Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-386"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.11.3-386"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Cappato and also Mrs Thors, Mr Bakopoulos and Mrs Schröder of the various contributing committees of the European Parliament for this report. I will start with the Cappato report.
The opt-in regime is one uniform legal solution. We have difficulties there but I am sure that they are less than with the present opt-out regime. For these reasons the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 19, 41 and 42. However, knowing how difficult this issue is, and how divided opinions have been in this House, we should also look for compromise solutions and I want to be open and constructive on this issue. We therefore welcome the constructive compromise amendments 53 and 62 which have been presented. The Commission is willing to look for solutions along the lines of these amendments, but subject to some redrafting and streamlining within the existing legal framework.
The second important issue I would like to mention is general traffic retention for law enforcement purposes. On this one, I have the impression that the Commission and the European Parliament are on the same line. The existing telecommunications data protection directive states that traffic data must be erased when they are no longer needed for the provision of the service and for billing. In addition, there is a clause referring to the reasons for which Member States may adopt specific legal measures in derogation of this principle in exceptional cases. These reasons include, inter alia, national security, defence, and the investigation and prosecution of crimes. We discussed these issues earlier today in this House. Since the rights protected in this existing and proposed directive are based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – under the protection of privacy of home, family life and correspondence – any exception must remain within the rules established by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
As we discussed this morning during the Echelon debate, it is important that the rules for both citizens and for the State are very clear and precise regarding the rights and obligations in this sensitive area. Therefore, the Commission can support Amendment No 4 which strengthens the recital text on this point. However, the Commission is not in favour of copying the same text into Article 15, as proposed by Amendment 50, as it may overstep the legal basis of the directive.
In summary, out of the 62 amendments submitted to plenary, 35 can be fully supported by the Commission. These are Amendments Nos 1 to 4, 7 to 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 to 29, 31 to 35, 37, 39, 45, 49, 51, 52, 56 and 57.
Another seven amendments which can be supported in part or in principle subject to certain drafting changes are 5, 46 to 48, 53, 60 and 62. I mentioned two of these earlier.
But there are 20 amendments which the Commission cannot support: 6, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 30, 36, 38, 40 to 44, 50, 54, 55, 58 and 59.
As regards the Cederschiöld report, I would like to thank the honourable Members of the European Parliament for the constructive approach to the Commission communication on cybercrime and cybersecurity. I would particularly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Cederschiöld, and also Mrs McCarthy and Mrs Zorba, the draftspersons of the contributing committees. The report identifies key issues for further consideration.
Many of the recommendations in the report are in line with the current view of the Commission on policy development to combat cybercrime and improve security.
There is one recommendation, however, of which I have to say that it is not acceptable to the Commission, that is Recommendation No 5 concerning the transfer of responsibilities for data protection within the Commission and to concentrating responsibility for certain other tasks in single units. This is a matter of internal organisation of the Commission which should be left entirely to the discretion of the President of the Commission.
Concerning the other recommendations, in as far as they are not already parts of plans for policy development, the Commission will give them full consideration, and will see how far they can be incorporated in upcoming or new initiatives.
I am pleased that Parliament is now debating this important directive which forms an essential element of the electronic communications regulatory reform package. This will enable us to try and minimise the procedural delay which the data protection directive has incurred, as compared with the rest of the package.
As you know, this communication was issued in January this year. It has been sponsored jointly by Commissioner Vitorino and myself. This has been the first comprehensive policy statement of the European Commission on the issue of cybercrime.
In March, the Commission organised a public hearing. Over 400 people came to Brussels to attend this event, which shows the strong interest of the public in participating in this discussion. Next the Commission will shortly issue a proposal for a framework decision on combating serious attacks against information systems. This initiative addresses acts like hacking, denial-of-service attacks, and the spread of viruses.
In June, the Commission issued a communication on network and information security, which I presented this morning in this House in detail. This communication deals with preventive organisational and technical measures, and is complementary to the framework decision, which deals with ex-post criminal investigations.
At the technical level, as part of the Information Society Technologies Programme, the Commission is promoting research and development to understand and reduce vulnerabilities and stimulate the dissemination of know-how. IST projects focus in particular on the development of confidence-building technologies.
