Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-12-Speech-1-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011112.9.1-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Here we are again, Mr President, and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is still voting on terrorism. Never mind.
Second attempt: privacy in the electronic communications sector. I seem to remember that, last time, this House failed in its attempt to adopt a majority position because the two proposals made on the issue of unsolicited commercial e-mails – the proposal for compulsory European opt-in and the proposal allowing Member States the freedom to choose whether to opt in or opt out – as well as a joint proposal presented to the Members, too late in my view, cancelled each other out. The three proposals, therefore, cancelled each other out. Now, however, I feel that Parliament is, at last, ready to take a decision on this point, since the position of the Parliamentary Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights leaving the Member States the freedom to choose and the position of the Commission, compulsory European opt-in, have both been tempered, so to speak, and have become more reconciled in that the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights has taken into consideration the concerns relating to voice mail, in particular, and, on the other hand, the position advocating the introduction opting in, making an initial binding choice, at European level has taken into consideration the need to communicate with existing clients of a particular company or business.
I hope that the Members and the groups, in particular, will be able to decide between these two alternatives without getting confused at the last minute. Parliament will have the opportunity to choose between these two alternatives. In my opinion, and I would like to make this quite clear, there is not enough information or evidence showing that the countries operating the opt-in system are better equipped to fight spamming. Internet spamming is illegal in any case, because it is already illegal to collect addresses without authorisation, it is already illegal to use them without authorisation, it is already illegal to send messages without clearly specifying the sender and it is already illegal to send messages without making it possible for the recipients to delete their details easily from the lists. On the other hand, making opting in compulsory is not without risks either, in terms, for example, of freedom of communication. It is no accident that the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights has been cautious on this matter. There are, in fact, groups of non-governmental organisations which have expressed their concern at the possibility, for example, of Internet campaigns being used to raise funds.
I feel that this debate, this legislation, has now already been made obsolete by technology and practical facts. It appears that consumers now already have the facility to choose, themselves, individually, between an opt-in or opt-out system, without having to contact the sender of the message before deleting their details from the lists but simply placing the address of the sender in question on a black list so that they no longer have to receive messages from that sender. However, in view of the fact that six years have passed since the adoption of the General Data Protection Directive and many of the Member States have still not ratified it, that four years have passed since the adoption of the directive to be amended by this proposal for a directive and that many of the Member States have not even applied the ’97 directive, it is reasonable to predict, given these time frames, that this legislation will also take who knows, maybe three, four or five years to enter into force. If, in three, four or five years’ time, consumers and users really feel the need to be protected against unsolicited commercial e-mails, the market and technology will make the systems already available today even more simple. It would be a shame, however, if, after displaying this great, understandable concern about the nuisance caused by unsolicited commercial e-mails, we prepared, on the other hand, to give national police authorities full access to our personal data whenever they want it. This is not purely a problem of this directive: it is a more general political problem. I realise this. I fear that this is the direction in which we are heading and that the citizens’ greatest privacy concerns are not caused by the prospect of receiving a few more or less unsolicited commercial e-mails."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples