Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.10.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is just as well that this is the second reading, when we should have just been fine-tuning a few positions! It would seem, however, that we are faced with almost a complete overturning of what was agreed at first reading: there has been a major reshuffling of the cards which has enabled the different groups to review the positions they had taken before, to alter them and to propose compromises which are frankly quite perplexing. We must draw a veil over the matter, so to speak, in any case
and remember what it is we are actually discussing. We are discussing a proposal for a directive which seeks to amend the previous European Parliament and Council directive – Directive 97/66 of 15 December 1997, to be exact – which laid down provisions on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, and bring it into line with technological innovations which have taken place which were actually quite foreseeable.
I would reiterate my reservations, which I have already voiced at first reading, about the usefulness and effectiveness of rules which are so specific, too specific in their regulation of the telecommunications sector and therefore too invasive of citizens’ privacy. I still feel that it is possible to apply the standards which are currently in existence and endorsed at European level to achieve the same end while avoiding the risk of overregulation, of excessive regulation, that is. We need to avoid this alleged respect for privacy leading to the establishment of two systems or a system with two different sets of rules, which would mean, first and foremost, excessive protection of the citizens’ privacy and laying down excessively restrictive rules in the private sector, while leaving the Member States, on the other hand, absolutely free to intervene for their own purposes in the lives of the citizens themselves, for example requiring electronic communication service providers to perform tasks which almost amount to police work.
Lastly, I trust that I will not upset anyone if I say that I agree with the rapporteur when he says, in Amendment No 4, that cookies are ultimately acceptable, almost legitimate tools, for they make it easier to understand how to surf the Internet, providing clear, exhaustive information; in other words, they make the surfer more alert. What I mean to say is I do not believe that surfers are victims of cookies.
Another issue is spamming, against which we are completely defenceless: those who indulge in this practice do what they want to when they want to and, most importantly, in the quantities and with the quality they want to. At this point, I do not believe it will be easy to produce a directive which everyone can support. We have tried. If it were possible – and I know the Rules of Procedure do not permit it – we should resort to a third reading: it may be only then that we would find that point of convergence and consensus which, at this point, at this moment in time, we are realising that we have failed to reach with two readings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples