Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

EU Court Blocks Passenger Data Deal with U.S. 572

Posted by Zonk
from the not-so-fast-cowboy dept.
Reinier writes "The BBC reports that the European Court of Justice has ruled the airline data agreement with the United States is illegal. The 'agreement' required airlines to share 34 items of personal data of their passengers with American authorities at least fifteen minutes before take-off of any flight to the US. The Court of Justice examined the agreement after the European Parliament objected. A PDF of the ruling is available online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Court Blocks Passenger Data Deal with U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • by Ihlosi (895663) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:39AM (#15427849)
    ... made bogus meal requests on international flights just to confuse the data mining algorithm ?

    For example: "Must have pasta." ... muhahah.

    • by chiskop (926270) <chiskop@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:48AM (#15427883) Homepage

      Mustafa Pasta?

      Red Flag! Red Flag!

    • Just make sure you're clear on which meal you want.

      The diatetic meal is very, very different from the diabetic meal.
    • ... made bogus meal requests on international flights just to confuse the data mining algorithm ?

      I tried that once but I was detained and I missed my flight. I guess I shouldn't have requested halhal.

  • Directive & Articles (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nhojovadle.> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:40AM (#15427850) Journal
    The PDF linked states:
    The Court found that Article 95 EC, read in conjunction with Article 25 of the directive, cannot justify Community competence to conclude the Agreement with the United States that is at issue.
    I could not find anything entitled Article 95 EC, did they mean Directive 95/46/EC [wikipedia.org] which is in regards to the protection of personal data?

    Article 25 of the EU Directive [cdt.org] can be found on a number of sites and states that non-member countries may be provided with member data in the case of need. It's quite vague (standard law-talkin' guys strategy) so I could see it being read either way--entirely open ended!
    • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:58AM (#15427940) Homepage Journal
      It's quite vague (standard law-talkin' guys strategy) so I could see it being read either way--entirely open ended!
      No, its not. The principles are vague, Article 26 itself is pretty clear. It says that you can't transfer to third countries unless you can guarantee data protection up to the level of Directive 95/46/EC unless
      (a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer; or
      (b) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller or the implementation of precontractual measures taken in response to the data subject's request; or
      (c) the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the interest of the data subject between the controller and a third party; or
      (d) the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; or
      (e) the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or
      (f) the transfer is made from a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person who can demonstrate legitimate interest, to the extent that the conditions laid down in law for consultation" are fulfilled in the particular case.
      Only (b) or (c) could possibly apply here, and the Court have decided they don't.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Article 95 EC refers to to Article 95 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community [eu.int]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:41AM (#15427854)
    This is what courts standing up for individual privacy rights look like.

    Note how the US played the "Terrorism" card, and the courts didn't immediately fold.
    You may wish to send this news item to your Attorney General.
    Or you may wish to remain asleep.

    Whatevers good with you.
    • Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think those words ring just as true today as they did 200 years ago.
    • US Gov TO EU Airlines: "It's my way or the highway... literally."
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:14AM (#15428024)
      And I, for one, an American with a family history that goes back to the Mayflower, welcome this with open arms!

      My fellow Americans are definitely asleep. They spout off about how "moral" they are, and then allow torture. They support war crimes. They support public bribery of every public official. They allow their elections to be rigged with wild abandon. And, through their ignorance and abject greed they are quite willing to kill off the rest of the world with their environmental stupidity.

      Europe is my only remaining hope. Bring it on! Please! In all fairness, you should just let us drown in our own effluent, but it really is a small and interconnected world. It is in your best interest, as well as ours, for you to "bitch slap" the hell out of us, and preferrably soon.

      BillyDoc
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:41AM (#15427855)
    I bet THAT makes the UK jealous.
    • The UK still has it better; the French have to cross water to get to the UK, but you can walk here from Quebec. They're building the fence along the wrong border.
      • Because a lot of terrorists striking the US came through this route lately...

        Seriously, this and other measures are totally useless and inefficient to deter terrorists. The 9/11 hijackers had perfectly valid travel papers and would have been most likely granted entry even had these rules been in place. Building fences isn't going to do much, I'd rather suggest solving the problem at the source - US involvement in the Middle East.
        • The 9/11 hijackers had perfectly valid travel papers and would have been most likely granted entry even had these rules been in place.

          Some of them entered the US with perfectly valid travel papers. As I recall, the 9/11 Commission Report mentioned that two of them entered with obviously-forged passports, but, for some reason, the customs guys at the border decided to let it slide. Others were already known terrorists and should not have been issued visas in the first place.

          You're absolutely right that all
  • Big help (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Confused (34234) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:41AM (#15427858) Homepage
    That'll help all those EU-citizens a lot, that had their data sent to the USA in the past two years to be stored for the rest of eternity is all kind of dubious databases in the USA.

    But better late than never. I always though the implementation of the treaty should have been postponed until this ruling.
    • Re:Big help (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lbrandy (923907)
      That'll help all those EU-citizens a lot, that had their data sent to the USA in the past two years to be stored for the rest of eternity is all kind of dubious databases in the USA.

      So is that database they are building in the UK to track the time and location of every single liscense plater dubious or not?

      Here's a newsflash: In most of Europe, you are far more "watched" than in the US. Therefore, Europeans lecturing the US on storing personal information is like worrying that you left the oven on when
      • Re:Big help (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Confused (34234) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:02AM (#15427964) Homepage
        Well, the point isn't to preotect you from getting into legal databases, the point is that a citizen you have certain rights to the data in those databases. And no, those rights don't allow you to have your criminal record deleted immediately or forbid the gouvernement to collect data about you.

        These rights are more to prevent the gouvernement to sell this data to the next direct marketeer, which will use it to make personalised adds along the road you drive every morning, or to have pharmacies sell your drug purchase history to your employer.
        • These rights are more to prevent the gouvernement to sell this data to the next direct marketeer, which will use it to make personalised adds along the road you drive every morning, or to have pharmacies sell your drug purchase history to your employer.

          The political weasels would be more much likely to 'make the data available' to their bretheren the corporate weasels in exchange for campaign contributions than to sell it outright. They may have had their sense of morality surgically removed but they are no
      • Re:Big help (Score:2, Insightful)

        by dwater (72834)
        ...but the *USA* will have those databases.

        It seems you have no idea how little EU citizens trust the USA.
      • Re:Big help (Score:3, Insightful)

        by m874t232 (973431)
        First of all, just like Americans, Europeans trust their own government more than foreign governments.

        Second, do you seriously believe that in the US, there won't be widespread tracking of license plates? It will likely be carried out by some company, who will then sell the data to almost anybody who asks. In fact, in the US, companies can operate with near impunity, and the US government apparently circumvents restrictions on itself by outsourcing.

        The real difference in terms of privacy between the US an
      • Re:Big help (Score:3, Interesting)

        by arivanov (12034)
        UK is the wrong example. By far.

        UK does not have a centralised database of its cittisen information and there is a patchwork of agency databases which often conflict even within a single agency. As a result in order to compensate for this the UK govt and especially the Tony Bliar one constantly engages in all kinds of 1984-like schemes which end up being miserable failures.

        The rest of EU has long gotten over it. There the govt keeps less data on its cittisens, but it is usually of considerably higher qualit
    • Re:Big help (Score:5, Funny)

      by Khammurabi (962376) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:57AM (#15427934)
      That'll help all those EU-citizens a lot, that had their data sent to the USA in the past two years to be stored for the rest of eternity is all kind of dubious databases in the USA.
      Well then thank god I'm an American! Oh wait.
  • by RsG (809189) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:42AM (#15427861)
    From TFA, it seems the issue was more that the US doesn't guarantee sufficient protection of passanger data. Given that this data includes things like CC numbers and identifying information, I could see the concern.

    Which raises the question as to what specifically the EU courts find lacking in US data security. Perhaps there are too few checks and balances with regard to who gets access to passenger data?
    • Which raises the question as to what specifically the EU courts find lacking in US data security.

      The EU has strong legal protection for data privacy that the US simply lack. The default position in the EU is that no personal data may be shared between two parties without the explicit agreement of the person. Each member state has its own law, but certain principles are common to all [wikipedia.org], and further safeguards mean that data cannot be transferred outside the EU without similar guarantees.

    • by Confused (34234) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:50AM (#15427897) Homepage
      Which raises the question as to what specifically the EU courts find lacking in US data security.


      Basically, the main problem of the database-war between the USA and the EU is, that the EU guarantee to its citizens certain rights concerning their data, like not having it transferred to third parties, the right to review the data about oneself and some limited rights to have the data erased. To prevent clever corporations to circumvent those regulations by shipping the data outside the EU, there's a directive that personal data can only be shipped to countries, that have similar data-protection rights (so called safe havens). As you can imagine, the USA isn't really too interested in giving its own citizens data protection rights from corporations and the gouvernement and even less on granting those rights to foreigners. Thus, no data transfer of personal data of EU-citizens to the USA.
      • Basically, the main problem of the database-war between the USA and the EU is, that the EU guarantee to its citizens certain rights concerning their data, like not having it transferred to third parties, the right to review the data about oneself and some limited rights to have the data erased. To prevent clever corporations to circumvent those regulations by shipping the data outside the EU, there's a directive that personal data can only be shipped to countries, that have similar data-protection rights (s
        • That means all the stores are collecting information on their customers, and sending it to the police station to be kept in a central database

          I think you're very badly misinformed here. In the EU and affiliated countries a store (or any other business) may only collect data, which is directly related to the business transaction with the customer and they are prohibited to share such data.

          As a matter of fact (depending on the country) not even the various government agencies are permitted to share personal

        • by G. W. Bush Junior (606245) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:43AM (#15428174) Journal
          Either the evil corporations have access to your info, or the government does.

          [sarcasm] Oh, great! So if I don't want my government to spy on me I can move to the US! That's wonderful.[/sarcasm}

          It's the most ridiculous thing I heard all day.

          Oh, and another ting: Why do you trust random corporations more than your government?!?! At least with the goverment you have a say in who makes the decisions, and you can punish them if they screw up.
          This is of course just a realization that the US isn't as democratic as they like to pretend, as evidenced by the low voter turnouts at elections.

          Go ahead and mod me down! But please stop and think if this troll might be making just a little bit of sense before you hit the moderate button.
        • by Confused (34234) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:46AM (#15428194) Homepage
          The EU, by and large, trusts their governments to deal with privacy and controlling it. The US, by and large, trusts the private sector.


          Yes, that sums it up quite well. And given the choice, trusting the gouvernement seems more reasonable, as they already have certain monopols (law making, law enforcement, military power). So if your gouvernement becomes corrupt to a point that even basic trust isn't justified any more, your personal data will be your least concern. Another feature of gouvernements is that it keeps the level of corruption rather equal across the branches. So if you still have a few branches you trust, there's a good chance you can trust the other branches as much.

          On the other side you have the private sector, where every corporation does as it thinks it can get away with. If one oversteps the boundary, they'll declare bankrupt and the same people start another corporation with a different name and the same game. Self-regulation has been proven many times in the past not to work, a very popular example for this is boiler safety in the UK and US in the late 1800s. If the major concern is the protection of weak individuals against corporations, asking the industry to play fair and nice is naïve, if so much money can be made by not playing nice. Also corporations will have a hard time being more trustworthy than the gouvernement, which can threaten the people working in the corporation. Never underestimate the persuavie power of free roaming death-squads.

          To balance things out, the private sector works far better if the goal is effiency to deliver products and services. So if you want cheap and efficient data protection, go to the private sector, if you want trustworthy data protection, stay with the gouvernement.
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:42AM (#15427864)
    With open southern and northern borders, the US government still thinks that al-Qaida and the like will use an airline to get into the US? I laugh at them.

    On the otherhand, it's good to see that the EU is flexing some muscle. Bush I believe will say..."they have some backbone..."

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by creimer (824291) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:42AM (#15427866) Homepage
    Does anyone think that US will start banning flights or threaten to remove financial aid if the data isn't shared? Would a European country give in to the US or obey the court ruling?

    I think this is going to be a sticky mess since the rule of law isn't being respected in the US now and US attitudes towards foreign courts has always been "screw you, mate!"
    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RasendeRutje (829555) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:50AM (#15427899)
      I think every traveller to the US will have to sign a document that allows the Flight Company to pass your personal data to the US (a.k.a. selling your soul).
      You don't sign the document? You don't get on the flight.

      Result: terrorists fly to mexico and walk into the US.
      • Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Tarkadot (800596)

        Why bother flying into Mexico? Just buy an identity from a shady US data collector and you're all set...

        I really don't think any document signing or data collection is going to prevent any terrorist from getting into the states with false documents or under false pretenses.
      • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by glesga_kiss (596639) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @03:37PM (#15430595)
        Result: terrorists fly to mexico and walk into the US.

        That's highly unlikely. Firstly, Canada would be a better choice to do that. Secondly, there are a dozen easier ways. Sail in on a private charter, cargo ship, or a cruise with false tourist visas. Similar tricks can be done with air traffic to smaller airports. The walk from Mexico is through a desert and the end is guarded by rednecks with dogs & guns. Tough choice...

    • Yes. I figure the US will state that only flights that comply with these information requests will be allowed to land in or overfly US territory.

      Consider the consequences for BA, Air France, et al.
      • In the worst case, all flights to the USA will have an intermediate stop in Canada, Mexico or some remote island in the atlantic. There on paper, the flight leaving the EU will end and a new flight to the USA will start and the USA get all the data they want.

        But I think it more likely that either the USA drops the requirements for the EU, or they'll agree on some kind of safe-haven for the data.
      • Or the other option: get the anal probe at Customs. Seriously, this is just going to be a major slowdown when you get to the US. Customs agents will STILL require the exact same information.
      • I live in Canada and having transiting through the USA is a bitch, and therefore do my best to avoid having USA based transits. The sort of thing that bothers me, and have experienced are:
        - one hour waits in the passport queue with two agents, while USA citizens get four agents which spend most of the time waiting
        - double immigration checks on return to Canada (once in USA and once in Canada)
        - unfriendly agents which ask you to go away and fill in the one missing
        • When you are tired from and 7 hour night flight this is not enjoyable - no I am not into S&M.

          ... that after an eight-hour transatlantic flight, everyone begins to look a bit like a terrorist.

        • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)

          by rpjs (126615)
          one hour waits in the passport queue with two agents, while USA citizens get four agents which spend most of the time waiting

          Whatever else you might say about US immigration, I've never yet had an experience where if the "US citizen" line agents run out of work the agent superivising the line hasn't sent people from the non-US line to those agents.
    • The EU is receiving financial aid from the US? That's news to me.
    • Don't forget that EU rules apply to all companies doing business in the EU, and that includes all US carriers flying into EU as well. So if the US bans flights for this reason, they will ban flights by US carriers as well as EU ones.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by meringuoid (568297) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:13AM (#15428019)
      Does anyone think that US will start banning flights or threaten to remove financial aid if the data isn't shared? Would a European country give in to the US or obey the court ruling?

      Hopefully, the US will back down. If not... this could turn out to be nasty. There've been a couple of trade wars with the US in recent years - recall the dispute over bananas, and then over steel - but this one would be a whole lot bigger. Banning flights? Brussels would retaliate hard.

      Realistically, though, the US customs will just start demanding the information directly from the passenger on arrival, rather than getting it from the airline. It would be a big hassle, and would leave Europeans with an even worse impression of Americans than they already have, but at least it wouldn't spark off another trade war costing billions.

    • Interested: what financial aid is USA currently giving the EU? .. or does the parent mean trade deals?

      Probably a compromise will happen, USA will promise not to sell on the data and keep it really secure, honest guv. I thought we were about to have a trade war anyway about Boeing / Airbus, what happened to that one?
    • financial aid? (Score:5, Informative)

      by m874t232 (973431) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:34AM (#15428127)
      The US doesn't give "financial aid" to Europe. Instead, Europe and Asia are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the US to keep the US economy afloat (it's not called "financial aid", but "loans and investments", but the end result is not that different). They are doing this because the US is an important export market for Europe and Asia and the world economy would collapse if they didn't do this.

      So, the US has some credible economic threats against Europe, but withdrawal of "financial aid" isn't it. The US threat is more like "we can commit economic suicide and take you with us"; it's a threat better exercised with great care.
  • by kkiller (945601) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:45AM (#15427872)
    Hell, this could open the floodgates for any kind of crazed nut-case [wikipedia.org].
  • by debest (471937) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:46AM (#15427879)
    "If we don't supply the information to the United States authorities then we're liable to fines of up to $6,000 per passenger and the loss of landing rights," he said.

    "And if we do supply the data, potentially we're breaking the law [on data protection]."


    So what are their options? Are the airlines going to have to completely suspend flights to the United States if neither side backs down?

    (Not that this possibility isn't intriguing, but I certainly wouldn't want to have to be a manager in one the major European carriers for the next few months).
    • "If we don't supply the information to the United States authorities then we're liable to fines of up to $6,000 per passenger and the loss of landing rights," he said.

      Are the airlines going to have to completely suspend flights to the United States if neither side backs down?

      That would get in the way of their profits somewhat. (Though various US airlines would probably welcome a little less competition...)

      I suspect that the airlines will demand the information themselves as a precondition of flying wi

      • That would get in the way of their profits somewhat.

        So would getting fined to the tune of $6000 per passenger if they were to remain subject to the US rules.

        I suspect that the airlines will demand the information themselves as a precondition of flying with them. In other words no actual change at all in the situation, apart from the responsibility for collecting the data no longer being a governmental thing. Technically, it becomes voluntary... though the airline won't let you onto the plane if you don't gi
      • I suspect that the airlines will demand the information themselves as a precondition of flying with them.

        That won't work. You seem to misunderstand the situation.

        The thing is, the airlines, in Europe, already collect all this information (or for the part they don't nessecarily, like email-adress, I'm certain the US accepts this field being left blank) while handing out the ticket. For example, by nesecity they'll know how you paid for your ticket, at what date you ordered it, if you bougth a one-way or

  • Visas? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alfred, Lord Tennyso (975342) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:50AM (#15427895)
    Could the US simply refuse visas to anybody who will not provide them that information?

    And could they turn away a plane carrying somebody without a visa?

    In general EU citizens get their visas in customs, after having landed in the US, and US citizens get the same treatment in the EU. That's always struck me as odd, actually; what if they refuse you a visa? You've flown all that way for nothing?

    I wonder if they need to move the visa procedures back closer to the country of origin. That would probably be a massive regulatory hassle. And it would sure make relations between the US and the EU seem chillier.
    • Could the US simply refuse visas to anybody who will not provide them that information?

      Yes. They can refuse to give anyone a visa, no special reason needed.

      And could they turn away a plane carrying somebody without a visa?

      Sure.

      That's always struck me as odd, actually; what if they refuse you a visa?

      Three words: You are screwed.

      You've flown all that way for nothing?

      Yup. Next time you fly over there, read all the little pieces of paper more carefully. One of them should say that you waive th

    • that's exactly why, for the vast majority of countries that do not have visa-free agreements with each other, you are supposed to get visas from your destination country's embassy or consulate before departure. this can be hard for EU and US citizens to remember, since both the EU and US have visa-free travel agreements with pretty much all other nations of the first world. EU citizens in fact usually don't get visas in the US at all - they simply get their passports stamped for visa-exempt entry. yes, U
    • They would not turn the plane back but the person would not be allowed passed customs. The few times it has happened, if not legal able to enter a country the ticket agent should stop you, then it is probably your responsibility to find a way back home.
      For worse case senario of this look at Merhan Karimi Nasseri [snopes.com]
      • then it is probably your responsibility to find a way back home.

        Probably not. They would find the next flight that goes where you came from in the first place, and make very sure that you did not miss it.

    • Re:Visas? (Score:5, Informative)

      by radish (98371) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:14AM (#15428023) Homepage
      You don't get visas at the immigration desk in the US, you get visas at the US embassy in your home country before you leave. I have a US visa and I have to travel back to my home country every few years to get it renewed. However, most EU citizens on short trips to the US don't need visas, they travel on what's called the visa waiver program. That requires you to fill in a short form essentially stating you're a "normal person" and you get a stamp at immigration and in you go.

      And yes, the US - like every other country - can deny anyone entry even if they have a visa. That's one of the risks of international travel.

      The point however is that these regulations aren't to prevent terrorists entering the US through an airport, they're to prevent them entering through a skyscraper (think 9/11) so collecting the personal info on the ground after they land is too late.

      I'm not saying I think they're effective - obviously not, they're dumb like most of the recent security measures - but the whole point is to know about the incoming passengers before they hit US airspace.
    • As someone pointed out you get your visa from the embassay not Customs.

      Incidently Ireland has US customs in Dublin+Shannon airport. A throwback to the days when Irish needed a visa to get into the US and were routinely trying to illegally enter. Not sure any other country does this.
  • by mark-t (151149) <`markt' `at' `lynx.bc.ca'> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:53AM (#15427912) Journal
    How would Americans feel if their information had to be given to destination countries or their planes would be denied landing rights there?

    How to stamp out international tourism in 1 easy step.

    What the USA is asking won't stop terrorists from getting on board planes. Not for a second. All it has the potential to do is flag innocent people.

    • Why just the other day I heard the US president talking about the "Global War on Tourism".

      At least I think that's what he said. I understand that to show his support for legal immigration, President Bush often pretends to struggle with the pronounciation of simple English words.
    • Well, that's more or less what the Brazilian government felt about having their citizens given the 3rd degree on entry to USA... so they imposed the same inspection on US citizens entering Brazil. Not sure whether it's still there.
    • In reality, I would guess that many foreign countries already have access to this information. If you read about the EU agreement, it has to do with access to databases already maintained by the airlines - the so-called Passenger Name Record (PNR). A quick google will show that the PNR contains the type of data you would expect an airline to keep - your name, address, phone number, booking agent, destination, number of bags, etc. And I would guess that many airlines, particularly those owned by the state
  • How on Earth those items are obtained by airlines in the first place?

    Let us count: SSN, names(3), credit card parameters: (number, expiration, zip code, ok give it 5), altogether hardly more than 20 even if I missed something.

    What are those 34 items?
    • date & time of last 5 flights passenger has been on, destination of these flights, part of any bonus program, telephone number, address

      and god knows what they can mine from users using any bonus program
    • by mbrett (751233) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:27AM (#15428096)
      These are the 34 items, taken from the DHS document at http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CBP-DHS_P NRUndertakings5-25-04.pdf [dhs.gov] which also describes how easily the data can be distributed, and how "deleted after 3.5 years" doesn't really mean what it says, but may mean that your data goes into a file marked "deleted, honest, and reely hard to read because it's raw data" and kept for 8 years or more.

      1. PNR record locator code
      2. Date of reservation
      3. Date(s) of intended travel
      4. Name
      5. Other names on PNR
      6. Address
      7. All forms of payment information
      8. Billing address
      9. Contact telephone numbers
      10. All travel itinerary for specific PNR
      11. Frequent flyer information (limited to miles flown and address(es))
      12. Travel agency
      13. Travel agent
      14. Code share PNR information
      15. Travel status of passenger
      16. Split/Divided PNR information
      17. Email address
      18. Ticketing field information
      19. General remarks
      20. Ticket number
      21. Seat number
      22. Date of ticket issuance
      23. No show history
      24. Bag tag numbers
      25. Go show information
      26. OSI information
      27. SSI/SSR information
      28. Received from information
      29. All historical changes to the PNR
      30. Number of travelers on PNR
      31. Seat information
      32. One-way tickets
      33. Any collected APIS information
      34. ATFQ fields
      • by mbrett (751233) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:57AM (#15428253)
        SABRE defines some of these items as:

        26. OSI information Other Supplemantary Information which does "not require action or a reply by the carrier. They are low-priority messages and are usually used for information purpose only."

        27. SSI/SSR information Special Service Request

        "Use SSR messages when you require an action or a reply to your request for these service items:

        • Send Emergency Contact Information (PCTC)
        • Send OTHS for CC Holder to carriers
        • Send Passport Info (3PSPT)
        • Send Special Meal Request
        • Send Unaccompanied Minor Information
        • Send Wheelchair Request "

        This obviously can include Credit Card and other information relating to connecting flights or to other passengers not even travelling to the USA.

        Passport information is not mandatory for travel agents to demand, but it is often included.

        So much for the exclusion of meal requests from the initial list of 39...

        33. Any collected APIS information - Advanced Passenger Information System

        - "passenger manifests" including name, nationality, passport number, date of birth, etc. - why are they duplicating data on two systems ?

        34. ATFQ fields Automatic Ticket Fare Quote i.e. the price of the ticket and could be commercially sensitive

        The SABRE system (and probably the other CRS systems) seems to have other hidden free text fields in the Passenger Name Record, which can be hidden from other airlines etc, but which are, presumably available to the US Deptment of Homeland Security

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:14AM (#15428022) Journal
    Let me see if I understand.

    Sharing info BAD.
    Logging all internet traffic(EU data retention acts) GOOD.

    Huh?
    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Frenchy_2001 (659163)
      Let me see if I understand.

      Let me help you.

      Sharing info BAD.

      Only when it is done in a manner the person giving the info did not agree to and not following the current laws on sharing and retention. In Europe, people value their personnal information and the people have a right to correction and decision on those infos. This is not the case in the US => there is conflict of the laws and data should not be shared this way.

      Logging all internet traffic(EU data retention acts) GOOD.

      I do not agree with the law
  • It works this way (Score:3, Informative)

    by justinmoo (907840) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @12:02PM (#15428698)
    Hmmm, the /. article incorecctly states 15 minutes before flight departure, the Beeb, have their facts correct. The APIS message (current message between Canada and the US) must be sent with 15 minutes of actual departure e.g. the plane is moving. I'm not clear if this means DOOR CLOSE,TAXI or what ever the message is from FliteData type of systems). So, Canada and the US do this now, and have done for a while. If the EEC court does not like this, stay in the EEC. For the record, I am a Brit living in Calgary, Canada, who has just started working on an airline IT project.
  • Most of this thread has missed the point.

    The U.S. is a soverign nation, not part of the EU. Travel into the U.S. is at the discretion of the U.S.

    All this means is increased screening of people travelling from the E.U. and increased cost to them.

    It doesn't matter at all what the EU says, they don't control entry to the U.S.

    EU: We demand our laws be upheld
    US: That's fine, your laws apply to your land, not ours. Give us the details we want to allow entry.
    EU: No
    US: OK, no entry. Next.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.

Working...