Questionable Motives behind Fingerprint Exchange with US
Published in Der Standard
(Austria) on 19 January 2012
by Irene Brickner (link to original)
(Austria) on 19 January 2012
by Irene Brickner (link to original)
Translated from
by Richard Burck.
Edited by Jessica Boesl .
The planned data comparison with big brother is not unquestionable.
Sixteen countries across the European Union are currently discussing a lawful bilateral agreement to exchange police data with the United States. Four countries are still debating or considering an agreement — among them Austria, which previously should have never acquitted itself, according to the briefing, and was able to demand data protection for its own country. The exact details are unknown, or so they say: The U.S. negotiates with every country alone — and confidentially.
Now the agreement is in the final stretch despite stomach pains from data protectors and the opposition. The government, the state department and the department of interior want to overcome the opposition. If the concerns are legitimate, what for example, today, Friday, should be discussed again at a meeting with the data protection council?
The agreement to exchange fingerprint and DNA data with the United States is not, for Austria, important to making crime prevention more efficient. For Austria, it’s more about freedom from U.S. visa requirements, because the U.S. wants to keep an eye on our export- and tourism-oriented republic. Here, the big brother on the other side of the Atlantic is applying strict safety criteria to the realm of the “Visa Waiver Program” to get a better look into other countries’ police data. Even if this isn’t the main purpose of this bilateral agreement, it’s still questionable.
Sixteen countries across the European Union are currently discussing a lawful bilateral agreement to exchange police data with the United States. Four countries are still debating or considering an agreement — among them Austria, which previously should have never acquitted itself, according to the briefing, and was able to demand data protection for its own country. The exact details are unknown, or so they say: The U.S. negotiates with every country alone — and confidentially.
Now the agreement is in the final stretch despite stomach pains from data protectors and the opposition. The government, the state department and the department of interior want to overcome the opposition. If the concerns are legitimate, what for example, today, Friday, should be discussed again at a meeting with the data protection council?
The agreement to exchange fingerprint and DNA data with the United States is not, for Austria, important to making crime prevention more efficient. For Austria, it’s more about freedom from U.S. visa requirements, because the U.S. wants to keep an eye on our export- and tourism-oriented republic. Here, the big brother on the other side of the Atlantic is applying strict safety criteria to the realm of the “Visa Waiver Program” to get a better look into other countries’ police data. Even if this isn’t the main purpose of this bilateral agreement, it’s still questionable.