Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) is a
Overview
A series of articles published on June 23, 2006, by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the United States government, specifically the
According to the June 2006 New York Times article, the program helped lead to the capture of an
The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was viewed by the
Immediately following the disclosure, SWIFT released a press statement asserting that they gave information to the United States in compliance with Treasury Department subpoenas, but claimed that "SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas".[8]
European privacy laws
On 27 June 2006, it was revealed by the media that Belgium's
In addition, the New York branch of the Dutch Rabobank is said to have delivered information on its European customers to the US government, in contempt of European privacy laws. The Dutch Data Protection Authority claims that Dutch banks could face fines if they hand over data on their customers to the US government.[11]
Consequently, the
Disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden alleged the NSA was systematically undermining the SWIFT Agreement. No denial was issued by the American side, and the European Parliament passed a non-binding vote calling for the suspension of the agreement.[13][14] A suspension would however require the consent of a two-thirds majority of EU governments.[15]
EU-U.S. relations
Legal treaty development
After European concerns with wholesale SWIFT data export were raised, it became necessary for the United States to negotiate a treaty with the EU in order to be able to continue accessing the SWIFT database.[vague] The Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was negotiated during 2009.[citation needed] The treaty was first rejected by the European Parliament, however after a few months and a visit by US Vice President Joe Biden to the parliament, the European Commission introduced a proposal with strengthened safeguards, which was then adopted.[16][17][18][19]
Scope
The scope of the treaty is to use financial payment messaging data to prevent, investigate, detect, and prosecute conduct pertaining to terrorism or terrorist financing. Terrorism is defined as "acts which involves violence or are otherwise dangerous to human life or create a risk of damage to property or infrastructure with the intent to intimidate a population or government or an international institution to act or abstain from acting or to seriously destabilize or destroy fundamental structures of a country or international organization."[citation needed]
Process
The United States Treasury serves production orders to a designated provider of financial data. SWIFT is the only designated provider today. The request shall identify as clearly as possible the data necessary for the purpose of the treaty. The request should clearly substantiate the necessity of the data, and be tailored as narrowly as possible. Payments within the Single Euro Payments Area are excluded.[citation needed]
Safeguards
The U.S. Treasury shall process the data only for the purpose of the treaty and data mining is not allowed. The data must be secured and cannot be interconnected with any other database. Access to data shall be limited to investigations of terrorism. All searches must be based upon preexisting information or evidence of connection with terrorism. Information may only be shared with law enforcement, public security, or counterterrorism authorities in the United States or the EU.[citation needed]
Citizen's rights
Any person has the right to obtain a confirmation through the data protection authority in the EU member state that the person's data protection rights have been respected. Any person has the right to seek the rectification, erasure or blocking of his or her personal data where the data is inaccurate or the processing contravenes the treaty.[citation needed]
European TFTP
EU may request the aid of the United States to build up a European TFTP.[citation needed]
History
2013
- October 23: Following
2012
- February 26: U.S. Treasury stated that the Danish businessman has violated the United States embargo against Cuba.[20]
2011
- October 25
- European Data Protection Supervisor communication entitled Terrorist Finance Tracking System (TFTS) - European Commission Communication of 13 July 2011 (2011-0699) to Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Home Affairs, European Commission:[21]
- "We support all the points made by the Article 29 Working Partyin its letter of 29 September, based on its specific experience in analysing and monitoring the original agreement between the United States and the EU regarding the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (the "U.S. TFTP agreement"), which is the source of the developments of the Terrorist Finance Tracking System ("TFTS") at EU level".
- "We would like to complement the observations of the WP29, especially in relation to the context in which the TFTS is envisaged, about [the question of] its necessity and proportionality, the procedural guarantees that should be introduced and finally with regard to its consequences on the existing US TFTP agreement".
- "We support all the points made by the
- European Data Protection Supervisor offers Comments on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 13 July 2011: "A European terrorist finance tracking system: Available options":[22]
- [The] main reason for the development of a European terrorist finance tracking system ('EU TFTS') has its source in the present US TFTP agreement (and in particular its Article 11) and in the Council Decision of 13 July 2010 ("the Decision"). Currently, under TFTP, data are sent in bulk to the US, to be stored and filtered according to requests of the U.S. Treasury Department. This has raised serious criticism, especially by the European Parliament (and the WP29), notably with regard to the necessity and proportionality of the 'bulk' data flows.
- If the filtering of data is performed within the EU under TFTS, according to criteria which should be particularly strict (in order to comply with the necessity and proportionality tests), the data sent to the United States would be restricted as a result. This is essential in order to meet the EU data protection requirements, even if the data would not totally meet the (broad) requests of U.S. authorities.
- [The] main reason for the development of a European terrorist finance tracking system ('EU TFTS') has its source in the present US TFTP agreement (and in particular its Article 11) and in the Council Decision of 13 July 2010 ("the Decision"). Currently, under TFTP, data are sent in bulk to the US, to be stored and filtered according to requests of the U.S. Treasury Department. This has raised serious criticism, especially by the European Parliament (and the
- European Data Protection Supervisor communication entitled Terrorist Finance Tracking System (TFTS) - European Commission Communication of 13 July 2011 (2011-0699) to Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Home Affairs, European Commission:[21]
- September 29
- Article 29 Working Partyletter regarding TFTP
2010
- November 19:
- Article 29 Working Party communication entitled EU-US General Agreement (D(2010) 837566) to Vice-President Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, European Commission:[23]
- On 26 May 2010 the European Commission presented the draft negotiating mandate for an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the protection of personal data when transferred and processed for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, including terrorism, in the framework of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (hereafter: the EU-US general agreement). The Article 29 Working Party understands the negotiating mandate has been under discussion in both the Council and the European Parliament in recent months and may be adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in early December. The Working Party regrets that it has not been consulted on the content of the negotiating mandate for this agreement, since these negotiations with the US are bound to be one of the most important steps within the area of data protection the EU is to take in the coming years.
- July 13: Council Decision
- EDPS: In the Decision, the Council agreed to the conclusion of the agreement between the EU and the US while at the same time inviting the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a legal and technical framework for the extraction of data on EU territory. Furthermore, in giving its approval to the conclusion of the agreement on 8 July 2010, the European Parliament explicitly acknowledged the commitment by the Council and the Commission to set up the legal and technical framework allowing for the extraction of data on EU soil. This commitment would in the mid-term ensure the termination of bulk data transfers to the U.S. authorities. The requirement for a prior filtering of data within the EU is supported by the EDPS, as it would prevent the sending of bulk data to a third country. However, the Communication goes beyond the acknowledged purpose of filtering data in the EU, as it clearly indicates that the "system should not be set up just to provide relevant information to US authorities", as the authorities of the Member States "have a real interest in the results of such a system as well". The Communication therefore seems to legitimise the setting up of a whole new TFTS scheme, in an EU specific context, on the basis of the existing TFTP agreement. In other words, the Communication seems to justify the introduction of a new system which invades the privacy of EU citizens for the benefit of the authorities of EU Member States while using as a justification the assessment of utility of a system conceived and implemented to allow the US authorities to pursue their own investigation linked to terrorism. The EDPS has strong doubts about this approach, which does not appear to respect the principles of necessity and proportionality (as developed below).[22]
- May 26: European Commission presents draft mandate.
- "The Article 29 Working Party understands the negotiating mandate has been under discussion in both the Council and the European Parliament in recent months and may be adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in early December. The Working Party regrets that it has not been consulted." - EDPS.[23]
- "The
2001-2006
- November 22, 2006: Article 29 Working Party adopts Opinion 10/2006 on the processing of personal data by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).[24]
- [The] Article 29 Working Party emphasizes that even in the fight against terrorism and crime fundamental rights must remain guaranteed. It insists therefore on the respect of global data protection principles.
- The Article 29 Working Party calls upon SWIFT and the financial institutions to take measures in order to remedy the currently illegal state of affairs without delay.
- September 2006: The Belgian government declared that the SWIFT dealings with U.S. government authorities were, in fact, a breach of Belgian and European privacy laws.
- June/July 2006
- At the end of June and beginning of July 2006, press coverage in the European and US media questioned the role and responsibilities of the Article 29 Working Party.[24]
- At the end of June and beginning of July 2006, press coverage in the European and US media questioned the role and responsibilities of the
New York Times' disclosure controversy
A number of Republicans in the
Some have also questioned whether the information in the original June 23, 2006 newspaper articles was even secret, despite its
However, critics of the decision to disclose the classified program's existence, including
"Since being asked to oversee this program by then-Secretary Snow and then-Deputy Secretary Bodman almost two years ago, I have received the written output from this program as part of my daily intelligence briefing. For two years, I have been reviewing that output every morning. I cannot remember a day when that briefing did not include at least one terrorism lead from this program. Despite attempts at secrecy, terrorist facilitators have continued to use the international banking system to send money to one another, even after September 11th. This disclosure compromised one of our most valuable programs and will only make our efforts to track
terrorist financing—and to prevent terrorist attacks—harder. Tracking terrorist money trails is difficult enough without having our sources and methods reported on the front page of newspapers."[36]
On October 22, 2006, Public Editor of The New York Times Byron Calame stated that he did not think the article should have been published, reversing his strong support of the Times in his June 2 column. "I haven't found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal...The lack of appropriate oversight—to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention—was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight".[37]
In September 2006, however, the Belgian government declared that the SWIFT dealings with U.S. government authorities were, in fact, a breach of Belgian and European privacy laws. New York Times editor Bill Keller responded to Calame's “revisionist epiphany” in a letter published on November 6, 2006. Keller felt that Calame's premise that “the press should not reveal sensitive secret information unless there is a preponderance of evidence that the information exposes illegal or abusive actions by the government” set too high a bar. Keller explained, “The banking story landed in the context of a national debate about the concentration of executive power. The Swift program was the latest in a series of programs carried out without the customary checks and balances—in this case, Congressional oversight. Key members of Congress who would normally be apprised of such a program and who would be expected to monitor its safeguards only learned of the program because we did”.[38]
See also
Further reading
- Farrell, Henry and Abraham Newman. 2019. Of Privacy and Power: The Transatlantic Struggle over Freedom and Security. Princeton University Press.
