SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Thursday, Congress advanced a bill which would allow European citizens to sue the US government if their data is misused in an international law enforcement investigation. The proposal is one of several cybersecurity bills currently in progress in the US and in Europe.
Known as the Judicial Redress Act, it's intended to address imbalances in how the US and international governments share data in criminal investigations, including terrorism cases. It's part of a larger "umbrella agreement" between the US and the European Union to further define how the two sides share information. Currently, US citizens can sue in European courts over the misuse of their data, but the US does not have similar protections.
...
"If we fail to pass the Judicial Redress Act, we will undermine several important international agreements, harm our businesses operating in Europe and severely limit the sharing of law enforcement information," Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin, who introduced the bill in March, said during the meeting.
Will Europeans fare better than the American citizens who already sued the US government for total surveillance?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:09AM
The thing is, this law can't give Europeans any better chance of success than an American suing the government.
Most often courts just deny that you have standing, by stating you haven't proven that you were harmed, or that the government actually uses any of your data. Europeans will have to prove that just as Americans do.
But, As TFA says,
the US government is going to have presumption of duty on its side, and it’s going to be an exceptionally rare judge, especially at the appellate level, who will let this case win.”
The presumption of duty means that it is the DUTY of the government to spy and collect data on foreign persons, in order to protect the United States, just as the British and German governments are presumed to have the duty. It would have to be an egregious case of misuse of the information to even get standing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:24AM
The presumption of duty means that it is the DUTY of the government to spy and collect data on foreign persons, in order to protect the United States
No, the government doesn't have a "duty" to violate people's fundamental rights through the use of mass surveillance in the name of safety; in fact, it simply should not be allowed unless they have reason to spy on a specific individual. If the courts say otherwise, they're wrong. And no, it doesn't matter how many other countries do it; that's all the more reason to set an example.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:54AM
So we can't spy on our people, and they can't spy on their people, but we can spy on each others people and trade the info?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday September 22 2015, @03:07AM
Ignoring, for the moment, the internal inconsistency in your statement, every country reserves for itself the right to spy on foreigners in this country as well as anywhere else in the world. It is the mandate of the CIA to do so.
The US is almost alone with a law on the books keeping the CIA and NSA from spying on US Citizens on US Soil. (A law often ignored as it turns out). Many EU countries had no such prohibition, until one was forced upon them by the EU, a fact that is similarly ignored for the most part by EU members.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.