Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.14.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr van Velzen, I am pleased to see that the demands for basic information society services and universal service feature in this report. After all, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have made the point often enough that everyone should have access to the new technologies.
Unfortunately, neither basic provisions nor universal service are defined. And it is so very important to define these tasks to my mind, because otherwise the marginalised target groups will find themselves even further back in the queue, for example the elderly, the disabled or immigrants. All the report says is how the undefined basic services are to be achieved, i.e. more market freedom and less state intervention. You are right to note that the state is not providing, in an optimum manner, for fair access to information technologies. But companies are even less motivated in this respect. They are only interested in developing for the market, as was reconfirmed by the UNIC Summit at the weekend.
It will only be possible to stop people from becoming digital illiterates if we afford them self-access to the new media in schools, universities and other public spheres. Only then will people become truly innovative in their dealings with these technologies, and will a discussion about opportunities and risks take place. Unfortunately, this is where the report is lacking in concrete proposals. For example, for there to be fair access, the state should not spend billions on Microsoft programmes when there are more democratic, innovative and secure software versions, namely Open Source, available for free on the Internet.
The opportunities are there but they are not being used. The issue of data protection, as Mr Glante has just mentioned, may have been raised here on more than one occasion, but there are no ideas forthcoming as to how to give it concrete form. It is all very vague. There has been one concrete proposal to this effect, i.e. automatic caller location for purposes other than emergency calls, for commercial applications that is. Firstly, even if the consent of the user were to be required, this would start to chip away at fundamental rights, and secondly, the proposal is completely out of touch because it has long been possible to ascertain the location of callers using mobile phones without obtaining the user’s prior consent. The market is not a panacea, and secondly, the statements on data protection are still vague. As such, commercial interests are taking precedence over the protection of fundamental rights. Therefore I intend to vote against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples