user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
That should read "in any way?".
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 8:10am
[+]
You created a whole ballot on this and credited me? Okay seems kind of odd. Heres the question I was going to ask you before. For how many years in Europe have there been military soldiers with machine guns in your airports? When traveling in Ireland what takes place crossing the border from the South into the North? In fact, do British soldier not, at least up till recently as far as I know, open the trunk of the car and search it? yep. In northern ireland when going into a shopping center, for how many years have soldiers been searching bags? Many years. Stuff like that is just starting to happen here. Maybe thats where the fear and paranoia stems from.
Since you credit me for inspiring this ballot I'll, bring my commens over from the other
Read your comment again BP. So its okay for you to say to us "I live in the EU and I think I would know if my civil liberties are being eroded." Translation = since I live in the EU and you don't, I know better than you.
But you and others of like mind feel totall okay with telling us Americans how it is in the USA? even though we live here and you don't. Explain how that is not hypocricy?
You're not the only one who travels BP and you're not the only one who has a worldly view. Do you see where I'm going with this?
by TomSmith on Wed Oct 25, 06 7:44am
we travel freely through the entire united States and don't feel like big brother is watching us. I can get up tomorrow morning and decide I'm leaving to live in Alaska. No one will stop me, question me, follow me, watch me. nothing. I can arrive in Alaska or any state and do what I please. Maybe its because you're not an American that you feel that way? Its not uncommon when in a foreign country to feel out of place
So you're going to tell us how it is here in our own country , You a visitor. So then I can tell you how it is in the EU since I have alot of family living in Eu countries. My granparents live in an EU country 6 months out of the year. so does that make me qualified to tell you how it is in the EU? I would be more open to listening to people who are as open minded and "free thinking" as they claim to be
by TomSmith on Wed Oct 25, 06 7:49am
Fair enough Tom I see your point. I was referring to intrusions on personal space. The Irish government do not request information on the library books people take out. They do not send the Gardai (police) out to your house if you visit Cuba or any other Communist country for that matter. They do not keep tabs on or listen into personal telephone conversations. They did not enforce a Patriot Act nor do we have an invasive Homeland Security. It would seem to me, admittedly as an outsider, that people in the US have had more freedoms eroded and more intrusion into their personal space than anyone else on the planet. If I were an American I would be sorely pissed about that. That's where I was tring to go with this ....
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 7:51am
^
I should clarify when I said anyone else on the planet I was really only talking about free democratic socities.
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 7:53am
It's not about feeling out of place Tom your way off the mark there. And travelling freely inside your own country is not the point.
Tell you what perhaps I should have asked a question rather than make assumptions eh?
So Tom have your freedoms been eroded in anyway by the current US administration. Bearing in mind all the stuff we Europeans read about you guys in our newspapers?
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 7:56am
Eroded? What you guys read in your press? And its not biased in any way? just like when we read stuff in our press its totally accurate? Totally true and the full story has been told? No facts left out ? No relevant details that were left out because the story was edited? You believe everything you read and hear?
And travel in our "own" country is absolutely relevant. You point out you travel freely both inside and outside the EU. So do we? Isn't the EU one market now, with the same passports? isnt the USA a confederation of independed states? yes it is. So we too can travel freely inside and out with not problems just like you.
Discussing this point with you won't get us anywhere because I think you have your mind made up already If you don't think most governments are cracking down on civil liberties then i worry more that you dont see that. the point is not solely about the usa. The point is that if you want to focus all of your energies on us because you feel that your civil liberties are untouchable all i'm saying is Ireland is part of the EU right? So think globally
by TomSmith on Wed Oct 25, 06 8:11am
Hi Tom.
There are no armed military personnel posted in our airports here in Ireland. The Irish police force does not carry weapons and the army do not have a presence on show at the airport.
The situation in the North was different. We were, and still are, under British occupation. People were being shot and bombs were being set off at regular intervals for over thirty years.
Not the same really is it.
Even given all that we never had an intrusion into our personal space as seems to be taking place in the US.
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 8:34am
[+]
More .....
Tom we don't have the same passports within the EU. Each country is still recognised as a sperate independant entity. With its own passports. The EU is a different animal to the set up of the US. I'm not entirely sure you understand how the EU works. There have been no laws like the Patriot Act passed in Ireland.
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 8:36am
[+]
statewatch. org
EU: Update
Draft Framework Decision on data protection on police and judicial matters (DPFD) 13918/06, dated 13 October 2006
Question on scope: Note to Article 36 Committee on the draft Framework Decision should cover only exchanges between member states (international) or domestic (national) processing as well.
Six member states "have expressed doubts" as the measure covering domestic processing - Switzerland, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden and UK.
And 13958/06, dated 16 October 2006. List provided by the General Secretariat of the Council on data protection provisions in other third pillar instruments.
It does not cover the Schengen agreement whose provisions are stricter than the draft proposal.
Most importantly, provisions in all other measures and proposals which refer to the Council of Europe Convention 1981 and Recommendation (87) 15 on the use of personal data in the police sector would automatically be replaced by the new DPFD (see Recital 25) - which, on the evidence of the current Council draft, will set far lower standards for those member states who sought to implement CoE standards.
See Statewatch Analysis by Tony Bunyan: EU data protection in police and judicial cooperation matters: Rights of suspects and defendants under attack by law enforcement demands (pdf)
Full-text documentation is available on Statewatch's Observatory on data protection in the EU
Statewatch analysis
EU data protection in police and judicial cooperation matters:
Rights of suspects and defendants under attack by law enforcement demands
the Council is removing data protection for the individual to effect the “principle of availability” (ie: that data held by one agency must be accessible to
all other agencies in the EU) and seeking to ensure that nothing stands in the way of direct / automated access to data by the law enforcement agencies
* the Commission proposal is being fundamentally re-drafted by a Council working party representing the interests of the law enforcement agencies
* the European Parliament is only being “consulted” and has already given its opinion, now there is nothing to stop the Council re-writing the measure and nodding it through – unless the parliament insists on being re-consulted
* No principle to be established on the right of access to data held on data subjects because "in almost all cases" it would not be supplied "because of the
exceptions"
* no national data protection law may “restrict or prohibit” the exchange of personal data with agencies in other EU states
* "national security matters" (internal security agencies) to be exempt from control
* admission that the main 1995 Directive ("first pillar") does not work properly in
the transfer of personal data to third countries
* no obligation to correct errors or mistakes in data passed to EU states or third countries
* data to be passed to agencies in non-EU states whether they have adequate data protection laws or not under existing bilateral agreements
* to amend EU-USA agreements to meet the data protection standards would "adversely affect the EU's credibility"
Also check this out when you go to the link
EU: Visa Information System (VIS) -
"EU VISIT system" takes shape: UPDATED: Draft Regulation on VIS and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (doc no 13861/06, dated 12 October 2006).
Plus Draft Decision on access to VIS by internal security agencies and Europol: UPDATED: Proposals as at 16 October 2005 (EU doc no: 11405/1/06), Proposal as at 19 October 2006 (EU doc no: 14196/06).
B_P so all you're concerned with is Ireland apparently? It went from the EU proper to now just being Ireland that you're using as your comparison? Just want to keep pace with the turns in this discussion.
So Ireland is not part of the EU? It is. So the EU rules for travel are what? You have the same currency, right? Apparently you don't know how the USA is set up either then. Can you talk to me about States Rights. Talk to us about the federal government in comparison to state governemtns and states' having their own tax laws, their own drivers licsenses, their own police forces, stuff like that.
Whats funny is you're still holding onto that "we know what your country is like and we know better than you about it, but you don't know what the EU is like and you're all wrong." And thats credible? Not sure if you see that you're doing that but you are. Kind of funny really. And they call Americans arrogant
"EU data protection in police and judicial cooperation matters:
Rights of suspects and defendants under attack by law enforcement demands ...."
This is dealing with the sharing of information on those suspected to be involved in criminal activity. Not about keeping tabs on library books and phone calls etc.
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 9:03am
[+]
Tom you seem to be getting a little upset about all this. Calm down and take a few deep breaths.
I never mentioned the EU on this ballot, you did.
I said in my ballot I was an Irish man, nothing about the EU.
My reson for posting this ballot was not to tell you how it is in the US but rather to get you to tell me.
Yes Ireland is part of the EU.
The EU rules for travel allow all members of EU countries travel freely within the EU i.e. without the need for a visa but you must carry a passport.
Most EU countries share a single curency but not all of them.
I understand that there is state law and federal law in the US. Is the Patriot Act a federal law? Does it apply to the entire country or can states choose to opt out of it?
I obviously don't know your country as well as you do Tom.
That was the whole reason for this ballot.
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 9:12am
[+]
Voted : Yes
Our government has their own rendition of the constitution. You could call it an "extraordinary rendition".
Nope not getting worked up at all I tend to like to have discusssions with people who are willing to be open minded. I don't think you are Any point I raise you dismiss. Any facts I post you dismiss. See a trend there?
Any facts you post are gospel. Any views you post are untouchable. I haven't seen you give one point in any of this.
