist tracking, or even Joe Blows love letters to xx@gmail. What is actually written in the legislation is almost irrelevant at this level.
What has really got them pissed is that this sort of information is now being extracted from the massive amounts of data the NSA is collecting. It used to require specific spying, but now programs like Watson's children can just extrapolate and cross reference. What did you think, Watson was just to win Jeopardy?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 01 2015, @12:36PM
I have to echo deimtee's sentiment. SOME US corporations might be innocent bystanders here, but most certainly not all of them. Many of our largest corporations are not only complicit, but they actually drive government. Refer to CISPA, or CISA, or whatever name it goes by today. Government becomes an equal partner to these major corporations, with all of them spying on everyone in the world, and sharing that information with all other partners. How many of those corporations benefitting from such an arrangement can be considered "innocent bystanders"?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 02 2015, @12:23AM
Can you at LEAST wait till Congress actually passes the three-letter agency endorsed CISPA, which is opposed by just about every tech company in the US, before you start blaming the very thing those companies oppose on these corporations?
Corporations aren't benefiting via CISPA. Government sharing is never a two way street. The corporations will be forced to GIVE and they will get NOTHING in return.
Have you even glanced at the legislation? Have you even paid the slightest bit of attention to the testimony of these companies before congress? How in gods name do you blame the corporations for CISPA? In what bizaro world does that make sense?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 02 2015, @01:06AM
(C) facilitate information sharing, inter-
5
action, and collaboration among and between
6
the Federal Government; State, local, tribal,
7
and territorial governments; and cybersecurity
8
providers and self-protected entities
(6) I
NFORMATION SHARING RELATIONSHIPS
.—
1
Nothing in this section shall be construed to—
2
(A) alter existing agreements or prohibit
3
new agreements with respect to the sharing of
4
cyber threat information between the Depart-
5
ment of Defense and an entity that is part of
6
the defense industrial base;
7
(B) alter existing information-sharing rela-
8
tionships between a cybersecurity provider, pro-
9
tected entity, or self-protected entity and the
10
Federal Government;
(D) alter existing agreements or prohibit
19
new agreements with respect to the sharing of
20
cyber threat information between the Depart-
21
ment of Treasury and an entity that is part of
22
the financial services sector.
8
HR 624 RFS
(A) D
ISCUSSIONS AND ASSISTANCE
.—
1
Nothing in this section shall be construed to
2
prohibit any department or agency of the Fed-
3
eral Government from engaging in formal or in-
4
formal technical discussion regarding cyber
5
threat information with a cybersecurity provider
6
or self-protected entity or from providing tech-
7
nical assistance to address vulnerabilities or
8
mitigate threats at the request of such a pro-
9
vider or such an entity.
(B) C
OORDINATION
.—Any department or
11
agency of the Federal Government engaging in
12
an activity referred to in subparagraph (A)
13
shall coordinate such activity with the entity of
14
the Department of Homeland Security des-
15
ignated under paragraph (1) and share all sig-
16
nificant information resulting from such activity
17
with such entity and all other appropriate de-
18
partments and agencies of the Federal Govern-
19
ment.
‘
CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION
14
SHARING
15
‘‘S
EC
. 1104. (a) I
NTELLIGENCE
C
OMMUNITY
S
HAR
-
16
ING OF
C
YBER
T
HREAT
I
NTELLIGENCE
W
ITH
P
RIVATE
17
S
ECTOR AND
U
TILITIES
.—
18
‘‘(1) I
N GENERAL
.—The Director of National
19
Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow ele-
20
ments of the intelligence community to share cyber
21
threat intelligence with private-sector entities and
22
utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intel-
23
ligence.
There's more, of course. Do you need me to c/p the entire bill here? Yes, I've read it. Any and all corporations that have some legitimate security role gets access to the stuff.
One of the real kickers in this bill is:
‘‘(3) E
XEMPTION FROM LIABILITY
.—
1
‘‘(A) E
XEMPTION
.—No civil or criminal
2
cause of action shall lie or be maintained in
3
Federal or State court against a protected enti-
4
ty, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider,
5
or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected
6
entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity
7
provider, acting in good faith—
Let us note that our librarians are still looking out for our interests:
‘‘(4) P
ROTECTION OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL
19
DOCUMENTS
.—The Federal Government may not
20
use the following information, containing informa-
21
tion that identifies a person, shared with the Federal
22
Government in accordance with subsection (b):
23
‘‘(A) Library circulation records.
24
‘‘(B) Library patron lists.
25
VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:12 Apr 23, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H624.RFS H624
PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
24
HR 624 RFS
‘‘(C) Book sales records.
1
‘‘(D) Book customer lists.
2
‘‘(E) Firearms sales records.
3
‘‘(F) Tax return records.
4
‘‘(G) Educational records.
5
‘‘(H) Medical records.
Here's another kicker - the bill recognizes that consumers are products, not customers.
DATA.
19
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this
20
Act shall be construed to provide new or alter any existing
21
authority for an entity to sell personal information of a
22
consumer to another entity for marketing purposes.
Now, who do you think that last applies to? Facebook, linkedin, twitter, Gmail, and every other corporation that makes money mining you for data.
Again, yes, I've read it. I've read it from start to finish, I've read other people's analysis of the proposed law, and I've read it again and again. CISPA formalizes the fact that Corporate America has free reign to data mine the population, to share that data with government, and to benefit from government sharing that data with the corporations.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 02 2015, @01:24AM
Perfectly Horrible paste job.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this
Act shall be construed to provide new or alter any existing
authority for an entity to sell personal information of a
consumer to another entity for marketing purposes.
No new authority to sell information. The existing consumer protection rules, which have been tightened over time, still prevail.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Sunday November 01 2015, @08:59PM
Hmmm, Really?
The EU seems to be genuinely pissed, at several different levels, at the US spying, and the data mining by NSA/CIA of European Citizens.
There, fixed that for you.
They are pissed alright. They are pissed that such information is public so they have to be posers. In reality, they grounded a presidential plane and illegally searched it because they thought Snowden might be onboard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident [wikipedia.org]
See that red on their map there? That's how pissed they were *at* Snowden.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 01 2015, @11:08PM
Would that happen again today?
Its anybody's guess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @10:57AM
You fail to differentiate between the EU leaders on one hand, and the people, including the elected members of the EU parliament, on the other hand. Indeed, the leaders do seem to be deeply beholden to the USA leadership, which the people and the MEPs don't appreciate at all. Why the former is anyone's guess. For sure, some countries implement a similar practice (e.g. UK, France), which also isn't appreciated.