Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.4.2-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Paciotti report is a first step towards attempting to make up the backlog which has accumulated as regards defending privacy and personal data. To this extent, the creation of an “independent supervisory body” is a positive move.
However, none of the key questions of safeguarding personal rights and freedoms has been dealt with in a truly explicit fashion and the text, which is often technically confusing, lends itself to divergent interpretations. What is more, it does not go so far as the French legislation on computer technology and freedoms.
Other proposals should have been included. It should be made mandatory to officially declare the existence of all databases; there must be a ban on merging databases (particularly in the fields of private life, health, social situations, etc.) in order to prevent gigantic databases being created; and, also, employees working with personal data must be given the means to withstand pressure from their employers by the establishment of a code of ethics and a conscience clause of the type that journalists have.
Finally, citizens must be given the means to protect their own privacy themselves by allowing a free choice of encryption in data transmission. In this context, encryption techniques must be guaranteed by independent bodies.
These few key provisions must be taken into consideration if we are to truly protect personal data. We therefore abstained."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples