Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.8.3-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I want to begin by cordially thanking the rapporteur and the Commission for the superb way in which they have handled this difficult but extremely important issue. The new technology is in the process of transforming our lives and, together with the new currency, can create a completely new Europe. However, we are not alone in the world;
commerce means competition, not only for companies but also for politicians. Faulty regulations and obstacles both old and new can mean our failing to make the most of our historic opportunity for new freedom and success.
The development of information technology provides new opportunities to communicate and to disseminate information simply and cheaply. The increased flow of information through Bulletin Board Systems, electronic mail and the Internet ought not to be subject to greater restrictions than traditional information channels and communication facilities. A guiding principle for the new technology ought to be that everyone should have considerable freedom to make use of it and exploit the advantages it has to offer and that everyone should also be responsible for what they do.
The basis of a democracy must be that freedom of expression should be protected, not restricted. Communication using computers should be viewed in the same way as any medium of communication.
It is stated in one of the items, item 48, that the directive does not affect Member States’ ability to prevent a certain amount of illegal activity by imposing demands upon service providers who store information from their clients. I proposed that that sentence should be removed because it does not have anything to do with the criteria for being able to impose the restrictions concerned. It is not appropriate for the Member States to decide this issue or to demand that service providers be held liable for the actual details of the information provided. That would be as absurd as making a café owner liable for monitoring what is said across the café tables. Is there anyone who wants to see a utilitarian nanny State? I do not think so. I therefore also support Amendment No 1, which I think is extremely important and deals precisely with this issue.
E-commerce crime, or
as it is called, should, in my view, be combated by means of better working methods on the part of the police and not by means of legislation which is in danger of compromising basic democratic values.
It is time to implement the decisions about quality labelling and, in cooperation with the service providers, to devise practical codes of conduct without thereby raising the cost levels for consumers or introducing costly bureaucracy.
ought to be the motto for continued work on developing this area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Freedom with responsibility"1
"cyber crime"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples