The majority of the EU Parliament’s lead committees today approved far-reaching new anti-money laundering laws: Anonymous cash payments over €3,000 will be banned in commercial transactions. Cash payments over €10,000 will even be completely banned in business transactions. And anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers (hosted wallets) will be prohibited even for minimum amounts without a threshold.

MEP and digital freedom fighter Dr. Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party) explains his vote against as follows:

“Generally prohibiting anonymous payments would at best have minimal effects on crime, but it would deprive innocent citizens of their financial freedom. The medicines or sex toys I buy is nobody’s business. To collect donations, dissidents such as the late Alexei Navalny and his wife are increasingly reliant on anonymous donations in virtual currencies worldwide. Wikileaks has also already been cut off from donations by credit card companies. Where every financial transaction is captured and saved forever, this creates a honey pot for malicious hackers and law enforcement as well as a chilling government shadow over every purchase or donation.

This EU war on cash will have nasty repercussions! For thousands of years, societies around the world have lived with privacy-protecting cash. With the creeping abolition of cash, there is a threat of negative interest rates and the risk of banks cutting off the money supply at any time. Dependence on banks is increasing at an alarming rate. This kind of financial disenfranchisement must be stopped.

Instead, we need to think about ways we can bring the best attributes of cash into our digital future. We have a right to pay and donate online without our personal transactions being recorded. If the EU believes it can regulate virtual currencies at a regional level, it hasn’t understood the global nature of the Internet.”

Background on the cash limit:

There was a great public outcry when the Commission asked the public for their opinion on limiting cash payments in 2017. More than 90% of responding citizens spoke out against such a step. Respondents considered paying anonymously in cash an “essential personal freedom” and that “Restrictions on payments in cash are ineffective in achieving the potential objectives (fight against criminal activities, terrorism, tax evasion)”. According to an ECB survey up to 10% of citizens use cash even for amounts greater than 10.000 € (e.g. buying cars). According to calculations by shadow economy expert Friedrich Schneider of the University of Linz, banning large cash payments would have “only minimal lowering effects on crime”.

Background on “virtual cash”:

Unlike cash, which is entirely anonymous, transactions carried out with cryptocurrencies can, in the case of Bitcoin, be traced on the “blockchain”. Law enforcement has again and again been successfully prosecuting such criminals by detecting unusual patterns and identifying suspects. Some criminals have eventually de-anonymized themselves, and every criminal will need to eventually exchange their digital funds for real money. Virtual Assets are of minor relevance to the global financial system. There is insufficient evidence on the volume and frequency of the usage of cryptocurrencies for money laundering. EU rules would be easy to circumvent due to the global nature of the Internet. Virtual Assets can technically be transferred directly from one person to another without using intermediaries, which makes them impossible to regulate. Where Virtual Assets have been used for criminal activities in the past, prosecution has been possible on the basis of the current rules.

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-cash-c…

The lead LIBE committee in the EU Parliament today voted in favor of increased surveillance of air travelers. Pirate Party MEP Dr. Patrick Breyer explains the consequences and his opposition:

“The fact that non-European flights are placed under general suspicion was already the case before. However, even where there are no border controls concerning national or Schengen flights, airlines will have to scan a machine-readable ID card and report the passenger data in future. This makes it much easier to create movement profiles.

Whether and which passenger data is reported to law enforcement agencies for flights without border controls is a secret. The secret report is by no means limited to suspects, but covers entire flight connections on the basis of a vague ‘risk analysis’.

This tightening of air traveler surveillance contradicts the achievement of abolishing border controls in Europe. It is not justified to place unsuspicious air travelers under general suspicion. That is why I voted against the reform.”

The API reform still requires a final plenary approval before it enters into force.

Full text of the new regulations:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014\_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/LIBE/DV/2024/03-18/ANNEXtoAPIBorders-2022-0424COD\_EN.pdf

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014\_2019/plmrep/COMMITT

Council press release:

consilium.europa.eu/de/press/p…

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-tighte…

Messaggio di prova

@Gruppo test

In an open letter initiated by Pirate Party MEP and digital freedom fighter Patrick Breyer, 36 Members of the European Parliament have expressed a resolute condemnation of Meta’s controversial ‘pay or okay’ scheme to Nick Clegg, President of Global Affairs at Meta. MEPs express deep concerns regarding the “privacy fee” undermining privacy and data protection, presenting a “false choice” and constituting “economic coercion”. The scheme is currently under scrutiny by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the Commission, and is being litigated in court by consumer organisations.

Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer comments the letter:

“Privacy is not a commodity – it’s a fundamental human right that should never be subject to commercial transactions. The ‘pay or okay’ model used by Meta perpetuates inequalities, undermines the very essence of personal security and reinforces unjust systems. Meta’s approach fails to seek genuine consent as required by the GDPR, coercing users into acceptance by making privacy unaffordable. The reason Meta insists in an unlawful consent model is because its business model is dependent on pervasive tracking. We need a true alternative to tracking and targeted advertising, with approaches such as contextual advertising. We urge Meta to scrap its ‘pay or okay’ scheme.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/open-lett…

The final negotiations (trilogue) on the European Health Data Space are taking place in Brussels this evening. One of the negotiators, Pirate Party MEP and privacy expert Patrick Breyer, points to a potentially momentous last-minute change:

“The right of patients to object to cross-border access to their patient file (Article 8F(2)) is in danger of being removed. Any nationally created electronic health record could thus automatically be made available to foreign practitioners, authorities and researchers, among others. This is contrary to the interests and wishes of patients, only a minority of whom, according to a public opinion poll commissioned by consumer organisation BEUC, agree to cross-border access to their patient records. It also does not even come close to doing justice to the sensitivity of the data, which includes records on addictions, mental disorders, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases and reproductive disorders.”

Breyer also points out other sticking points in the negotiations:

“Depending on the outcome of the negotiations, you could see your sexually transmitted diseases and sexual disorders, impotence and infertility, abortions, addictions and mental illnesses transferred to health ministries, universities and health insurance companies – without any patient control, without a guaranteed right to opt-out or any requirement for consent, even for the most intimate conditions. The patient data could be accessible under a pseudonym and remain identifiable. Ultimately, this could mean the end of medical confidentiality and deterring patients from seeking urgently needed treatments for fear of stigmatisation, possibly even resulting in suicides. Profit interests could be blatantly prioritised over the interests of patients.
Independent certification of the security of European health data systems may not be required. And the storage of our patient records threatens to be permitted even outside Europe, for example in the USA.
Overall, EU governments and the EU Commission want to accumulate, interconnect and pass on the most sensitive patient records without wanting to guarantee patients’ control over their data. , ‘Anything goes, no obligations’ is not an approach that patients can trust. Without trust, a European Health Data Space cannot exist. According to surveys, more than 80% of EU citizens want to decide for themselves about the transfer of their patient records to third parties.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-health…