Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-25-Speech-1-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991025.4.1-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, at this time I shall be thinking of our former colleague, Ullman, who was the rapporteur when we discussed electronic signatures last time. There were not many of us present here then, but there are a few more of us today. I think it is because there are more of us here in the Chamber who understand the importance of this directive.
Its importance is also illustrated by the share issue last week in connection with the Finnish company
. This was a real example of people’s capitalism.
is a company which, partly through the Internet, markets just the kind of security and verification services we have been discussing. It is therefore an economically important proposal we are debating.
When we discuss this, it is also important that we obtain a quick decision, as the rapporteur pointed out and as many others have emphasised. I support the rapporteur and am pleased about the Council’s view that a quick decision is wanted and that constructive dialogue has taken place. I think that, otherwise, the European market may well become fragmented because quite a lot of countries have now already adopted directives. It would therefore be unfortunate if we were not to obtain this directive.
I also think that this directive is clear, even though there have been certain discussions about its not specifying what formal requirements the Member States want to make in connection with different procedures. One unoriginal example which might be used to illustrate this is the fact that, if legislation in the Member States makes it a prerequisite that both parties be present simultaneously, then, in order to get married over the Internet, it is not enough for both parties to produce this type of signature. There is therefore a formal requirement there in the legislation, and this cannot be overturned.
When we talk about identification and security services of this type, I hope that we do not limit ourselves and think that it is just a question of numbers. Instead, we shall, in the future, have other forms of perhaps physical identification and verification, and I hope that this will be borne in mind when drafting the revision clause of the directive. Now, do not imagine that I have been watching too many James Bond films. No, this is in fact how it is going to be in the future, and that is why the revision clause is important.
The talk is of voluntary agreements and of a variety of options, but in actual fact it is important that the security requirements in this directive should be complied with so that signatures valid on a national basis also have international currency. It is also worth pointing out that the Commission has an important task in establishing both what are to be regarded as reliable signatures and what are to be regarded as secure arrangements. Where these matters are concerned, I hope that the Commission will establish standards which are economically correct, that this will be done in an open way and that no de facto monopoly will be created. We know in fact that standards in the information society have precisely this degree of significance. The directive gives the Commission a very great deal of power in this area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Data Fellows"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples