The Telegraph has raised new privacy considerations for travelers in 2007:

Britons flying to America could have their credit card and email accounts inspected by the United States authorities following a deal struck by Brussels and Washington.

By using a credit card to book a flight, passengers face having other transactions on the card inspected by the American authorities. Providing an email address to an airline could also lead to scrutiny of other messages sent or received on that account.

[…]

“There is no guarantee that a bank or internet provider would tell an individual that material about them was being subpoenaed,” an American lawyer said.

“Then there are problems, such as where the case would take place and whether an individual has time to hire a lawyer, even if they wanted to challenge it.”

Initially, such material could be inspected for seven days but a reduced number of US officials could view it for three and a half years. Should any record be inspected during this period, the file could remain open for eight years.

The European high courts had previously struck down an agreement, as I’ve mentioned before, so this is the latest incarnation. Apparently “data protection” laws (e.g. privacy rights) had been interpreted as the legal basis to search travelers personal information for national security purposes. It seems to me some people might call that the opposite of data protection. The US response to the decision against their interpretation was harsh, which led to a series of meetings between the two sides to find a compromise:

Reaching a new deal had been an EU priority to ensure airlines could continue to legally submit 34 pieces of data about passengers flying from Europe to the United States. Such data — including passengers’ names, addresses and credit-card details — must be transferred to U.S. authorities within 15 minutes of a flight’s departure for the United States.

Washington had warned that airlines failing to share passenger data faced fines of up to $6,000 per passenger and the loss of landing rights.

During the negotiations, EU officials stressed they shared Washington’s concerns about terrorism, but demanded strict data protection guarantees in return for more routine sharing of passengers’ personal details among U.S. government law enforcement officials.

Washington and Brussels have already faced off over the U.S. administration’s use of secret CIA detention centers in Europe to interrogate terror suspects.

European governments are also annoyed over a secret deal between the U.S. Treasury and the Belgium-based money transfer company SWIFT, which has for years secretly supplied U.S. authorities with massive amounts of personal data for use in anti-terror investigations, violating EU privacy rules.

Yes, the terms now in effect are a compromise position. The US had originally required things like storing the data for 50 years, if you can believe that, so coupled with threats of huge fines and grounded planes I’m not sure what wiggle room the EU had to work with. What might have happened if the EU Parliament had not stepped in to protect privacy of its citizens at all? I also wonder whether Europeans will blissfully ignore this loss of privacy to American data mining organizations (thanking the Americans for saving the world from terror), or if they will see this as yet another brick in the wall that threatens to divide them from Washington in matters of public policy, global commerce, and human rights.

Here is fun test. It attempts to identify whether you are more female or male by how you solve certain problems, among other things. A new form of profiling or just a fun web page? You be the judge…

My personal favorite part was the “eyes” section, but maybe that’s because I nailed it. :) The 3D shapes test and word list were also interesting.

This is a nice example of trade-offs:

The Pune Jewellers’ Association, on Friday, tended an apology to bring an end to the controversy they raked up by barring burqa-clad women from entering their stores. “Our statements were misconstrued and sent wrong signals to society. We apologise in case it has hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community,” association president Fatechand Ranka said.

He said they had only sought the state government’s permission after a spate of thefts by burqa-clad robbers. “There are other means to put security in place. We will consult Muslim women on the measures to be taken for checking them before entering jewellery shops,” he said, after leading a protest march to the police commissionerate.

Maybe the jewelers would have been more successful with their ban if they had said a woman wearing a veil hurts their sentiments. I wonder what the other security measures might be. Put a cash deposit down, or even the whole amount, before handling the jewelry? Use man-trap doors so that no-one can leave the store until all the goods are accounted for? Anonymous purchase can only be seen as fair when the seller has some guarantee(s) against fraud/theft.

In somewhat related news, the I read a report earlier this year that banks in America believe anti-mask rules have been successful at reducing crime:

Some banks are also restricting what customers wear.

After several of its 33 branches were hit by the same ski-mask-wearing robber, West Suburban Bank installed signs asking customers to remove their hats, hoods and sunglasses. The Lombard, Ill.-based company says a similar program in Missouri reduced the number of robberies in participating banks by 40 percent.

Interesting statistic. Wonder if they were taking weather or other factors like seasonal changes into account. I have to say I also noted a very crucial detail at the end of the report:

Banking officials say most bank robbers usually net a few thousand dollars, at the most. The real harm comes in the form of reputational damage.

And that helps explain why the Jewelers would back down when a Muslim community complained about their rules. Incidentally, I’m sure someone must be wondering how these women can shop for jewelry at a public store when their entire body is covered from public view. Does it make more sense to give them private “viewing” rooms? The jewelers could thus put veiled customers in a small private room, with a small drop-box, and only allow them to leave after they returned the jewelry.