Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-354-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120703.18.2-354-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The fundamental idea of an emergency service that calls the nearest public safety answering point automatically is a good one, but, as is so often the case, there are gaps in the idea which need to be closed before the system can be regarded as perfect. We live in an age when we can and must expect the highest standards in technological terms. I am of the opinion that every Member State should decide for itself whether it wants to fit this system in cars, because it involves certain risks. It is important to remember that there is a risk that the system will be activated in the case of every accident, even if it is ‘just’ a rear-end collision. When it makes a call, the emergency services will arrive and find out that there is ‘only’ damage to the vehicles and this may prevent them from reaching the scene of another accident in good time. We need to bear this in mind. Furthermore, the system should officially only be activated when it is needed, but it is difficult to establish this in advance. There is a risk of it being misused, even in stand-by mode. I see this as a breach of privacy, because the eCall system can be used to identify where people are and how fast they are driving, for example. For the reasons I have given, certain issues need to be rectified or reconsidered, which is why I have abstained."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples