Transatlantic Turbulence: The European Union and United States Debate Over Passenger Data
By Irfan Tukdi
Irfan Tukdi is a J.D. candidate, 2008, at the Houston University Law Center. Before attending law school he worked as a technology risk consultant in the public accounting industry. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration in Management Information Systems from the University of Texas at Austin.
Note: This research guide takes the form of an annotated outline and is intended to serve as a starting point for exploring the legal issues raised by the PNR debate (passenger flight manifests and other passenger data commonly referred to as PNR data). The guide includes references to the relevant statutory materials, government documentation, legal scholarship, and pertinent news. Sources in each sub-section are organized by breadth of treatment and chronology as appropriate.
Published May 2007
The notion that the September 11, 2001 (“9/11”) terrorist attacks dramatically changed America is uncontestable. Fully five years after the fall of the twin towers, the effects of the attacks are prevalent in our daily lives: national security promises to be the decisive issue in the upcoming presidential election and debates on immigration reform dominate talk-radio conversations. More important, however, the attacks have forced citizens to barter civil liberties for increased domestic security.
While these tradeoffs have been highly contentious, the period immediately following the attacks produced an environment of swelling national unity. This newfound cooperative spirit facilitated the swift passage of broad, sweeping legislation to address the nation’s security concerns. However, numerous critics voiced concerns at the breadth of the anti-terrorism legislation and argued that it posed a threat to civil liberties. The broadest and most controversial enactment of the post 9/11 era is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Obstruct Terrorism Act (“Patriot Act”). The Patriot Act greatly expands federal law enforcement agents’ power to combat terrorism. Specifically, the Act broadens federal agents’ authority to wire-tap, seize personal documents including phone bills, emails, business files, and even library records. The Act has been the primary battleground in the domestic order vs. liberty debate.
The Patriot Act, however, is only one of a series of laws enacted after the 9/11 attacks to bolster domestic security. It is also, regrettably, not the only one that has poses grave threats to civil liberties. Though the Patriot Act is rarely cited as an example of legislative restraint, it was signed into law almost two months after the attacks. Congress responded much more swiftly, however, with legislation aimed at revamping the federal aviation security legislative framework and protecting the tattered airline industry from further harm. A mere two weeks after the attacks, Congress enacted the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA), and in the following months the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) was signed into law. The ATSSSA provided airlines with access to substantial short-term funding in the form of loans and grants and established a Victims Compensation Fund for individuals injured in the attacks and for the survivors of those who were killed. The ATSA authorizes the creation of the Transportation and Security Administration and charges this new federal agency with developing new aviation security procedures and guidelines. The ATSA further mandates that airlines traveling to or from the United States provide passenger flight manifests and other passenger data (commonly referred to as PNR data) including passengers’ names, credit card information, and even meal preferences to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Airlines failing to comply with the ATSA’s disclosure requirements face stiff monetary fines and the possibility of losing landing privileges at US airports. Because Europeans are the largest single group of foreign travelers to the US, CBP focused on securing European airlines’ compliance with the new rules. This proved to be more difficult than expected because the ATSA’s disclosure requirements squarely conflict with the European Union Directive 95/46 regarding data privacy and implementing laws of the member states. Indeed, the EU representatives recognized and valued the underlying goals of the US’s anti-terrorism legislation, but nonetheless insisted on compatibility with European laws. As such, the European Commission embarked on what would become a two year negotiation with CPB officials to arrive at an agreement which would clarify the disclosure requirements for European airlines while ensuring compliance with EU law. After close to two years of negotiations with the CBP, the European Commission arrived at a three part resolution: a set of Undertakings adopted by CBP, an adequacy determination by the Commission, and the actual agreement between the Commission and CBP. The Commission’s solution was not well received by European civil liberties groups.
Seemingly fueled by the outcry from privacy protection interest groups and Working Party 29’s adverse report on the Undertakings, the European Parliament challenged the legal validity of the agreement in a complaint filed with the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Parliament’s protest about data protection inadequacy was somewhat sidestepped by the ECJ. The Court found, on somewhat of a technicality, that the Commission did not have the authority to come to an agreement regarding the transfer of PNR data. The Court stated that though the agreement was based on the Data Protection Directive which falls under the EU’s First Pillar—that governs social and economic policies—the agreement with the US should have fallen into the authority of the Third Pillar—which governs criminal matters. The agreement was subsequently annulled. Attempts at renegotiation between the US and the EU regarding PNR data continued but failed to meet the October 1, 2006 deadline imposed by the ECJ to arrive at a new agreement. However, days later on October 6, a “temporary arrangement” lasting until July 31, 2007 was agreed upon. The new agreement already is not without much of the same criticism that inundated the previous agreement and will undoubtedly need further negotiations and revisions.
· Colin Bennett, Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States (Cornell University Press 1992) (discussing the “pressure to globalize data protection”).
· David H. Flaherty, Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies (University of North Carolina Press 1989) (discussing the early history of data protection in Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States).
· Frits W. Hondius, Emerging Data Protection in Europe (Elsevier Science & Technology Books 1975) (focusing on computer privacy).
· Francesca Bignami, Transgovernmental Networks vs. Democracy: The Case of the European Information Privacy Network, 26 Mich. J. Int'l L. 807 (2005) (discussing the regulation of international data transfer).
· Patrick E. Cole, New Challenges to the U.S. Multinational Corporation in the European Economic Community: Data Protection Laws, 17 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 893 (1985) (analyzing effect of European data privacy laws on international business).
· Gail Lasprogata, et al., Regulation of Electronic Employee Monitoring: Identifying Fundamental Principles of Employee Privacy Through a Comparative Study of Data Privacy Legislation in the European Union, United States and Canada, 2004 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 4 (2004) (surveying “regulation of electronic employee monitoring in the European Union (EU), the United States, and Canada and attempts to reconcile conflicting legal standards regarding workplace privacy as they are evolving in the wake of technological advances and managerial needs”).
· Graham Pearce & Nicholas Platten, Orchestrating Transatlantic Approaches to Personal Data Protection: A European Perspective, 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. 2024 (1999) (noting that differences between the EU’s and the U.S.’s view on data privacy arises from different views about the role of government and what amount of private self-regulation is adequate in protecting privacy).
· Paul M. Schwartz, European Data Protection Law and Restrictions on International Data Flows, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 471 (1995) (describing the European privacy standard and issues of international data protection).
· Mike Ewing, Comment, The Perfect Storm: The Safe Harbor and the Directive on Data Protection, 24 Hous. J. Int'l L. 315 (2002) (outlining history of European data privacy).
· European Commission, Data Protection (current website of European Commission detailing history and studies of data protection).
· The Global Encyclopaedia of Data Protection Regulations. (Jan Holvast et al. eds. 1999).
§ Summary: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is an international body whose mission is to coordinate and develop international economic, social, and environmental policies. The Guidelines were formulated to harmonize privacy legislation while ensuring the uninterrupted flow of data.
· 1979 Parliament Resolution, O.J. C 140/34 (1979).
· Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, OECD Doc. 58 (Sept. 23, 1980), available at http://www.oecd.org
· Explanatory Memorandum to Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, PP7-14, OECD Doc. C(80)58(Final) (1980), reprinted in 20 I.L.M. 422.
· OECD, Policy Issues in Data Protection and Privacy : Concepts and Perspectives : Proceedings of the OECD Seminar 24th to 26th June 1974 (OECD Publications Center 1974).
· Colin Bennett, Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States (Cornell University Press 1992) (discussing the difficulty in negotiating and agreeing upon the OECD Guidelines).
· G. B. F. Niblett, Digital Information and the Privacy Problem (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1971).
· Robert G. Boehmer & Todd S. Palmer, The 1992 EC Data Protection Proposal: an Examination of its Implications for U.S. Business and U.S. Privacy Law, 31 Am. Bus. L.J. 265 (1993) (comparing and contrasting Convention with OECD guidelines).
· Hon. Justice Michael Kirby, Legal Aspects of Transborder Data Flows, 11 Computer/L.J. 233 (1991) (discussing motivation and debate leading to creation of OECD guideline).
· P. Howard Patrick, Privacy Restrictions on Transnational Data Flows: A Comparison of the Council of Europe Draft Convention and the OECD Guidelines, 21 Jurimetrics J. 405 (1981).
§ Summary: The objective of the Convention is to strengthen legal protections of individuals with regard to their personal data.
· Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, January, 1981, art. 1, Europ. T. S. No. 108.
· Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Explanatory Report, opened for signature Jan. 28, 1981, Europ. T.S. No. 108 § 18
· Draft Explanatory Report on the Draft Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Council of Europe, CJ-CD (80) 1, Addendum (Jan. 1980), reprinted in 19 I.L.M. 299, 300.
· Resolution on the Protection of the Privacy of Individuals vis-à-vis Electronic Data Banks in the Private Sector, Res. (73)22, Council of Europe, Comm. of Ministers, 224th mtg. (1973); Resolution on the Protection of the Privacy of Individuals vis-à-vis Electronic Data Banks in the Public Sector, Res. (74)29, Council of Europe, Comm. of Ministers, 224th mtg. (1974) (precursors to the Convention for the Protections of Individuals).
· Robert G. Boehmer & Todd S. Palmer, The 1992 EC Data Protection Proposal: an Examination of its Implications for U.S. Business and U.S. Privacy Law, 31 Am. Bus. L.J. 265 (1993) (comparing and contrasting Convention with OECD guidelines).
· Frank Cali, Europol's Data Protection Mechanisms: What do They Know and Whom are They Telling?, 10 Touro Int'l L. Rev. 189 (2000) (describing the Convention as the basis for current European data protection).
· Rosario Imperiali d'Afflitto, European Union Directive on Personal Privacy Rights and Computerized Information, 41 Vill. L. Rev. 305 (1996) (noting that the Convention propagated data protection laws throughout Europe).
· Mike Ewing, Comment, The Perfect Storm: The Safe Harbor and the Directive on Data Protection, 24 Hous. J. Int'l L. 315 (2002) (describing the Convention and the OECD Guidelines as some of the “first European attempts to consolidate and harmonize national data protection legislation”).
§ Summary: The EU Data Protection Directive became effective in 1998. Directives enact EU policy objectives. “They require member states to enact or change relevant national law to achieve those objectives while allowing enough flexibility to retain national legal traditions. Therefore, directives are the most prevalent form of EU law.” Nancy J. King & Brian J. King, Creating Incentives for Sustainable Buildings: A Comparative Law Approach Featuring the United States and the European Union, 23 Va. Envtl. L.J. 397 (2005).
· Legislative History of Data Privacy Directive, Eur. Parl. Doc. (COD/1990/0288)
· Council Directive on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, COM (92) 422 final-SYN 287 (Brussels, Oct. 15, 1992).
· Proposal for a Council Directive Concerning the Protection of Individuals in Relation to the Processing of Personal Data, 1990 O.J. (C 277) 3.
· Report from the Commission: First Report on the Implementation of the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) COM (2003) 265 final (Brussels, Oct. 15, 2003).
· Christopher Kuner, European Data Privacy Law and Online Business (Oxford University Press 2003) (analyzing the effect of the data protection directive on e-commerce).
· Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan, None Of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive (Brookings Institution Press 1998) (examining aspects of the data protection directive in detail).
· Data Protection Directive and Medical Research across Europe (Deryck Beyleveld et al. eds., 2005) (the data protection directive’s affect on medical data privacy).
· Fiona M. Carlin, The Data Protection Directive: The Introduction of Common Privacy Standards, E.L. Rev. 1996, 21(1), 65-70 (1996) (introducing provisions of the data protection directive).
· Fred H. Cate, The EU Data Protection Directive, Information Privacy, and the Public Interest, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 431 (1995) (examining the scope and basic protections offered by the data protection directive).
· Andrew Charlesworth, Information Privacy Law in the European Union: E Pluribus Unum or Ex Uno Plures?, 54 Hastings L. J. 931 (2003) (discussing the Commission of the European Union’s 2002 review of the Data Privacy Directive).
· Christopher Kuner, Privacy, Security and Transparency: Challenges for Data Protection Law in a New Europe, 16 Eur. Bus. L. Rev. 1 (2005).
· Jeffrey B. Ritter et al., Emerging Trends in International Privacy Law, 15 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 87 (2001) (examining several global models of data privacy).
· Spiros Simitis, From the Market to the Polis: The EU Directive on the Protection of Personal Data, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 445 (1995) (outlining history of the data protection directive).
· Michael W. Heydrich, Note, A Brave New World: Complying with the European Union Directive on Personal Privacy Through the Power of Contract, 25 Brook. J. Int'l L. 407 (1999) (evaluating contractual exceptions to the EU directive).
· Tracie B. Loring, Comment, An Analysis of the Informational Privacy Protection Afforded by the European Union and the United States, 37 Tex. Int'l L.J. 421 (2002) (discussing origins of EU and US privacy law and the possibility of the EU Data Protection Directive serving as a model for other countries).
· The ‘Privacy’ Game, Wall St. J., June 21, 1999, at A26 (calling the EU data protection directive “nonsensical and probably unenforceable”).
· Glenn R. Simpson, Businesses Criticize U.S.-EU Privacy Pact As Hurdle to Global E-Commerce Efforts, Wall St. J., April 6, 2000, at A24 (claiming that the data protection directive impedes trans-Atlantic business).
· Fred H. Cate, The Changing Face of Privacy Protection in the European Union and the United States, 33 Ind. L. Rev. 173 (1999) (outlining basic principles and implementation of European and U.S. privacy law).
· Andrew Charlesworth, Clash of the Data Titans? US and EU Data Privacy Regulation, 6 Eur. Pub. L. 253 (2000).
· The EC Privacy Directive and the Future of U.S. Business in Europe: A Panel Discussion, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 669 (1995) (panel discussion about reaching a “convergence” in data privacy protection between Europe and the U.S.).
· Julia M. Fromholz, The European Data Privacy Directive, 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 461 (2000) (exploring background of EU directive and comparing EU privacy laws with US privacy laws).
· Reconciliation of the EU Privacy Directive and U.S. Objections To It, 6 Int’l Cont. Adviser 27 (2000).
· Priscilla M. Regan, The Globalization of Privacy: Implications of Recent Changes in Europe, 52 Am. J. of Econ. & Sociology 257 (1993) (predicting unavoidable strengthening of US privacy law in response to EU directive).
· Steven R. Salbu, The European Union Data Privacy Directive and International Relations, 35 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 655 (2002) (examining the history leading up to the data protection directive and the effects of the directive within Europe and internationally).
· Gregory Shaffer, The Power of EU Collective Action: the Impact of EU Data Privacy Regulation on US Business Practice, European Law Journal 5 (4) (analyzing dispute between EU and US over adequacy of US data privacy protection).
· Alexander Zinser, International Data Transfer Out of the European Union: The Adequate Level of Data Protection According to Article 25 of the European Data Protection Directive, 21 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 547 (2003) (discussing the principles for transfer of data to third countries).
· Amy Monahan, Note, Deconstructing Information Walls: The Impact of the European Data Directive on U.S. Businesses, 29 Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus. 275 (1998) (examining US and European approaches to data privacy, considers impact of EU directive, and calls for legislative data protection reform in the US).
· Patrick J. Murray, Comment, The Adequacy Standard Under Directive 95/46/Ec: Does U.S. Data Protection Meet This Standard?, 21 Fordham Int'l L.J. 932 (1998) (analyzing development of data protection in Europe and the U.S. in the public and private sectors).
· Paul Rose, Comment, A Market Response to the European Union Directive on Privacy, 4 UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff. 445 (1999) (arguing for the resolution of privacy concerns not by comprehensive legislation but market forces).
· Gregory Shaffer, Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International Rules in the Ratcheting Up of U.S. Privacy Standards, 25 Yale J. Int'l L. 1 (2000) (noting that the EU standard of privacy inevitably reaches far beyond Europe).
· Gary E. Clayton, Eurocrats Try to Stop Data at the Border, Wall St. J., Nov. 2, 1998, at A34 (claiming that some of the side-effects of the directive are absurd).
· Bob Sherwood, Over the Border, Against the Rules: DATA TRANSFER: Many Organisations Are Regularly Breaking EU Regulations on Data Protection Without Even Knowing It, Fin. Times, Oct. 21, 2002, at 20 (noting the difficulty in preventing illegal data transfer that occurs during day-to-day business activities).
§ Summary: The 2002 EU Privacy Directive seeks to protect the privacy rights of individuals with respect to personal data processing in the electronic communication sector.
· Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2004 O.J. (L 201) (EC)
· Christopher Kuner, European Data Privacy Law and Online Business (Oxford University Press 2003) (analyzing the effect of the Privacy Directive on e-commerce).
· Peter P. Swire & Robert E. Litan, None Of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive (Brookings Institution Press 1998) (examining aspects of the Privacy Directive in detail).
· Frederic Debusseré, The EU E-Privacy Directive: A Monstrous Attempt to Starve the Cookie Monster?, 13 Int'l J.L. & Info. Tech. 70 (2005) (noting that the privacy directive replaced Directive 97/66/EC and was not immediately adopted by all EU member states).
· Chuan Sun, The European Union Privacy Directive and its Impact on the U.S. Privacy Protection Policy: A Year 2003 Perspective, 2 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 5 (2003) (describing data privacy directive and how it differs from Safe Harbor laws).
§ Robert M. Gellman, Fragmented, Incomplete, and Discontinuous: The Failure of Federal Privacy Regulatory Proposals and Institutions, 6 Software L.J. 199 (1993) (outlining history of data protection within the US and noting that the US had previously been the most innovative in addressing the concept of data privacy).
§ Fred H. Cate, The Changing Face of Privacy Protection in the European Union and the United States, 33 Ind. L. Rev. 173 (1999) (noting that Congress has “virtually ignored” privacy issues for decades).
§ Paul M. Schwartz, Privacy and Participation: Personal Information and Public Sector Regulation in the United States, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 553 (1995) (discussing the difference between the ‘participatory information’ protection of the EU and the ‘information seclusion’ protection of the US).
§ Summary: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal statute that provides that individuals with the right to request access to federal agency records. The FOIA was amended by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA). E-FOIA grants the public access to government documents via computer communications.
· Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 (1976).
· FOIA Legislative History, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foialeghistory/legistfoia.htm (detailing legislative history of the FOIA, including its 1974, 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2002 amendments).
· US Department of State Website, http://foia.state.gov/default.asp (provides general information about the FOIA and the E-FOIA and provides direct access to commonly requested documents pursuant to the act).
· Herbert N. Foerstel, Freedom of Information and the Right to Know : The Origins and Applications of the Freedom of Information Act (Greenwood Press 1999) (examining the development and usability of the FOIA).
· Christopher M. Mason, Comment, Developments Under the Freedom of Information Act—1981, 1982 Duke L.J. 423 (1982) (general overview of the FOIA).
· Kristen Elizabeth Uhl, Comment, The Freedom of Information Act Post-9/11: Balancing the Public's Right to Know, Critical Infrastructure Protection, and Homeland Security, 53 Am. U. L. Rev. 261 (2003) (describing the FOIA and its evolution from 1966, and the “erosion” of the public’s access to government information under the Bush administration).
§ Summary: The Privacy Act attempts to “regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal executive branch agencies.”
· Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a (1994).
· Legislative History of the Privacy Act See House Comm. on Gov't Operations and Senate Comm. on Gov't Operations, S. 3418, 94th Cong. (2d Sess., 1976) (Public Law 93-579) (the entire legislative history of the Privacy Act can be found in this source book).
· Justin D. Franklin & Robert F. Bouchard, Guidebook to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (Thomson West 1986).
· James Beverage, The Privacy Act of 1974: An Overview, 1976 Duke L.J. 301 (1976).
· Todd R. Coles, Does the Privacy Act of 1974 Protect Your Right to Privacy? An Examination of the Routine Use Exemption, 40 Am. U. L. Rev. 957 (1991) (examining if the routine use exemption undermines the safeguarding of individual privacy intended by the Privacy Act).
· US Department of Justice Website (providing an overview of the history, objectives, and provisions of the Privacy Act).
§ Summary: The Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 consolidated many of the federal agencies responsible for border and transportation security into a single department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The principal sub-departments of DHS include: Transportation Security Agency (TSA), and Immigration, Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The CPB, in turn, includes the inspections service of the former Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), the U.S. Border Patrol, the inspections service of the U.S. Customs Service, and the border-related inspection programs of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
· Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135.
· Press Release, The White House, Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security (Oct. 8, 2001) (Executive Order establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council)
· US Coast Guard Website (providing a comprehensive, searchable collection of pertinent legislative history documents in text and .pdf formats)
· Donald F. Kettl, Department of Homeland Security's First Year: A Report Card (The Century Foundation 2004) (evaluating effectiveness of DHS and problems it encountered in its first year).
· Jonathan Thessin, Department of Homeland Security, 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 513 (2003) (detailed analysis of the HSA).
· Darren W. Stanhouse, Comment, Ambition and Abdication: Congress, the Presidency, and the Evolution of the Department of Homeland Security, 29 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 691 (2004) (noting the possibility of abuse of power that arises from the HSA).
· Jackie Calmes, Senate Approves Homeland Bill With 90-9 Vote, Wall St. J., Nov. 20, 2002, at A6 (announcing the creation of the new homeland-security department).
· Newt Gingrich, Congress's Tangled Purse Strings, Wall St. J., June 10, 2002, at A16 (praising the proposal to create a DHS but pointing out that structural reform is needed to make it effective).
· Nicholas Kulish, House Panel Votes Down Parts Of Homeland-Security Plan, Wall St. J., July 12, 2002, at A4 (describing the challenges in restructuring agencies into the new DHS).
· Washington's Mega-Merger, The Economist, Nov. 23, 2002 (predicting challenges the DHS will face such as logistical issues, budget problems, and conflicts with civil libertarians).
§ Summary: The USA Patriot Act was enacted shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in order to provide the federal government with increased authority to track and intercept communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes. The Act empowers the US Secretary of Treasury to investigate and prosecute U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering. The Act creates new crimes, penalties, and provides for more efficient procedures to combat terrorist threats. The Act has been widely criticized by civil rights groups and has been welcomed and appreciated by law enforcement. See George Anastaplo, September Eleventh, the ABC'S of a Citizen’s Responses: Explorations, 29 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 165, 342 (2004).
· Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272.
· Legislative History: The USA PATRIOT Act has a short legislative history. It was introduced shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and was signed into law on October 26, 2001.
o Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI] (introduced 10/23/2001).
o The Center for Democracy and Technology Website (providing key documents from the legislative history of the PATRIOT Act).
· Patriot Debates: Experts Debate the USA PATRIOT Act (Stewart A. Baker et al. eds., 2005) (examining both sides of controversial aspects of the Patriot Act).
Support for the Patriot Act:
o Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Fact Sheet: USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Mar. 6, 2006) (announcing the reauthorization of the Patriot Act—H.R. 3199—with several amendments).
o Press Release, Department of Homeland Security, Fact Sheet: The USA Patriot Act - A Proven Homeland Security Tool (Dec. 14, 2005) (citing specific examples of where the Patriot Act has been successful).
o Tracey T. Gonzalez, Individual Rights Versus Collective Security: Assessing the Constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act, 11 U. Miami Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 75 (2003) (concluding that the Patriot Act adequately balances national security with protecting individual privacy).
o John Ashcroft, Attorney General, The Patriot Act: Wise Beyond Its Years, Wall St. J., Oct. 26, 2004, at A24 (stating that the Patriot Act is a “phenomenal success”).
o Eric Posner & John Yoo, The Patriot Act Under Fire, Wall St. J., Dec. 9, 2003, at A26 (arguing that the Patriot Act’s “changes are modest and are worth the small, if any, reduction in civil liberties”).
Critiques of the Patriot Act:
o David Cole & James X. Dempsey, Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security (The New Press 2006) (alleging that the Patriot Act repeats many of the mistakes of past governments).
o Stephen J. Schulhofer, Rethinking The Patriot Act: Keeping America Safe And Free (Century Foundation Press 2005) (arguing that “although some Patriot Act provisions are essential and do provide protections for civil liberties, some of the powers conferred are too broad and insufficiently attentive to interests of transparency and accountability”).
o Kevin Bankston & Megan E. Gray, Government Surveillance and Data Privacy Issues: Foundations and Developments, 3 NO. 8 Privacy & Info. L. Rep. 1 (2003) (arguing that the Patriot Act passed with “practically no debate over its potentially disastrous impact on civil liberties”).
o Erwin Chemerinsky, Civil Liberties and the War on Terrorism, 45 Washburn L.J. 1 (2005) (criticizing executive and legislative responses to the September 11th terrorist attacks).
o Christopher P. Raab, Fighting Terrorism in an Electronic Age: Does the Patriot Act Unduly Compromise our Civil Liberties?, 2006 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 3 (2006) (concluding that the multiple provisions of the Patriot Act are overbroad and in need of revision).
o Stephen J. Schulhofer, The New World of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, 17 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 531 (2006) (pointing out lack of accountability within the Patriot Act).
o John W. Whitehead & Steven H. Aden, Forfeiting "Enduring Freedom" for "Homeland Security": A Constitutional Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Justice Department's Anti-Terrorism Initiatives, 51 Am. U. L. Rev. 1081 (2002) (asserting that aspects of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional).
o Edward Alden, Ashcroft Takes to Road to Defend Security Law: The Patriot Act, Aimed at Pursuing Terror Suspects in the US, has Become a Victim of its Own Success, Fin. Times, Aug. 20, 2003 (noting that two years after the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act if facing more criticism and pressure).
o Susan N. Herman, The USA Patriot Act and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment, 41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 67 (2006) (arguing that “the Patriot Act destroys essential checks and balances” (citing Susan N. Herman, The USA Patriot Act and the US Department of Justice: Losing Our Balances?, Jurist, Dec. 3, 2001)).
o Ann Beeson & Jameel Jaffer, ACLU, Unpatriotic Acts: The Power of the FBI to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings Without Telling You (2003)
o Nancy Chang, Ctr. for Constitutional Rights, The USA Patriot Act: What's So Patriotic About Trampling the Bill of Rights? (2001)
§ Summary: The Act was passed to improve the federal government’s ability to screen aliens seeking to enter the U.S., facilitate the sharing of border-related information among U.S. agencies, and improve efforts to keep track of foreign students and foreign exchange visitors in the United States.
· Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543 (2002).
· 147 Cong. Rec. H10465, H10466 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 2001) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner stressing the need to revamp immigration law in order to better track terrorists).
· Role of Technology in Preventing the Entry of Terrorists into U.S: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (2001) (examining role of information technology in preventing terrorism and illegal immigration).
· Lawrence M. Lebowitz & Ira L. Podheiser, A Summary of the Changes in Immigration Policies and Practices After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001: The USA Patriot Act and Other Measures, 63 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 873 (2002) (discussing impending security reform, especially with respect to scrutiny of foreign nationals).
· Catherine Etheridge Otto, Comment, Tracking Immigrants in the United States: Proposed and Perceived Needs to Protect the Borders of the United States, 28 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 477 (2002) (describing efforts of Border Security Act to curb illegal immigration to help combat terrorism).
· “Requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans that may include passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment. By creating a consistent security program for all our nation’s ports, we are better able to identify and deter threats.”
· “Also required the establishment committees in all the nation’s ports to coordinate the activities of all port stakeholders, including other federal, local and state agencies, industry and the boating public. These groups, called Area Maritime Security Committees, are tasked with collaborating on plans to secure their ports so that the resources of an area can be best used to deter, prevent and respond to terror threats.” Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
· Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 295, 116 Stat. 2064, 2068 (2002).
· Robert G. Clyne, Terrorism and Port/Cargo Security: Developments and Implications for Marine Cargo Recoveries, 77 Tul. L. Rev. 1183 (2003) (discussing effect of 9/11 on transport of goods by sea).
§ Summary: The Information Awareness Office was established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in January 2002, and began funding the development of the now defunct Total Information Awareness program, subsequently renamed the Terrorism Information Awareness program .The TIA program researched tracking and storing personal information of millions of Americans to identify potential terrorists. The prospect of mass “dataveillance” brought about criticisms and concerns that the TIA violated civil liberties and the right to privacy.
· Electronic Privacy Information Center, "Terrorism" Information Awareness (TIA), (introducing TIA program with links to the TIA Report to Congress, then-director Pointdexter’s 2002 speech about TIA, and description of the TIA system).
· Seth F. Kreimer, Watching the Watchers: Surveillance, Transparency, and Political Freedom in the War on Terror, 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 133 (2004) (describing history of domestic data surveillance).
§ Summary: The Air Commerce Act of 1926 was some of the earliest federal legislation designed to ensure aviation safety.
· Air Commerce Act, ch. 344, §§2(c), 4, 44 Stat. 569, 570 (1926)
· Paul S. Dempsey, Transportation: A Legal History, 30 Transp. L.J. 235 (2003) (discussing purpose of Air Commerce Act).
· Ryan S. Holtan-Murphy, Flying the Unfriendly Skies: Federal Aviation Regulations as Regulatory Takings, 2003 Wis. L. Rev. 699 (2003) (examining the disparity between stated goals of aviation legislation and their actual effectiveness).
§ Summary: The Federal Aviation Act was created in 1958 and established the Federal Aviation Administration to centralize governance of air transport.
· 49 U.S.C. § 40101 (2002).
· Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Enforcing Aviation Safety Regulations: The Case for a Split-Enforcement Model of Agency Adjudication, 4 Admin. L.J. 389 (1991) (discussing the general structure of aviation regulation).
· Gregg D. Martin, Enforcement of Federal Aviation Regulations by the Federal Aviation Administration, 53 J. Air L. & Com. 543 (1987) (discussing policies and procedures followed by the Federal Aviation Administration in enforcing aviation regulations).
§ Summary: “Establishes the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and allows for enhanced security screening at U.S. airports, as well as the authority to place federal air marshals on U.S. flights.” See InfoUSA, Selected Laws
· Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).
· Paul J. Keating et al., Recent Developments in Aviation and Space Law, 38 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 205 (2003) (discussing aviation changes post-9/11, for example, the ATSA, security screening, and other issues).
· Kent C. Krause, Putting the Transportation Security Administration in Historical Context, 68 J. Air L. & Com. 233 (2003) (noting increased post-9/11 security surrounding the already heavily regulated airline industry).
· Gregory Robert Schroer, Doomed to Repeat the Past: How the TSA is Picking Up Where the FAA Left Off, 32 Transp. L.J. 73 (2004) (discussing the history of the FAA and continued problems of the ATSA).
· Provides airlines up to $10 billion in loans and $5 billion in grants to compensate for losses due to the attacks on September 11, 2001
· Establishes an Air Transportation Stabilization Board to administer loans
· Establishes compensation program for individuals who were killed or injured from the attacks on September 11, 2001, and their survivors
· Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001).
· Tamara A. Marshall, The Warsaw Convention: A Cat With Nine Lives Walks the Plank One More Time, 22 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 337 (2002) (discussing the ATSSSA’s effects, including victim compensation and airline insurance coverage).
· David T. Norton, Recent Developments in Aviation Law, 67 J. Air L. & Com. 1107 (2002) (detailed summary of the ATSSSA).
§ CAPS, a now defunct security system, was an automated procedure that analyzed information contained in airline passenger records to determine whether passengers posed a security threat. The system assessed data contained in passenger records based on criteria developed by the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security Intelligence. CAPS separated airline passengers into two groups, high risk and low risk. Most of the profile criteria were never disclosed. However, many of the criteria the system used were determined through analysis of public records. “It is likely that CAPS profiles take at least some of the following factors into account: passenger's address; method of ticket purchase; when the ticket was purchased; travel companions; rental car status; departure date; flight destination and origin; passenger destination; and the round trip or one-way nature of the ticket. The carry-on and checked bags of high-risk passengers (called selectees in airline security parlance) are subjected to additional security measures. Northwest Airlines began the development of the CAPS system in 1994. Development efforts intensified after a TWA flight mysteriously crashed; investigators’ initial (erroneous) belief that a bomb was involved spurred a renewed focus on developing the CAPS system. Armed with a grant from the FAA, Northwest Airlines completed the initial development of CAPS in 1996. The FAA then modified CAPS into CAPPS and, in 1997, CAPPS technology was offered to airlines by the FAA for voluntary adoption.” (Nat’l Materials Advisory Bd., Comm’n on Eng’g & Technical Sys., & Nat’l Research Council, Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: First Report (National Academy Press 1999)
§ CAPS/CAPPS was met with significant criticism and ultimately was not widely employed. CAPPS was subsequently replaced by CAPPS II which in turn was supplanted by Secure Flight.
· The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 required the FAA to help airlines to develop CAPS as part of its overall security effort. Pub. L. No. 104-264, § 307, 110 Stat. 3213, 3253 (1996).
· Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on Aviation Security and the Future of the Aviation Industry (discussing origin of CAPS system).
· Stephen W. Dummer, Comment, Secure Flight and Data Veillance, a New Type of Civil Liberties Erosion: Stripping Your Rights When You Don't Even Know It, 75 Miss. L.J. 583 (2006) (history of CAPS, CAPPS II and Secure Flight).
§ Numerous critics have voiced their concern regarding CAPS/CAPPS’ effectiveness and potential for abuse:
· Testimony of Katie Corrigan Legislative Counsel American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office on Air Passenger Profiling Before the Aviation Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Feb. 27, 2002 (arguing that profiling is ineffective as a security measure, may result in illegal discrimination, and violates individual’s privacy rights).
· Nat’l Materials Advisory Bd., Comm’n on Eng’g & Technical Sys., & Nat’l Research Council, Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: First Report (National Academy Press 1999) (noting high-risk passengers face additional security measures).
· Samidh Chakrabarti & Aaron Strauss, Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System (contesting CAPS’ efficacy as a security mechanism through statistical analysis and computer simulation).
· Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Note, Flying While Brown: Federal Civil Rights Remedies to Post-9/11 Airline Racial Profiling of South Asians, 10 Asian L.J. 215 (2003) (arguing against racial profiling).
§ The details of how CAPS operates are necessarily guarded by the FAA so a comprehensive analysis of its success or failure at accomplishing its objectives has been unavailable. Several commentators, however, have noted that the system appeared to be effective:
· Nat’l Materials Advisory Bd., Comm’n on Eng’g & Technical Sys., & Nat’l Research Council, Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: First Report (National Academy Press 1999) (noting that CAPS appears to accomplish its goals but the FAA should develop quantitative measures of its success).
§ After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the national focus on aviation security dramatically increased. As such, congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act both of which brought airport screening services under federal control. In early 2003, under the authority of §136 of the ATSA, the TSA mandated the creation and implementation of CAPPS II. CAPS II was designed to replace the then current, limited CAPS system which was not widely used; in the cases it was being used it was limited to checked luggage screening instead of a grounds upon which aviation security officials could subject travelers to questioning and personal searches. See Paul Rosenzweig, Civil Liberty and the Response to Terrorism, 42 Duq. L. Rev. 663 (2004).
§ “CAPPS II was designed to match a passenger’s identity with a databases record to provide a real time risk assessment. If it had been implemented as originally designed, CAPPS II would place travelers in one of three categories: (1) Green which indicated a low risk passenger; (2) Yellow, because the passenger is ‘potentially untrustworthy’ or they may be a risk, further investigation is required wherein, depending on the outcome of the investigation, either they would be allowed to board the aircraft or precluded from flying. (3) Red denoted the passenger is ‘untrustworthy’ and therefore a risk to the aircraft, wherein law enforcement would be notified and the person would be detained or arrested.” Stephen W. Dummer, Comment, Secure Flight and Data Veillance, a New Type of Civil Liberties Erosion: Stripping Your Rights When You Don't Even Know It, 75 Miss. L.J. 583 (2006).
§ CAPPS II faced arguably more opposition than the original CAPS program. As a result, the White House cancelled the program and ultimately replaced it with Secure Flight.
· Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Note, Flying While Brown: Federal Civil Rights Remedies to Post-9/11 Airline Racial Profiling of South Asians, 10 Asian L.J. 215 (2003) (arguing against racial profiling).
· Stephen W. Dummer, Comment, Secure Flight and Data Veillance, a New Type of Civil Liberties Erosion: Stripping Your Rights When You Don't Even Know It, 75 Miss. L.J. 583 (2006) (noting intrusive nature of CAPPS II data parameters).
· Leigh A. Kite, Note, Red Flagging Civil Liberties and Due Process Rights of Airline Passengers: Will a Redesigned CAPPS II System Meet the Constitutional Challenge?, 61 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1385 (2004) (noting CAPPS II’s potential for infringing civil liberties of innocent travelers).
· David Armstrong & Joseph Pereira, Flight Risks: Nation's Airlines Adopt Aggressive Measures For Passenger Profiling—In Shift, FBI Gives Carriers Access to Its Watchlists; Database Plays New Role—A Pilot Banishes Mr. Ali, Wall St. J., Oct. 23, 2001, at A1 (citing examples of possible profiling against Arab-Americans).
· Matthew L. Wald, Government Is 'Reshaping' Airport Screening System, N.Y. Times, July 16, 2004, at A21 (quoting an ACLU official as stating that they did not want the government to use the CAPPS II System to help turn the United States "into a society where everybody is treated like a suspect and everybody is investigated").
· Heather MacDonald, Hijacked by the `Privocrats', Wall St. J., Aug. 5, 2004, at A10 (claiming that CAPPS II is an “innocuous identity verification system”).
· Sam H. Verhovek, Americans Give in to Race Profiling, N.Y. Times, Sept. 23, 2001, at 1A (discussing a perceived increase in anti-Arab racial profiling by average Americans).
· Henry Weinstein, Racial Profiling Gains Support as Search Tactic, L.A. Times, Sept. 24, 2001, at A1 (discussing increased support for racial profiling post-9/11).
§ Summary: One of the areas in which the conflict between the Department of Homeland Security and the European Privacy Directive is most obvious is in the handling of PNR data. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bureau requires airlines to transfer passenger data in order to prevent terrorism. However, the EU does not believe that the United States has the “adequate level of protection” as outlined in Directive 95/45/EC for handling personal data.
· Electronic Privacy Information Center, EU-US Airline Passenger Data Disclosure, available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html (detailed history of PNR data conflict).
· Caitlin Friedemann, Council Decision Regarding Agreement Between the European Community and the United States on the Use of Passenger Name Record Data, 11 Colum. J. Eur. L. 207 (2004/2005).
· Arnulf S. Gubitz, The U.S. Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 in Conflict with the E.U. Data Protection Laws: How Much Access to Airline Passenger Data Does the United States Need to Combat Terrorism?, 39 New Eng. L. Rev. 431 (2005).
· Pablo Mendes de Leon, The Fight Against Terrorism Through Aviation: Data Protection Versus Data Protection, 31 Air & Space L. 320 (2006).
· Anthony A. Santangelo & Thomas J. Whalen, United States Regulation of Non-US Airlines Operating to the United States, 30 Air & Space L. 330 (2005).
· Megan Roos, Note, Safe on the Ground, Exposed in the Sky: The Battle Between the United States and the European Union Over Passenger Name Information, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 1137 (2005) (describing the PNR conflict).
· Robert Block, U.S. Reaches Tentative Deal With EU Over Passenger Data, Wall St. J., Dec. 17, 2003, at D3 (noting US concessions to ensure the ability to screen passenger data).
o Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, A Report Concerning Passenger Name Record Information Derived from Flights Between the U.S. and the European Union (Sept. 19, 2005) (Joint Review of the Undertakings of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning PNR information derived from flights between the U.S. and the European Union).
o Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, Editorial, A Tool We Need to Stop the Next Airliner Plot, Wash. Post, Aug. 29, 2006, at A15 (emphasizing that data sharing is a critical tool in preventing terrorists from boarding planes).
o Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University: Transatlantic Homeland Security Conference (Sept. 13, 2004) (stressing that the EU and the US must agree on transfer of PNR data to prevent “terrorism and other trans-national threats”).
o Eric Lipton & Scott Shane, U.S. Officials Say Plot Shows Need for More Sharing of Passenger Data, N.Y. Times, Aug. 15, 2006, at A13 (reporting that Homeland Security officials reiterated the need to prescreen passenger data following news of the arrest of twenty-four British terror suspects).
o DHS Privacy Office, Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Customs and Border Protection Receipt of Passenger Name Records Related to Flights between the European Union and the United States (answering key questions about PNR data, including safe handling and deletion of sensitive data).
o Agreement Between the European Union and the United States of America on the Processing and Transfer Of Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, 2006/729/CFSP/JHA (16 Oct. 2006)
o Communication from the Commission to the Council - Termination of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, COM (2006) 335 final (16 June 2006)
o Letter to the Council Presidency and the Commission from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of the United States of America, concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of the undertakings issued by DHS on 11 MAY 2004 in connection with the transfer by air carriers of passenger name record (PNR) data, OJ 2006/C 259/01.
o Council Decision of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 2004/496/EC, (17 May 2004)
o Speech by Frits Bolkestein, Member of the European Commission in charge of the Internal Market and Taxation EU/US talks on transfers of airline passengers' personal data Address to European Parliament Committees on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, SPEECH/03/586 (Brussels, 1st December 2003)
o Speech by Commissioner Chris Patten at European Parliament Plenary Session, Strasbourg, about Passenger Name Record (PNR) EC /US Agreement, SPEECH/04/189 (Strasbourg, 21 April 2004) (urging the adoption of the EU-US PNR Agreement).
o Letter from Sophie in ‘t Veld, Rapporteur for the EU-US Agreement on PNR to Franco Frattini, European Union Vice-President and Commissioner, Oct. 10, 2006 (criticizing many aspects of the new agreement and highlighting inadequate review and research).
o Caitlin Friedemann, Council Decision Regarding Agreement Between the European Community and the United States on the Use of Passenger Name Record Data, 11 Colum. J. Eur. L. 207 (2004/2005) (recounting Parliaments concerns that the U.S. provides inadequate protection of data, has rules that are “ambiguous and overbroad,” and has no legal basis in EU law).
o Scott McCartney & Amy Schatz, American Released Passenger Data—In Reversal, Airline Reveals Research Firms Got Records Without Its Authorization, Wall St. J., April 12, 2004, at A2 (citing examples of airlines transferring millions of passenger records to outside parties without authorization).
§ Summary: The European Parliament strongly objected to the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to U.S. Customs claiming that it infringed on the rights to privacy of European citizens and that the US did not have adequate data protection standards. The ECJ found for the Parliament and annulled the agreement, but not on the basis of privacy concerns. Instead the ECJ held that the Commission did not legally have the authority to come to the PNR agreement in the first place.
· ECJ Annulment of Council Decision regarding transfer of PNR data, CJE/06/46 (May 30, 2006)
· Press Release, The Court annuls the Council decision concerning the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of personal data and the commission decision on the adequate protection of those data (May 30, 2006)
· European Parliament Resolution on Transfer of Personal Data by Airlines to the US Immigration Service, 2003 O.J. (C 61), 381 (2003).
· European Parliament Vote on Transfer of Personal Data by Airlines to the U.S. Immigration Service, 2003 O.J. (C 61), 334 (2003)
· Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament, Transfer of Air Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data: A Global EU Approach, COM(2003) 826 final (Brussels, 16 Dec. 2003) (response to Parliament’s objection to PNR transfer).
· Speech by Frits Bolkestein Member of the European Commission in charge of the Internal Market and Taxation EU/US talks on transfers of airline passengers' personal data Address to European Parliament Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, SPEECH/03/396 (Brussels, 9th September 2003) (criticizing four aspects of transfer of personal data: purpose limitation, scope of data, data storage periods, and insufficiently legally binding to satisfy Directive).
· Francesca Bignami, Transgovernmental Networks vs. Democracy: The Case of the European Information Privacy Network, 26 Mich. J. Int'l L. 807 (2005) (describing Parliament’s role in challenging the PNR transfer agreement).
· Caitlin Friedemann, Council Decision Regarding Agreement Between the European Community and the United States on the Use of Passenger Name Record Data, 11 Colum. J. Eur. L. 207 (2004/2005) (recounting Parliaments concerns that the U.S. provides inadequate protection of data, has rules that are “ambiguous and overbroad,” and has no legal basis in EU law).
· Give us Those Data; Airline Security, Economist, June 3, 2006 (noting that the ECJ’s decision was based on a legal technicality, rather than for any privacy protection reasons).
· Plan to Collect Passenger Data Meets Objections, Wall St. J., April 1, 2004, at D3 (noting Parliament’s objection to transfer of passenger data).
· ECJ Interpretation of Directive 95/46. (See Arnulf S. Gubitz, The U.S. Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 in Conflict with the E.U. Data Protection Laws: How Much Access to Airline Passenger Data Does the United States Need to Combat Terrorism?, 39 New Eng. L. Rev. 431 (2005); Erika Szyszczak, III. Social Policy, 55 ICLQ 475 (2006))
o Case C-465/00, Rechnungshof v. Osterreichischer Rundfunk  E.C.J. CELEX LEXIS 209 (case involving disclosing employees’ names and salaries to the Austrian Court of Audit for publication).
o Case C-101/01, Linqvist  ECR I-12971 (case involving criminal charges brought against Swedish woman who published names, telephone numbers, and other personal information about her colleagues online).
§ Summary: A fundamental question posed in developing global agreements on data privacy is the issue of whether the issue is most efficiently negotiated and resolved using a large multilateral agreement or if a series of tailored bilateral agreements are a more appropriate solution. A through analysis of this threshold issue is vital to developing a form of agreement that has longevity, acceptance, and effectiveness. Evaluating potential structures in which a data privacy agreement could be implemented is facilitated by reviewing the success and shortcomings of structures used in the past.
· C. Michael Aho, More Bilateral Trade Agreements Would Be A Blunder: What The New President Should Do, 22 Cornell Int'l L.J. 25 (1989).
· Larry Crump, Global Trade Policy Development in a Two-Track System, 9 J. Int'l Econ. L. 487 (2006).
· George Norman and Joel P. Trachtman, The Customary International Law Game, 99 Am. J. Int'l L. 541 (2005).
· Joost Pauwelyn, A Typology Of Multilateral Treaty Obligations: Are WTO Obligations Bilateral or Collective in Nature?, 14 Eur. J. Int'l L. 907 (2003).
· Joel P. Trachtman, Unilateralism, Bilateralism, Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Functionalism: A Comparison With Reference to Securities Regulation, 4 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 69 (1994).
· Randall Lehner, Note, Protectionism, Prestige, and National Security: The Alliance Against Multilateral Trade in International Air Transport, 45 Duke L.J. 436 (1995).
· Inaamul Haque, Doha Development Agenda: Recapturing the Momentum of Multilateralism and Developing Countries, 17 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1097 (2002).
· Jiaxiang Hu, The Role of International Law in the Development of WTO Law, 7 J. Int'l Econ. L. 143 (2004).
· John O. McGinnis, The Appropriate Hierarchy of Global Multilateralism and Customary International Law: The Example of the WTO, 44 Va. J. Int'l L. 229 (2000).
· John O. McGinnis, The Political Economy of Global Multilateralism, 1 Chi. J. Int'l L. 381 (2000).
· Richard H. Steinberg, Great Power Management of the World Trading System: A Transatlantic Strategy for Liberal Multilateralism, 29 Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus. 205 (1998).
· Genc Trnavci, The Virtues and Vices of the World Trade Organization and Proposals for its Reform, 18 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 421 (2004).
· Xin Zhang , Implementation of the WTO Agreements: Framework and Reform, 23 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 383 (2003).
· Senator Max Baucus, A New Trade Strategy: The Case for Bilateral Agreements, 22 Cornell Int'l L.J. 1 (1989) (discussing the benefits of bilateral agreements by sampling current agreements such as the GATT and trade agreements with the ASEAN nations).
· Calvin A. Hamilton & Paula I. Rochwerger, Trade and Investment: Foreign Direct Investment Through Bilateral and Multilateral Treaties, 18 N.Y. Int'l L. Rev. 1 (2005) (discussing origin and development of Bilateral Investment Treaties)
· Joseph E. Kramek, Comment, Bilateral Maritime Counter-Drug and Immigrant Interdiction Agreements: Is this the World of the Future?, 31 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 121, (2000) (discussing the success of bilateral maritime agreements in preventing illegal trafficking).
