No subjugation without representation
"We recognize that the fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to share personal data for law enforcement"
Ooo look, it says transnational and terrorism, so it's only for crimes that involved both jurisdiction and serious terrorism cases..... I'll just check that it says that in the agreement....
"3. Relevant and Necessary/Proportionality. Personal information may only be processed to the extent it is relevant, necessary and appropriate to accomplish a law enforcement purpose laid down by law."
Nope, seems to be missing.
So, first problem,
1. you say it's for transnational crime and terrorism but that's not in the limits.
2. it can and therefore will be used for petty crimes.
3. It can and will be used for crimes that are legal in one continent but not in the other (e.g. online gambling sites run by Europeans can be criminalize in the USA despite being legal in the EU etc. etc.).
4. You're signing an agreement that removes the right to privacy and legal protections for Europeans, which you aren't authorized to do. Those protections don't stem from this data sharing agreement, the data sharing agreement must conform to those protections.
5. There is no protection for information once it's been sent. If they say it's for law enforcement, then it doesn't get used for such, what happens to it? Saying 'lawful processing' is not a protection, if one side makes a law that says it can be used for any and every purpose then it can be used for any and every purpose.
6. Who decides it's for law enforcement, the state that *wants* the data, or the state that has to hand the data over. One of those I can vote for, one I cannot. One has my democratic control, one does not.
7. It therefore can and will be used where no crime occurs, for peripheral data, i.e. trawling, used against protestors and dissidents etc.
8. No equivalence clause, if USA creates an Echellon trawling law for non USA citizens, the EU has to hand over EU citizens data. It would be "lawful processing" because it's USA law. It requires law enforcement purpose, but doesn't specify that the laws concerned need to equally apply to Americans.... opens Europeans to attack from hostile dishonest executive.
9. Medical records, political records, speech records, etc. are off bounds always. How I vote is never a crime, what I am ill with is never a crime, even what I eat is none of your foooking business, even if it's diabetic meal.
10. At the core of this is the point, that my vote only influences my nation. So any agreement that elevates another nations laws about my nations laws undermines my democracy. The law enforcement and judicial process has to be within MY VOTING ability, so that the ultimate power to vote the fookers out is available to me.
I vote for Obama, the best of a bad lot, but then again, I don't have a vote, I'd be subject to US laws without being in their country, or having a vote for their president. Does the EU Commission have a mandate to eliminate democracy in Europe now? I don't think it does.