Here's what we see. Some Europeans think they are the be all and end all in a debate. you know best, we know nothing. You're all worldly and well traveled and we are not. Your press gives you only the truth and facts, ours does not. You say the USa is ________ and we tell you otherwise and we're "blind or ignorant. We point out facts about the EU and we're wrong and you're right.
Who wants to bother having a meaningful debate with someone who has already decided what the outcome is? no one. Anway have to go so have fun. I suggest you check out that link and I can send you more if you need to learn.
"This is dealing with the sharing of information on those suspected to be involved in criminal activity. Not about keeping tabs on library books and phone calls etc."
^ So Beeps you haven't had a chance to read the 18 page document? heres some more
the "principle of availability"
In response to the “war on terrorism” the "Hague Programme" (adopted on 5
November 2004 by EU governments) included a new concept, the "principle of
availability", meaning that:
"throughout the Union, a law enforcement officer in one Member State who needs
information in order to perform his duties can obtain this from another
Member State, and that the law enforcement agency in the other Member State
which holds this information will make it available for the stated purpose.." (para
2.1)
Since then a series of reports and proposed measures have sought to implement his "principle of availability". These cover specific proposals for access to
fingerprints, DNA records and vehicle licensing details for starters. It is also being
proposed in the Prum Treaty and in Council working parties, that agencies on country A should be given direct and automated access to the databases of agencies in country B.5
The draft Commission proposal reflected the "principle of availability" in Article
1.2 which said:
"Member States shall ensure that the disclosure of personal data to the competent authorities of other Member States is neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of personal data as provided for in this Framework Decision"
The Council draft has retained the same intent though expressed differently, no national data protection law on data protection may "restrict nor prohibit" the
exchange of personal data (EU doc no: 13246/06, Art 1.4)
Thus protection of personal data protection is to be subsumed by the
"principle of availability" - coexistence is impossible.
subsume
v 1: contain or include; "This new system subsumes the old one
I threw that definition of subsume in for you Beeps, though I'm sure you know what it means
Hi Tom.
There are no armed military personnel posted in our airports here in Ireland. The Irish police force does not carry weapons and the army do not have a presence on show at the airport.
The situation in the North was different. We were, and still are, under British occupation. People were being shot and bombs were being set off at regular intervals for over thirty years.
Not the same really is it.
Even given all that we never had an intrusion into our personal space as seems to be taking place in the US.
by B_P on Wed Oct 25, 06 8:34am
Nah, guess not. We just had planes crashed into huge skyscapers killing all on board and thousands in the buildings. We just had the pentagon hit on the same morning and another plane crash in a field that may have been heading to the White House. We just have threats of terrorists using a radiological dirty bomb in a city like NY. Sure, no similarities. Have you been to NYC? Know what happens when buildings like that collapse? Know what would happen if a dirty bomb went off in the financial district. How do you think the world economy would fair then? How many people would die? Know how long they estimate most of NYC would be totally uninhabitable for? Minimum of 20 years. So sure, the situation in Northern Ireland is so much more severe.
The European Council, representing 15 nations, adopted proposals on October 9th 2002 for a package of measures to “improve the European Union’s response to terrorism.”
These included cross-border
co-operation between police forces and the establishment of a European-wide arrest warrant.
On May 30th 2002, the IFJ among others protested when the European Parliament agreed to amend the 1997 European Directive on the Protection of Telecommunications Data and Information to allow member states to pass laws giving the authorities regular access to people’s telephone and Internet communications.
This, said the IFJ, “opens the door to the snooping society in which people’s private communications will become subject to official monitoring."
Giving the police, customs, immigration and intelligence services access to people’s electronic communications goes far beyond existing rules whereby data can only be retained for a short period for “billing” purposes (i.e to help the customer confirm usage details) and then it must be erased.
“This amendment to policy would have been unthinkable before September 11. Politicians are using public uncertainty and security concerns to undermine people’s rights and liberties,” said the IFJ.
The IFJ says that putting telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet usage under official surveillance undermines data protection as well as the capacity of journalists to monitor the apparatus of state and to store information.
“The citizen’s right to private space and for the press to investigate and scrutinise the authorities without intimidation are freedoms that distinguish democracies from authoritarian regimes,” said the IFJ.
However the waiving of Europe’s strict data protection laws has also been done to allow complete sharing of information between Europol and US investigative agencies as part of the process in which European leaders have worked together, and in coordination with the United States, to craft a military, judicial and financial crackdown on terrorism.
The process of co-operation increased sharply in 2004 when commentators and policymakers were quick to identify the Madrid train bombings on 11 March, which killed 190 people, as “Europe’s 9/11.”
European Union leaders moved quickly to reinforce co-ordinated action against terrorism.
Within three weeks of the attacks EU members agreed a range of security measures, including the naming of an anti-terrorism co-ordinator.
They also agreed
• To implement already agreed counter-terrorism measures, such as the pan-European arrest warrant, harmonising penalties for terrorist crimes and the freezing of assets held by outlawed groups
• To retain all telecommunications data, including mobile phone records, for an agreed minimum time to enable intelligence agencies to track calls.
• To step up security at European Union ports.
But differences of approach and reluctance among governments to share more of their sensitive information remain difficult.
There are significant differences over how to respond to the terror attacks blamed on Islamic militants, as well as how to treat Europe's growing Muslim population.
The new anti-terrorism plans are
designed to remedy the eficiencies in the nature and quality of intelligence and information sharing among the EU member states. But the proposals are laden with potential pitfalls.
Gijs de Vries, the new European Union anti-terrorism chief, in
testimony to members of the US Congress in September 2004,
acknowledged that the powers of his position only went so far.
“The role of the Union is still relatively limited,” he said. “Most
of the instruments and competences in the fight against terrorism
remain in the hands of the member states.”
In tandem with the creation of the counter-terrorism official, the European Union plans to create a mechanism to facilitate co-operation and information sharing between the European police and intelligence communities as well as judicial authorities. The prioritised areas of information exchange include: identifying terrorists’ “sleeping
cells”, recruitment methods, financial bases and external connections.
The primary purpose is to streamline existing databases into real-time instruments on terrorist organizations and assets. The most interesting component of this proposal is to foster partnerships with the public and banking sectors; attempting to overcome institutional banking secrecy in some states; and developing an efficient system to follow financial transactions.
Some financial sectors, such as credit card companies, will continue to be reluctant to divulge fraud as it could undermine business confidence.
Another controversial aspect is the proposed introduction of obligatory storing of all telephone and communication data within the EU for specific periods. This would be limited to “trafficking” rather than content. However, many states are still reluctant and extremely unwilling to relinquish confidentiality and privacy
enshrined in data protection legislation.
ecln . org
ecln . org/
Britain’s anti-terrorism rules, among the toughest outside the United States, have required the
suspension of the state’s obligations under European
Human Rights law and have also prompted unprecedented criticism from civil rights groups,
lawyers and the courts.
Only weeks before a general
election in 2005 the government was forced to concede time limits on the laws to guarantee their
temporary renewal by Parliament.
In fact, anti-terrorism measures have done little to ensure Britain is safe and secure from terrorist
attack, but they do much to infringe the civil liberties
of those living in the UK.
And the impact that they
have on terrorism is questionable.
Voted : Yes
The last six times Mister Bush has appeared in Atlanta, either for GOP fundraisers or some neo-policy speech, he's made appearences at publicly-owned venues, where a "loyalty oath" has been eforced, requiring anyone who walks in the door to promise not to ask any anti-Bush questions. That's not my America.
Oh, and Tom?
*Breathe*...
Breathe? thanks for the aura and karma and all but why is that people assume that if you post actual facts that you're all worked up It takes no time to go on line and get facts. I'm not worked up and not pissed in the slightest. So thanks for the advice and all but its lost on me
Speaking for myself only, I haven't felt my freedom being eroded.
Why, just the other day I was trying to order some enriched uranium online, using my internet handle al-mohammed_ jihad_death_to_america, and now I can't fly anymore.
What kind of fascist regime is this?
But seriously, no, our freedoms are find.
Beeps. Now that I've rambled on sufficiently to prove my point, in all seriousness my point is that people need to look at their governments. Its not just here in the USA under Bush that we need to keep a check on but the surpressing of personal liberties is happenig fast and happening all over the place. I worry that people are so focused on us that they're not looking at thier own situation or situations in places like China and the Sudan and yes even in Europe. Is it as bad as the foreign press makes out? no. In total honesty its not at all. I wont deny that the Bush government is a bit heavy-handed but in total sincerity we're not losing freedoms like people think. It politics. People hate bush and tend to not trust Republicans so alot of the rhetoric is driven by that.
You also can't fail to accept that 9/11 changed alot. Regardless of what your views on that day are its a fact that the American public is not used to being attacked so its a whole new way of thinking for us. Lots of countries in Europe have been dealing with terrorism for 30 or 40 years. For us its been 5
Voted : Yes
Note: The EU is a predecessor to the WU...if you know what I mean.
|
|
