Home / Payments / Europe is from Mars, America is from Venus

Europe is from Mars, America is from Venus

For some time now, I’ve been meaning to blog about the big issue bubbling away over SWIFT, and the access to SWIFT records demanded by the US authorities.

I remember having lunch with some executives at SWIFT back in the summer of 2006, when the news first broke about this. Back then, the New York Times had just broken the previously secretive story that SWIFT was sharing bank data with the US authorities, after having been subpoenaed to share such data. The aim was to track terrorist funding and any transactions that involved suspected terrorist related activities were shared.  The problem is (a) what right does the USA have to subpoenae and access the records of a Europe-based institution and (b) how does SWIFT ensure it's just limited to terrorism records, and not the records of you and I.

SWIFT weren't happy about this action, and particularly that it had now come into public domain.  One SWIFT executive said to me: “when that New York Times journalist is walking around the next Ground Zero and sees the thousands of bodies caused by his exposing this story, see how happy he is then.”  Over a glass of wine, he admitted that he’d like to crush the bones of the journalist and bury him six feet under.

You see SWIFT is meant to be private. It’s a bank consortia, and not meant to be open to any old authority raking over its records.

And, bearing in mind that SWIFT is head officed just outside Brussels in Belgium, the centre of and capital of Europe, having some gung-ho Yankees barking orders at them does not go down well.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the European Commission, Parliament and politicians have been trying to work hard to come up with something that meets the needs of the American authorities whilst not compromising our very European principles.

It won’t work.

But we’ll try.

You see, when it comes to privacy, Europe is from Mars and America is from Venus. Europe believes the individual has a basic human right to protect their privacy. America believes that the State is far more important than the individual, and so listening in to any conversation, no matter how private, is fine.

This is all coming to a head as Members of the European Parliament are debating this topic this week and pushing through a revised agreement with the United States on Wednesday.

This follows the block on the original deal in February, which was meant to allow a continuance of the access that came to light in 2006. That was blocked due to ‘insufficient data privacy safeguards’.

The amended agreement now states that the USA can request European financial data relevant to a specific terrorist investigation, as long as they substantiate the need for the data.

The whole argument over data privacy is illustrated best by this discussion between Frank Gaffney, a lobbyist for US Security, and Baroness Sarah Ludford, MEP, on the BBC’s Radio 4 programme “The World This Weekend”, aired yesterday and presented by Shaun Ley.

The World This Weekend, 4th July 2010 from Chris Skinner on Vimeo.

Shaun Ley: If you pop down to the garden centre or a supermarket this afternoon, what you buy could end up being examined by the Pentagon.  As part of the fight against terrorism, the United States has been seeking authority to receive details of any personal financial transactions from Britain and other European countries. Since 9/11 they’ve had some access informally but, in March the European parliament blocked a government level agreement on data transfer, worried about the threat to privacy. On Wednesday, MEPs will vote on a renegotiated deal.

Frank Gaffney, who was responsible for international security in the State Department under President Reagan, thinks it’s about time.

I’ve been speaking to him and to Baroness Sarah Ludford, Liberal Democrat MEP, who’s been telling me about her concerns including something known as ‘data drilling’.

Baroness Sarah Ludford: Well, rather than searching specifically for a name of a particular individual or particular data in a bank account, you would do a big trawl. A fishing expedition, as it were. Now we haven’t got 100% perfection and we are still concerned that it involves the bulk transfer of data. So European banking data is transferred en block, in bulk, to the United States and it is searched there. What we would like and we have got certain commitments that in the medium term, the option will be explored and hopefully developed, of the data being extracted in a targeted way on European soil. So we don’t have to hand over this mass of undifferentiated data, because clearly there are concerns about that.

Ley: Frank Gaffney, from the US perspective, your authorities wanted this data and wanted this opportunity. Why is it so important to be able to drill down into people’s bank details in that way?

Frank Gaffney: We are confronting enemies that are increasingly sophisticated. Getting insights into the movements of funds that enable this kind of activity to take place is, I think, essential to countering these sorts of threats, both of the violent and of the stealthy kind. The more hamstrung we are, the more likely it is that these sorts of seditious activities will go forward with ever greater success. That’s something I don’t think we can tolerate.

Ley: And are you worried that these kinds of restrictions that are being negotiated with the EU might leave the investigative powers hamstrung?

Gaffney: I do worry about that. I think that’s sort of the object after all, is to constrain those investigatory efforts in the interest of privacy. I like my privacy, like everybody else. I just don’t want to die.

Ley: So a lot of these changes potentially put lives at risk.

Ludford: I don’t believe so. I strongly believe in trans-Atlantic cooperation in a whole series of areas. I’m vice-chair of the European Parliament’s US delegation. We don’t have reciprocal right to US banking data and some of us have wondered what Congress, and the Senate in particular, would say if Europe was to request that the banking data of all US citizens was to be transferred in bulk, en block, to Europe.

Ley: Frank Gaffney, that’s fair enough isn’t it. If you’re going to be given access to my bank details, shouldn’t that work the other way around as well?

Gaffney: I can’t speak for the US government obviously, as I’m not a government official anymore, but I suspect that one of the reasons why there might be a resistance to the kind of reciprocity that seems otherwise unobjectionable and fair, is to the extent that European governments and maybe even the European Parliament itself, have been penetrated by folks who are sympathetic to or actually working for organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood. That would be a real problem from the security point of view that I’m talking about.

Ludford: I can assure you that that is not the case.

Gaffney: I can assure you that it is the case.

Ludford: I don’t like this portrayal somehow of Europe is Venus and America is Mars. I think that is a gross misrepresentation. It’s not about being soft on terrorism but, specifically among the Muslim community, we do need leads and cooperation with the police in that community so you have to be, for law enforcement purposes, quite intelligent about the way you seek to isolate the real terrorist suspects from the bulk of the community.

Gaffney: I agree very strongly with that, but I don’t believe it is intelligent to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood and organisations like that.

Ludford: I don’t think anybody is suggesting that it is.

Gaffney: I can assure you ma’am that that is being done in Britain, it is being done in the Continent of Europe, it is being done in the European Parliament.

Ludford: I can assure you that the European Parliament MEPs are not at all motivated by concern for the Muslim Brotherhood in our insistence on stricter data protection privacy safeguards.

Gaffney: I can simply assure you that it is absolutely a point on which you agree with the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether you are doing it at their behest, or whether you are simply doing it in parallel, is beside the point to my way of thinking.

Ludford: I think that is really unhelpful. I’m sorry, I just find that so unhelpful to somehow cast aspersions on anyone who is championing data protections and saying – whether it’s our banking data, our email, our internet usage, our phone calls, travel information – that it ought to be open season for law enforcement to go fishing around in it all because if you don’t agree to that, you are somehow a front for the jihadists. I think that is so absurd that we can’t discuss this sensibly.

Gaffney: That is not what I have said.

Ludford: Well it comes pretty close to what you said.

Gaffney: What I’ve indicated in the comments so far is that there is an obvious need for a balance between privacy and the need to defend ourselves, especially when civil liberties are being used by our enemies as part of this stealth jihad to undermine and to destroy us.

Ludford: MEPs have spoken on behalf of the majority of people, who are not the ones you are talking about, and I’m sure that MEPs will next week support this new agreement because it has two effects. One is indeed to try and make sure that we can combat terrorism through finding out about terrorist financing, but it also does so under pretty strict safeguards for data protection, and I think that is a win:win situation.

Ley: Frank Gaffney, your last word?

Gaffney: I just hope you’re right. We’ll see.

About Chris M Skinner

Chris M Skinner

Chris Skinner is best known as an independent commentator on the financial markets through his blog, the Finanser.com, as author of the bestselling book Digital Bank, and Chair of the European networking forum the Financial Services Club. He has been voted one of the most influential people in banking by The Financial Brand (as well as one of the best blogs), a FinTech Titan (Next Bank), one of the Fintech Leaders you need to follow (City AM, Deluxe and Jax Finance), as well as one of the Top 40 most influential people in financial technology by the Wall Street Journal’s Financial News. To learn more click here…

Check Also

The best research into Open Banking

I’ve recently noted a number of reports about Open Banking, with many published recently due …

  • This is a remarkable debate. Europe accepts/ endorses the Muslim Brotherhood? What planet is Gaffney from.
    This quote from Wikipedia on Gaffney says something.
    “In 2003, Gaffney called on the United States military to “take out” the Al Jazeera news network for inciting violence against the Western world by showcasing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s “calls-to-arms.”[15]”

  • If you listen to the interview the opening comments from Ley “If you pop down to the garden centre or a supermarket this afternoon, what you buy could end up being examined by the Pentagon” are very misleading to the general public and the vast majority of the BBC 4 listeners.
    We all know that popping down to the garden centre and purchasing some ‘bizzy lizzies’ wouldn’t spawn a SWIFT payment message.
    But if it did, who cares !! If you haven’t done anything wrong you haven’t got anything to hide (you can tell my dad was a policeman).
    In my book as long as the authorities guarantee the security of the data that they are using, which is a totally different discussion, then they can look at what they like. However, it needs to be a two-way street – Europe to US and US to Europe.
    Very interesting (read into that strange) comments from Gaffney when he tries to explain way the flow of information is only one-way “European governments and maybe even the European Parliament itself, have been penetrated by folks who are sympathetic to or actually working for organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood”.
    Surely this can’t be the general opinion of the US authorities can it?

  • Nik

    It concerns not only terrorism issue but also competition between US companies and EU
    We had an intresting article “Secret weapon of NSA” in russian magazine computerra.ru.
    It seems goverment and corporation sectors are connected in US almost as close as it was in Soviet Union . It is just masqueraded much better.
    I’ve pasted some parts concerning SWIFT
    Sorry I translated it by google.
    :
    To get an idea of Admiral Mike McConnell, which became a major figure in the current U.S. intelligence community, and that means its purpose, must take a closer look closely to ten years’ work of Admiral in the company Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH).
    During the time that Mike McConnell, Vice-President, according to insiders, at Booz Allen Hamilton has been drawn so many former intelligence officials that such staff here was more than any other American corporation.
    It is noteworthy that during the recent restructuring of the company it was decided to no longer share the commerce and government contracts into separate directions.
    What exactly does Booz Allen for the U.S. government, usually hidden under the cloak of secrecy, and the information appears only as a result of leaks and their attendant scandals, trials.
    U.S. officials, of course, in all official comments to the pop-up scandal categorically deny that the interests in the transactions SWIFT something else besides cash flows of terrorists. Stressing that the surveillance “purity” of intelligence operations in agreement with the management of SWIFT involved “independent external auditor” – we know the company Booz Allen Hamilton. Given the close connection BAH with U.S. intelligence agencies, it is difficult to believe in the impartiality of the auditor. Especially when you consider that in 2002, another vice-president of Booz Allen was James Woolsey, who headed the CIA during the same years, when Admiral McConnell headed the NSA, and subsequently one of the most ardent supporters of the intelligence produced in the interests of American business.
    Here, for example, only one characteristic fragment from public speaking Woolsey in the 1990’s, which speaks about the role of U.S. foreign intelligence in winning major contracts abroad by American firms: “We estimate, very conservatively, that, gathering relevant intelligence information, we bring these contracts to American business billions of dollars a year. And we intend to continue doing it. This is a relatively new thing, but we, frankly, very, very good at. … Sometimes I’m smiling, reading the newspaper, that some of the corporations, which we had a very large orders, publicly declares that “it does not need any help from the American intelligence community.” Well, miraculously, this way works and intelligence “…
    Here are translated links to both parts of artice if u are intrested:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerra.ru%2Ffeatures%2F304555%2F&sl=ru&tl=en
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerra.ru%2Ffeatures%2F304567%2F

  • Drew

    The Radio 4 debate was hot air. If you examine the facts around SWIFT usage there seems little substance to either position.
    There is no personal data to protect. I believe in data protection principles but expanding on Colin Day’s comments, the only time ANY personal data of mine (and this will be common to most UK citizens) is likely to appear in a SWIFT message is in the CHAPS payment made to purchase my house. From that message someone MAY be able to work out what I paid for my house (or similarly what the vendor was paid). It would not be straightforward and, crucially, that information is already in the public domain as it is published by the Land Registry.
    But on the other hand I find it hard to believe access to SWIFT messaging provides any substantial anti-terrorism benefit. In the many years that the US have had access to this data can they point to any instances where the data has made any substantial contribution to the prevention or prosecution of any act of terrorism? I strongly suspect not. No SWIFT messaging is involved in the purchase of fertiliser & petrol – nor (to take more US-centric view) flying lessons.

  • Chris – I take issue with a number of opinions in your post, paticularly the comments about SWIFT and transparency. But when you suggest that “The whole thing is illustrated best by this discussion between Frank Gaffney, a lobbyist for US Security, and Baroness Sarah Ludford, MEP” I beg to differ. This discussion places the entire issue is a false context and is riddled with inflamatory statements. For a much more balanced point of view I would point your readers to Elizabeth Lunley’s Finextra blog:
    http://www.finextra.com/community/fullblog.aspx?id=4244
    And I would also reccomend your readers to look at the SWIFT CEO’s address to the European Parliament where – with full transparency – he explains the checks and balances that have been in place for Data Protection at SWIFT for years, and which have been endorsed by the Data Protection authorities:
    http://www.swift.com/about_swift/legal/compliance/statements_on_compliance/SWIFT_CEO_addresses_EU_parliament.page?
    Jeremy Cohen
    Head of External Communications
    SWIFT

  • Chris Skinner

    Interesting feedback.
    @Colin H
    Frank’s an idiot.
    @Colin D
    I’m watching what you’re buying at Playboy.com.
    @Nik
    Good input
    @Drew
    Agree
    @Jeremy
    You misread this post. If you review this column, my opinions are purely pointed towards the attitudes regarding privacy of data and the differences between European and American attitudes.
    The radio interview illustrates that debate best, but also shows that Frank Gaffney is a joke.
    All Europeans are part of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’?