Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-144"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.10.3-144"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the over 17 thousand people who, in the space of a very few days, as soon as the news appeared on the Internet that we wanted to include in a first pillar instrument on the harmonisation of the internal market an explicit reference to the possibility of requiring the retention of data, of all data
mail, telephone, Internet, SMS and mobile phone communications – have roused themselves: 50 US organisations, the American Civil Liberty Union and many others have risen up in opposition to this idea and this proposal, which is still the most serious, controversial point for us, a point which the PPE-DE/PSE compromise has attempted to include in our directive in line with the Council recommendations, acting against the European Parliament’s position at first reading, acting against the position and the recommendations of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.
This late hour is not particularly worthy of such an important debate and, what is more, it might have been a sign of respect if the Member of this Parliament who introduced these compromise amendments, acting against all the positions of the committee which she chairs, had come tonight, at least to explain to us, to attempt to convince us why we miserable half-dozen Members who are still in the Chamber should, together with our groups and the other Members, accept a u-turn on the positions adopted at first reading.
The situation is becoming absurd: a directive on the protection of privacy will become a directive clamping down mercilessly on ... on what? On unsolicited commercial
mails. With regard to this matter – as my colleagues know – I have my own opinion, with which some people do not agree: I believe that it is not legislation, opting in or opting out, which will help us to combat unsolicited
mails, and spamming is already banned on four or five grounds under the existing directives. Imposing one more ban will not make us any more capable of securing compliance with these rules. I would, however, ask the Members, particularly those who are of the opinion that receiving an unsolicited
mail constitutes a major violation of privacy, how can you, especially you, accept the introduction, against all the legal bases – and I would ask the Presidency to examine this point too, to ascertain whether these amendments are acceptable – of an explicit provision stipulating that, although this is a directive harmonising the internal market, with this directive we are going to authorise the Member States – they already have that authorisation, and if they already have it, why include it, why add it now – to implement blanket data retention, with a view to requiring the blanket retention of personal data in electronic communications? Everyone is urging us not to do it: the companies, because of the costs involved – but, we could say, who cares about the companies; the non-governmental organisations; the organisations concerned with freedoms on the Internet; the European Data Protection Supervisor, instituted by Article 29, who is the chairman of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data, who had adopted a position of consensus – or rather, we followed his recommendations at first reading – on the guarantees which are necessary if any form of exception is to be adopted. But no! We have decided, or rather it has been decided by the PPE-DE/PSE compromise, that all that had to be abandoned. And why? In order to reach a compromise? No, for we have accepted the positions proposed by the Council in their entirety.
I realise that people can have requirements; I can understand the fact that the Spanish Presidency wants to bring this dossier to a close: I expect that these are the requirements of some of the Members of this House. What I do not understand, however, is how these considerations, alone, have managed to sway, are swaying the overall position of the House. It has even been said – and I think this is the worst thing that has been said to us – not in this debate, for, of course, this debate is taking place after the decisions have been made, but in recent debates we have held – that the positions were the opposite of what was being proposed. There has not been a convincing debate and, indeed, those who proposed the changes are not in the House to attempt to persuade us tonight.
Has the fight against terrorism been mentioned? Do we need the clause on combating terrorism in an instrument harmonising and liberalising telecommunications? No, we do not! It is a lie: all the analysts were unanimous after September 11 in declaring that it was not data that we lacked but the capacity to analyse that data. What we need now is precisely an action combating crime which can invest in the capacity to analyse data, and requiring the blanket retention of data concerning all the citizens would be to take the completely opposite path, to set off in the direction of the mistakes made. I therefore call – and I am almost ashamed of my vehemence but I feel that, ultimately, the few Members remaining in the House deserve it – for the positions assumed to be changed once again, and I call for at least that clause which has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter – it is a third pillar clause, a clause relating to cooperation, justice and home affairs, which includes the possibility for Member States to make laws requiring the blanket retention of data – for that unlawful clause, at least, to be removed from our directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples