EU Court Blocks Passenger Data Deal with U.S. 572
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."
So, has anyone ever ... (Score:5, Funny)
For example: "Must have pasta." ... muhahah.
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:5, Funny)
Mustafa Pasta?
Red Flag! Red Flag!
This whole data-collection nonsense ... (Score:5, Funny)
At least all the relatives still acted surprised when we told them the name.
Re:This whole data-collection nonsense ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:2)
The diatetic meal is very, very different from the diabetic meal.
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:3, Funny)
I tried that once but I was detained and I missed my flight. I guess I shouldn't have requested halhal.
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, just curious since I don't know, but what is the difference between Kosher and Halal (sp?). I thought both Jews and Muslims were following the Torah when it came to diet restrictions. Basically, would it be okay for a Muslim to order a Kosher meal, thus avoiding the hassle of being cavity searched by the TSA?
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Islam preaches about moderation. Anything in abundance is bad, including prayer if it interfers with the general principles of being a good Muslim (e.g. prayer to the exclusion of being an active member of society or devotion to the point of obsession).
Though I have seen passages from the Qu'ran stating that alcohol (or "intoxicants" or "fermented fruits") are banned, I strongly question that stance. Many of these passages, as with other religion documents around the world, are taken out of context and/or questionably translated.
Islam does not contain many absolutes in its philosophy (don't confuse philosophy with practice and culture)...it is a religion of reason and its primary messages are of love, peace, family, society and living a life of moderation.
Yes, you can find many (MANY) webpages stating that there are fundamental truths in Islam and its practice including the "Haram" of alcohol...and I can find a number of sites that state that women have no voice, that "infidels" are anyone who disagrees with some sect's interpretations, yada-yada-yada.
At its root, Islam asks that each individual Muslim question for themselves the essence of their faith and the meaning of its philosophy. Blindly accepting rules and "facts" set out by others does not make one a "good Muslim".
Re:Translation of Qu'ran? (Score:3, Informative)
As for the present, I have an english translation of the text sitting
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So, has anyone ever ... (Score:5, Informative)
Halal is apparently similar, but less strict on the number of "inherently un-Halal" items (for instance, I believe Muslims can eat shellfish). I'm no expert, but I've been told that kosher is a subset of Halal - so Muslims who can't find Halal food can rely on kosher certification in a pinch. I don't think they're supposed to do that as the first option, though, which is understandable (after all, their own authorities should be the one making the call).
You can get foods which are both kosher and Halal - for instance, the My Own Meals brand (they do instant meals and MRE-esque stuff) has a good kosher certification, and at least some sort of Halal certification.
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they do. The same part of the bible that says gay sex is a sin also has similarly strong words for those who eat shellfish. Quote the book itself:
This is where "kosher" comes from. It's food that follows the laws stated in
only lesbians are OK! :) (Score:4, Funny)
Note that while this forbids gay men from having sex with each other, it also (read strictly) excludes heterosexual women from having sex with men! And as for the heterosexual men, well, surely leading the heterosexual women into sin is itself a sin! Thus, the only blessed, bible-certified-and-approved form of sex is lesbian sex!
Directive & Articles (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:Directive & Articles (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Directive & Articles (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a big difference between US and EU laws. In both organisms state reserves the oversight of contracts between private citizens and corporations. But while in US government backs away from such oversight in any matter that any wacko might label "anti-business", in EU there are lots of laws, that state that some provisions in them cannot be discarded by contracts, and items of contracts contradicting such provisions are illegal and void.
I actually like my state protecting me from monopolies/cartels.
Robert
Re:Directive & Articles (Score:2, Informative)
Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:2)
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
to get the planes that they turned into missiles.
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:2)
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a fact. This is compleatly untrue. There have been active terrorists in the world, constantly for the last 100 years.
I work no more than 1 mile from the last IRA attempt, as far as I can see it did us a lot more good than harm, but that's another matter.
Please don't say that just because they are after you now, the world is "more dangerous" maybe your part of it is, but overall, it's ticking along as normal.
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays, the thing most likely to kill you is not bandits or the plague or maurading Huns, but rather is your own gluttony! And yet our entire country gets bent out of shape just beacuse a few thousand people happened to die in the same incident. Honestly, it isn't that big a problem!
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Not on a death-toll scale, really. Then again, on that same scale the Iraq war isn't much of a problem, either.
There are things besides body counting, however, that matter. The Iraq war is wrong for many reasons, and probably criminal enough that Bush should be jailed and get a death sentence. The 9/11 thingy was likewise wrong for many reasons and
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Interesting)
If the institution is more important than the individual, then the policy is by definition working against civil rights (which are about protecting the individual from the various institutions). Your statement would seem to contradict itself.
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
He said no such thing.
The issue here was not: "it's worth killing 3000 people in the twin towers to keep our civil liberties", it is rather: "it's worth keeping our civil liberties, even after the killing of 3000 people".
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit on that. Please, where is your data?
There is no way anyone or any government can protect against everything or everyone.
True. And it isn't their job to do it. Somehow the US citizen tend to extremes - they want no government at all, or they want to sue if they put their hamster in the microwave. Most people in the EU can live with a balance - we don't expect the government to protect us from everything (especially not our own stupidity
Re:Dear Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
To a comfortable (and therefore apathetic) populace, such a system is inevitable. The market demands infotainment, and debating extremists are much more entertaining than moderate discussions.
An excuse not to let the French into the US now. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An excuse not to let the French into the US now (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An excuse not to let the French into the US now (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:An excuse not to let the French into the US now (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Govt's selling data? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
It seems you have no idea how little EU citizens trust the USA.
Re:Big help (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Sounds like it was more a concern about protection (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
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
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:4, Insightful)
[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.
Re:Sounds like it was more a concern about protect (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Americans are doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the otherhand, it's good to see that the EU is flexing some muscle. Bush I believe will say..."they have some backbone..."
Re:I see no backbone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I see no backbone (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are misunderstanding the situation: it is perfectly fine to belittle a situation that you find stupid, although it often reflects more on the person making the comment than on the subject. That is one of the rights that my grandfather certainly fought for. He is not belittling France's right to self-determination, only the decision they came to. If that is forbidden ground, then the rest of the world needs
Re:I see no backbone (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe thats called "the right of self-determination". Your grandfather probably helped fight for it in World War 2, only for you to belittle it.
Yes, my grandfather was in France in WWII, and fought for France's right of self-determination, and he'd be one of the first to belittle some of the things they've chosen to do with that right.
Similarly, I believe deeply in the democratic process, but that doesn't mean that I automatically approve of every action taken by every democratic government.
Re:I see no backbone (Score:3, Insightful)
ZOMG, an elected government listened to unhappy voters!
Re:Americans are doomed! (Score:3, Insightful)
No he wont. The economic damage to the U.S. from such self imposed sanctions would be catastrophic. If the U.S. were to boycott EU planes you just boycott American airlines until the U.S. caves.
Everyone ought to call America's bluff on this and it would soon become obvious how much of a paper tiger the Bush administration is.
The U.S. is already doing grievous economic damage to itself in the wake of 9/11, squandering vast su
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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...
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Consider the consequences for BA, Air France, et al.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
- 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
Don't forget ... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
what financial aid? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Marshall plan to EU 2 trillion in 2005 dollars (Score:3, Informative)
>provided nearly 267 billion postwar dollars in aid to Europe -- which equals over two trillion of today's dollars.
Don't know where you got your figures from, but they're way out. The Marshall plan provided $13 billion dollars to Europe (source: http://usinfo.state.gov/ [state.gov] the equivalent of $90 billion in today's money -- a figure, incidentally, nearly 100 times smaller than th
A victory for terrorism (Score:5, Funny)
Difficult position for airlines (Score:5, Interesting)
"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).
Re:Difficult position for airlines (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Difficult position for airlines (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Difficult position for airlines (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Visas? (Score:2)
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
Re:Visas? (Score:2)
Re:Visas? (Score:2)
For worse case senario of this look at Merhan Karimi Nasseri [snopes.com]
Re:Visas? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Visas? (Score:2)
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.
What if the shoe were on the other foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What if the shoe were on the other foot? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:What if the shoe were on the other foot? (Score:2)
Re:What if the shoe were on the other foot? (Score:2)
what are those 34 items? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:what are those 34 items? (Score:2)
and god knows what they can mine from users using any bonus program
Re:what are those 34 items? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:what are those 34 items? (Score:4, Informative)
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:
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)
Sharing info BAD.
Logging all internet traffic(EU data retention acts) GOOD.
Huh?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
This just increases hassles for EU citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:why EU ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't believe what you read in the papers or see on TV. America isn't the land of 6'2" blonde cowboys.
it did happen in my country... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I have a problem with this.
Remember, the hijackers in 2001 were all in the country legally. We had all the info on them we needed, either it just didn't add up or we failed to act upon it.
There's no way I'm surrendering my email address (amongst other things) to fly.