· Kristin E. Hickman, Comment, Should Advance Pricing Agreements be Published?, 19 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 171 (1998) (modeling advance pricing agreements on successful bilateral tax models).
· Nina Hachigian, Essential Mutual Assistance in International Antitrust Enforcement, 29 Int'l Law. 117 (1995) (keeping anticompetitive activity in check by adopting bilateral antitrust agreements).
 See, e.g., Marc Sandalow, Both Parties Make North Korea Policy an Issue, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 11, 2006, at A1 (noting that the presidential candidates’ stances on national security will prove to be a significant issue in the 2008 election).
 See, e.g., Eunice Mosoco, Immigration Could be the Hot Election Issue in 2008, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 2, 2005, at B6 (observing that the increased discussion of immigration controversies on radio talk shows and television news programs indicates that immigration may be a key issue in the 2008 presidential election).
 See e.g., David Cole, Enemy Aliens, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 953, 955 (2002) (noting that "[i]n the wake of September 11, we plainly need to rethink the balance between liberty and security.") (2005).
 See, e.g., Governor George Pataki, How We Should Remember September 11, Time, Sept. 6, 2006, available at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1533418,00.html (recalling the atmosphere of togetherness following the September 11th attacks).
 See Frederic Block, Civil Liberties During National Emergencies: The Interactions Between the Three Branches of Government in Coping with Past and Current Threats to the Nation's Security, 29 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 459, 476-77 (noting that the post-September 11 political climate facilitated the enactment of a wide array of anti-terrorism measures). See generally Richard P. Campbell, America Acts: Swift Legislative Responses to the September 11 Attacks, 69 Def. Couns. J. 139 (2002) (documenting legislative efforts to protect the airline industry from economic and legal harm).
 See Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (codified in various, separate sections of the U.S.C.).
 See generally Erwin Chemerinsky, Civil Liberties and the War on Terrorism, Washburn L.J. (criticizing the executive and legislative responses to the September 11th terrorist attacks. See also Stephen J. Schulhofer, Rethinking the Patriot Act: Keeping America Safe and Free (2005) (arguing that several of the Patriot Act’s provisions do not supply adequate safeguards for civil liberties); Kevin Bankston & Megan E. Gray, Government Surveillance and Data Privacy Issues: Foundations and Developments, 3 NO. 8 PRIVACY & INFO. L. REP. 1 (asserting that the legislature was hasty in enacting the Patriot Act and did not provide sufficient protections for civil liberties).
 See e.g., Homeland Security Act of 2002 (provides for the federalization of the agencies responsible for border and transportation security into a single department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The principal sub-departments of DHS include: Transportation Security Agency (TSA), and Immigration, Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)); Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 – Pub. L. No. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543 (passed to improve the government’s ability to screen aliens seeking to enter US, improve cooperation and information sharing between US agencies, and to improve monitoring of foreign students and foreign exchange visitors in the United States; Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (created a consistent security plan for domestic ports)
 Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.; Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001) codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.). See Campbell, supra note 5 (analyzing the provisions of the ATSSA and the ATSA).
 See Pub. L. No. 107-42, §101, §401.
 See 49 U.S.C.A. §44909(c) (2001) (requiring airlines to disclosure of passenger and crew names, date of birth, citizenship, gender, passport number and country of issuance, and other information that is “reasonably necessary to ensure aviation security”); 19 C.F.R. §12249b(a) (2003) (defining and interpreting terms of 49 U.S.C.A. §44909).
 See 19 C.F.R. §122.14(d)(4), 122.161.
 See Give us Those Data, The Economist, June 3, 2006 (observing that because Europeans form the biggest group of travelers to the United States, European compliance with the ATSA’s requirements was CBP’s primary focus).
 See generally Council Directive 95/46 EC, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31.
 See Letter from Stefano Rodotà, Chairman, Article 29 Working Party, to Mr. Jorge Salvador Hernandez Mollar, Chairman Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs European Parliament (March 3, 2003), available at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/mar/art29ch.pdf (underscoring importance of counter terrorism legislation but emphasizing the need to ensure compliance with European laws).
 See Joint Statement, European Commission/U.S. Customs, Talks on PNR Transmission, (Brussels, Feb. 17-18, 2003) available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/us/intro/pnr-joint03_1702.htm (recording European Commission and CBP’s intention to negotiate a framework for European airlines to comply with both ATSA’s requirements and the EU’s privacy directive)
 See 69 Fed. Reg. 131 (July 9, 2004) (outlining proposed uses of PNR data in compliance with EU law).
 Commission Decision, 2004/535/EC, 2004 O.J. (L 235) 11, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004D0535:EN:HTML (last visited Nov. 5, 2006) (concluding that the Undertakings provide an adequate level of protection).
 Council Decision 2004/496/EC, 2004 O.J. (L 183) 83, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004D0496:EN:HTML (formalizing a bilateral agreement between the European Union and the US under which CBP would be permitted to access PNR data in accordance with its Undertakings).
 Francesca Bignami, European Court of Justice Strikes EU-US Agreement on PNR Data, May 31, 2006, available at http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/05/european_court.html.
 EurLex, Structure of the European Union: The ‘Three Pillars’, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/about/abc/abc_12.html (describing the Three Pillars of the European Union). See also Europa, Glossary, available at http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/eu_pillars_en.htm (Three pillars form the basic structure of the European Union, namely: the Community pillar, corresponding to the three Communities: the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the former European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (first pillar); the pillar devoted to the common foreign and security policy, which comes under Title V of the EU Treaty (second pillar); the pillar devoted to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which comes under Title VI of the EU Treaty (third pillar)).
 Press Release, European Union: Delegation of the European Commission to the USA, Airline Passenger Data: European Commission Statement on Negotiations With the United States (Oct. 1, 2006), available at http://www.eurunion.org/News/press/2006/20060081.htm.
 Electronic Privacy Information Center, EU-US Airline Passenger Data Disclosure, available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html. See Agreement Between the European Union and the United States of America on the Procession and Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, 2006 O.J. (L 298) 29, available at http://www.eurunion.org/newsweb/HotTopics/PNRAgreemntOct06.pdf.
 See, e.g., Letter from Sophie in ‘t Veld, Rapporteur for the EU-U.S. Agreement on PNR, to Franco Frattini, European Union Vice-President and Commissioner (Oct. 10, 2006), available at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/oct/eu-us-pnr-letter-to-commission.pdf (criticizing many aspects of the new agreement and highlighting inadequate review and research); EU-USA PNR Agreement Renegotiated to Meet US Demands - When the Law changes in the USA So Too Does Access to Data and How it is Processed, Statewatch News, available at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/oct/05eu-us-pnr-oct-06.htm (criticizing the implicit lack of control of the new agreement that has no caveats for renegotiation if US law changes); Press Release, AEDH, Transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR): The New Agreement Between the EU and the USA is an Unacceptable Infringement of the Respect for Human Rights and Data Protection (Oct. 9, 2006), available at http://www.aedh.eu/eng/index.php?cat=com_ex&com=last&com_id=92 (claiming that the “new agreement is worse than the previous one”).