References
- ^ Lichtblau, Eric and Risen, James. "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror", New York Times, June 22, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2006.
- ^ Simpson, Glenn R. "U.S. Treasury Tracks Financial Data In Secret Program", Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2006.
- ^ Meyer, Josh and Miller, Greg. "Secret U.S. Program Tracks Global Bank Transfers", Los Angeles Times. June 22, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2006.
- New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-10.
- ^ Blustein, Paul, Gellman, Barton, and Linzer, Dafna. "Bank Records Secretly Tapped", Washington Post, June 23, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2006.
- ^ Bilefsky, Dan (June 28, 2006). "Rights group complains". The Boston Globe.
- U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), Argued January 12, 1976. Decided April 21, 1976. Retrieved July 1, 2006.
- ^ "Swift Press Release on the Program[dead link], Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2006.
- ^ NBB 'aware' of Swift's actions since 2002, Expatica, June 27, 2006. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
- Washington Post. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
- ^ "Bank wacht boete bij zwijgen over informeren VS" (in Dutch). NRC Handelsblad. 2007-03-10.
- ^ Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Press Release - Hearings of SWIFT representatives and Judge Bruguière, 8 April 2009
- ^ a b "MEPs call for suspension of EU-US bank data deal in response to NSA snooping | News | European Parliament". www.europarl.europa.eu. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- ^ a b Ermert, Monika (23 October 2013). "European Parliament: No More Bank Data Transfers To US For Anti-Terror Investigations". ip-watch.org. Intellectual Property Watch. Retrieved November 2, 2013.
- ^ "Merkel to seek intelligence rule book with US". EUobserver. 25 October 2013. Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- ^ "Procedure File: 2009/0190(NLE) | Legislative Observatory | European Parliament". oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- ^ "Remarks by Vice President Biden to the European Parliament". whitehouse.gov. 6 May 2010. Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- ^ "EuropeanVoice.com: MEPs vote to suspend SWIFT agreement with US, 23 October 2013". Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- ^ "Procedure File: 2010/0178(NLE) | Legislative Observatory | European Parliament". oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- ^ Simon Bendtsen & Peter Suppli Benson (26 February 2012). "Dansk politimand fanget i amerikansk terrornet". Berlingske (in Danish). Retrieved 26 February 2012.
- ^ Letter edps.europa.eu
- ^ a b Consultation and comments edps.europa.eu
- ^ a b Commissioner agreement ec.eu
- ^ a b "European Commission document" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-01-01. Retrieved 2012-09-07.
- ^ O’Connor, Patrick and Allen, Jonathan. "GOP bill targets NY Times Archived 2006-10-20 at the Wayback Machine", The Hill, June 28, 2006. Retrieved June 28, 2006.
- ^ Devlin Barrett. "Lawmaker Wants Times Prosecuted", The Washington Post, June 26, 2006. Retrieved July 3, 2006.
- ^ Editors. "Bush's hypocrisy once again comes into focus", The Albuquerque Tribune, June 29, 2006. Retrieved June 29, 2006.
- ^ Editors. "Patriotism and the Press", New York Times, June 28, 2006. Retrieved July 3, 2006.
- ^ Mintz, John (August 28, 1998). "Bin Laden's Finances Are Moving Target". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-07-11.
- Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
- ^ "President Freezes Terrorists' Assets". 14 October 2004. Archived from the original on 2004-10-14. Retrieved 15 November 2023.
- New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-08.
- ^ "Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal".
- ^ Keller, Bill. "Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report" New York Times, June 25, 2006. Retrieved June 25, 2006.
- ^ Snow, John W. "Letter to the Editors of The New York Times by Treasury Secretary Snow Archived 2006-09-23 at the Wayback Machine", June 26, 2006. Retrieved June 26, 2006
- ^ Levey, Stuart "Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary Terrorism and Financial Intelligence U.S. Department of the Treasury Before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Archived 2006-09-23 at the Wayback Machine", July 11, 2006. Retrieved July 23, 2006
- ^ Calame, Byron (October 22, 2006). "Can 'Magazines' of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?". New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
- ^ Calame, Byron (November 6, 2006). "Bill Keller Responds to Column on Swift Mea Culpa". New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
External links
- Information on Financial Information Sharing Agreements, request to the European Data Protection Supervisor via AskTheEU.org, 5 August 2012. (In particular, response dated 27th August).