The first legislative initiative announced in the communication has already been issued: a proposal for a framework decision that includes measures to combat child pornography. I fully share the strong opinions expressed on this issue in this House tonight.
The communication has announced a forum in which the relevant parties will have the opportunity to discuss various issues to find an appropriate balance between network security, law enforcement powers, privacy protection and economic priority. An open debate is vital to achieve an effective, coherent and balanced policy approach and to assure confidence and trust among European citizens. Confidence and trust of the users is directly related to the take-up of electronic commerce and to the success of the Information Society.
The report of the European Parliament is an important milestone in this policy debate.
I would also like to concentrate on two issues which have been discussed by so many. First, opt-in for unsolicited commercial e-mails and the question of traffic data retention for law enforcement purposes.
It appears from the debate that the proposed opt-in for unsolicited commercial e-mails divides opinions in this House. This is understandable, since this is a complex issue and arguments on both sides of the debate have some merit. However, I am convinced that the Commission proposal for opt-in is best, for essentially two reasons. First, the internal market needs a harmonised solution, a simple and clear rule throughout the EU. It is particularly important in an economic sector which is so profoundly without frontiers as electronic commerce over the Internet is.
Mr van Velzen asked me a question about the applicability of subsidiarity in this field. I want to be crystal clear. It is legally impossible for opt-in countries to enforce their system with regard to mail coming from opt-out countries. These two systems cannot exist because the opt-out regime will override any opt-in systems. We can discuss subsidiarity but in practice it cannot work with the two systems. The opt-out system, especially, will override the opt-in system.
The second reason is the cost issue which has been mentioned by many. It is very difficult to justify that the recipients of unsolicited commercial e-mail will have to pay for messages which they do not want to receive. Receiving paper advertising material in your traditional mail box is annoying, but at least you do not pay for it. You do not pay for the printing, you do not pay for the transport. E-mail marketing may well be the only form of marketing where the recipient carries most of the cost. In addition, removing unsolicited e-mails from mail servers entails a substantial cost for Internet service providers. For that reason, Internet service providers strongly favour opt-in solutions.
Finally, we must remember that the Internet is going mobile. This is starting now with SMS messages. But this legislation will concern all e-mails which will go in future to mobile terminals. That will be more disruptive than receiving such messages on your PC. Imagine the mobile device in your pocket beeping all the time to announce the arrival of yet another commercial offer you cannot refuse and you want to keep your mobile phone on because you want to be connected with the people close to you. Moreover, messages to mobile terminals may also entail an even bigger cost, if the subscriber is roaming like most of us gathered here tonight. We are roaming practically all the time. With the advent of the Mobile Internet, the costs and nuisance of unsolicited communications will therefore increase significantly.
Mrs Thors raised two questions. Firstly the situation in the United States. I had the privilege to participate in many discussions with the Members of the Senate and the US Congress in this field. Today, there are about 60 proposals in Congress on that issue. In general, it is agreed that the present opt-out system has a lot of problems, but the solutions vary. There are some who go for opt-in solutions, there are others who present different schemes to make strict rules such as that there should be a penalty for a company that does not take your name away as soon as you ask. I cannot say that there is one simple solution, there is criticism of the present opt-out practice. There are powerful Members of Senate and the Congress who advocate opt-in solutions. You will be able to contact these people especially when the Internet caucus of Congress visits Europe in the next few weeks.
As far as the applicability of an opt-in regime outside Europe is concerned, the GATT agreement allows its members to take measures to enforce their data protection legislation within their territory. On this basis, the EU can require non-EU based companies to comply with its opt-in legislation. Mr Coelho asked whether it is difficult to control. In this kind of world it is very difficult to draft legislation which is 100% waterproof. But I am sure that opt-out will be much more difficult to control than opt-in. There is no harmonised system. There are hundreds of thousands of databases, practices, private operations and if anybody is optimistic I invite you to try. You could, for example, start by sending a letter to all those companies whose material you no longer wish to receive and then check how many will remove your name during the following days and how many respond to your request. It is something anybody can try. I have done it myself. I am not optimistic."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples