Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-103"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-12-14"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Hääletuse kohta selgituste andmine⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051214.11.3-103"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-12-14-Speech-3-104⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Bill Newton Dunn⁶
lpv:spoken text	". I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² substitute; LIBE (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)²² substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² member; IMCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@cs¹ "Jeg stemte for LIBE-udvalgets holdning, men imod den samlede beslutning. Hastelovgivning er som regel dårlig lovgivning. Det britiske formandskab har hastet denne lovgivning igennem. Det er tragisk, at to store grupper i Europa-Parlamentet har vedtaget den under en enkelt behandling i stedet for at foretage en nøje undersøgelse. Den har mange mangler. Definitionen af grove forbrydelser er usikker, hvorfor det bliver overladt til de 25 regeringer hver især at træffe beslutning om deres egen fremgangsmåde. Spørgsmålet om omkostninger er uklart. Det må være efterspørgerne, regeringerne, der skal betale, og ikke den enkelte borger. Inddragelsen af e-mails var ikke gennemtænkt. Industrien blev aldrig hørt formelt. Der ses bort fra e-mail-udbydere som Hotmail og Yahoo. I forbindelse med bombningerne i Madrid i 2004 sendte terroristerne ikke e-mails. I stedet for skrev en af dem en kladde på Yahoo, og hans medskyldige loggede på og læste den. Der udsendes en masse spam-e-mail. Hvorfor ønsker regeringerne at bevare spam? Teksten giver de 25 regeringer for stort spillerum til at gøre, hvad de vil. Den giver dem mulighed for selv at træffe beslutning om detaljerne og kan ikke ændres af de nationale parlamenter. Dette er en utilfredsstillende retsakt. Jeg er stolt over at have stemt imod den i dens nuværende form."@da^2,2 ". Ich habe für die Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für die Freiheiten und Rechte der Bürger, Justiz und innere Angelegenheiten, aber gegen die Entschließung in ihrer Gesamtheit gestimmt. Überstürzte Rechtsvorschriften sind für gewöhnlich schlechte Rechtsvorschriften. Diese wurde vom britischen Ratsvorsitz hastig durchgedrückt. Tragischerweise haben zwei große Fraktionen sie in einer einzigen Lesung angenommen, anstatt eine eingehende Überprüfung vorzunehmen. Die Richtlinie hat viele Mängel. Die Definition der „schweren Straftaten“ ist ungenau, es bleibt den 25 verschiedenen Regierungen überlassen, nach eigenem Ermessen zu entscheiden. Unklar ist auch die Kostenfrage. Die Antragsteller, also die Regierungen, sollten die Kosten übernehmen, nicht der einzelne Bürger. Außerdem wurde die Einbeziehung von E-Mails schlecht durchdacht. Die Branche wurde niemals ausdrücklich dazu konsultiert. E-Mails von Hotmail und Yahoo sind ausgeschlossen. Bei den Anschlägen von Madrid im Jahr 2004 versandten die Terroristen keine E-Mails; stattdessen schrieb einer von ihnen einen Plan auf Yahoo und seine Komplizen loggten sich ein und lasen ihn. Es werden so viele Spam-Mails versandt. Warum wollen die Regierungen Spam-Mails speichern? Im Text werden den 25 Regierungen zu viele Freiheiten gelassen, sodass sie nach eigenem Gutdünken handeln können. Sie dürfen die Einzelheiten selbst bestimmen, die von den nationalen Parlamenten nicht geändert werden können. Dies ist keine zufrieden stellende Rechtsvorschrift. Darum kann ich mit Stolz sagen, dass ich sie in ihrer derzeitigen Form abgelehnt habe."@de⁹ ". Ψήφισα υπέρ της θέσης της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, αλλά κατά του συνολικού ψηφίσματος. Η νομοθεσία που εγκρίνεται βεβιασμένα είναι κακή νομοθεσία. Αυτό το μέτρο προωθήθηκε βεβιασμένα από τη βρετανική Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου. Είναι τραγικό το γεγονός ότι δύο μεγάλες πολιτικές ομάδες του ΕΚ το ενέκριναν σε μία ανάγνωση, αντί να το υποβάλουν σε ενδελεχή εξέταση. Το κείμενο παρουσιάζει πολλές ατέλειες. Ο ορισμός των «σοβαρών ποινικών αδικημάτων» είναι ασαφής, αφήνοντας 25 διαφορετικές κυβερνήσεις να αποφασίσουν όπως κρίνει σκόπιμο η καθεμιά. Το ζήτημα του κόστους δεν έχει αποσαφηνιστεί. Το κόστος πρέπει να το καλύψουν οι κυβερνήσεις, οι οποίες ζητούν το μέτρο, και όχι ο πολίτης. Η συμπερίληψη των ηλεκτρονικών μηνυμάτων δεν μελετήθηκε σωστά. Δεν υπήρξε καμία επίσημη διαβούλευση με τη βιομηχανία. Οι υπηρεσίες ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου των Hotmail και Yahoo εξαιρούνται. Στις βομβιστικές επιθέσεις του 2004 στη Μαδρίτη οι τρομοκράτες δεν έστειλαν ηλεκτρονικά μηνύματα· τουναντίον, ένας εξ αυτών έγραψε ένα σχέδιο στο Yahoo, και οι συνεργοί του συνδέθηκαν και το διάβασαν. Στέλνονται τόσα πολλά ανεπιθύμητα ηλεκτρονικά μηνύματα. Γιατί οι κυβερνήσεις θέλουν να διατηρήσουν τα ανεπιθύμητα μηνύματα; Το κείμενο προσφέρει υπερβολικά περιθώρια στις 25 κυβερνήσεις, οι οποίες μπορούν να κάνουν ό,τι νομίζουν. Τους επιτρέπει να αποφασίζουν οι ίδιες τις λεπτομέρειες, ενώ δεν μπορεί να τροποποιηθεί από τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια. Αυτό το νομοθετικό μέτρο δεν είναι ικανοποιητικό. Είμαι υπερήφανος που το πολέμησα στην παρούσα του μορφή."@el¹⁰ ". He votado a favor de la posición de la comisión LIBE, pero en contra de la resolución global. Una ley apresurada suele ser una mala ley. La presidencia del Reino Unido del Consejo ha sido quien ha metido prisa. Es trágico que dos grandes Grupos de diputados al Parlamento Europeo la hayan aprobado en una única lectura y no tras un escrutinio a fondo. Tiene muchos defectos. La definición de «delitos graves» es dudosa, por lo que se deja a la libre decisión de los 25 Gobiernos. La cuestión de los costes está poco clara. Los solicitantes, los Gobiernos, deberían pagar, no el ciudadano particular. La inclusión de los correos electrónicos no fue una buena idea. Nunca se consultó formalmente a la industria. Los correos electrónicos de Hotmail y Yahoo quedan totalmente excluidos. En los bombardeos de Madrid de 2004 los terroristas no enviaron ningún correo electrónico; en su lugar, uno de ellos escribió un borrador en Yahoo y sus cómplices entraron y lo leyeron. Se envía tanto correo electrónico basura. ¿Por qué los Gobiernos quieren conservar el correo basura? El texto concede mucha libertad a los 25 Gobiernos para hacer lo que quieren. Les permite a ellos mismos decidir los detalles, que los Parlamentos nacionales no pueden modificar. Es una ley poco satisfactoria. Me enorgullece haberme opuesto a ella en su forma actual."@es²⁰ "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@et⁵ ". Äänestin kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunnan kannan puolesta mutta koko päätöslauselmaa vastaan. Kiireessä tehty laki on yleensä huono. Tämä ehdotus hyväksyttiin kiireellä Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan toimiessa neuvoston puheenjohtajana. On harmillista, että kaksi suurta Euroopan parlamentin jäsenten ryhmää on hyväksynyt ehdotuksen ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä tutkimatta asiaa perusteellisesti. Tekstissä on useita puutteita. Niin kutsutut "vakavat rikokset" on määritelty epämääräisesti, ja jokaisessa 25 hallituksessa voidaan antaa sille oma määritelmä. Kustannuskysymys jää epäselväksi. Vaatimuksia esittävän tahon, eli hallitusten olisi maksettava kustannukset yksittäisten kansalaisten sijaan. Sähköpostien sisällyttämistä tekstiin ei mietitty riittävästi. Tuotannonalaa ei koskaan kuultu virallisesti. Hotmail- ja Yahoo-osoitteissa kirjoitettavat sähköpostit on jätetty säädöksen soveltamisalan ulkopuolelle. Madridissa vuonna 2004 tehtyjen pommi-iskujen yhteydessä terroristit eivät lähettäneet sähköposteja; sen sijaan yksi heistä kirjoitti luonnoksen Yahoo-osoitteessa, ja hänen rikoskumppaninsa kirjautuivat sisään ja lukivat luonnoksen. Roskasähköposteja lähetetään todella paljon. Miksi hallitukset haluavat säilyttää roskapostia? Ehdotuksessa jätetään aivan liian paljon toimintavapauksia 25 hallitukselle, jotka voivat tehdä mitä haluavat. Tekstin ansiosta ne saavat päättää itse yksityiskohdista, eivätkä kansalliset parlamentit voi tehdä tarkistuksia päätöksiin. Tämä laki on puutteellinen. Olen tyytyväinen, että äänestin ehdotusta vastaan sellaisena kuin se nyt on."@fi⁷ ". J’ai voté pour l’avis de la commission LIBE, mais contre la résolution globale. Une législation adoptée à la hâte est rarement bonne. Celle-ci a été emmenée dans la précipitation par la présidence britannique du Conseil. Il est déplorable que deux grands groupes parlementaires aient adopté ce projet en une seule lecture au lieu de procéder à un examen approfondi. Nombreux sont les défauts. La définition des «délits graves» est floue, les 25 gouvernements étant libres d’en décider pour leur propre compte. La question des coûts n’est pas claire. Ce sont les demandeurs, les gouvernements, qui doivent payer, et non les citoyens. La question de l’inclusion des courriers électroniques a été expédiée. Le secteur n’a jamais été formellement consulté. Les services de messagerie Hotmail et Yahoo sont exclus. Lors des attentats de Madrid en 2004, les terroristes n’ont pas envoyé de courriers électroniques; par contre l’un d’eux a écrit un brouillon sur Yahoo, et son complice s’est connecté pour le lire. Le volume de «spam» envoyé est énorme. Pourquoi les gouvernements veulent-ils préserver le spam? Le texte laisse les coudées franches aux 25 gouvernements, il leur permet de fixer les détails eux-mêmes, et ne peut être amendé par les parlements nationaux. Cette législation n’est pas satisfaisante. Je suis fier de m’y être opposé dans sa forme actuelle."@fr⁸ "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@hu¹¹ "Ho votato a favore della posizione della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni, ma contro la risoluzione nel suo complesso. Legiferare in fretta di solito significa legiferare male e questa normativa è stata portata avanti dalla Presidenza britannica del Consiglio con grande precipitazione. E’ deprecabile che due grandi gruppi del Parlamento europeo abbiano approvato il testo in una sola lettura invece di sottoporlo a un esame severo. Il testo ha molti difetti. La formula “reati gravi” è molto vaga, e si lascia a 25 governi diversi la facoltà di definirla ciascuno a modo proprio. La questione dei costi è poco chiara. Sono i richiedenti, ovvero i governi, a dover sostenere le spese, non i singoli cittadini. L’intera questione dell’inserimento della posta elettronica è raffazzonata. Il settore non è mai stato formalmente consultato. La posta elettronica gestita da fornitori quali e non è soggetta alle disposizioni della normativa. Nel caso degli attentati di Madrid del 2004, i terroristi non hanno mai inviato messaggi di posta elettronica: uno di loro ha invece creato un su che i complici hanno letto semplicemente collegandosi. Attraverso la posta elettronica si riceve un’enorme quantità di . Perché i governi non vogliono eliminare questo problema? Il documento lascia troppo spazio ai 25 governi, consentendo loro di prendere liberamente le decisioni di dettaglio, che non potranno essere modificate dai parlamenti nazionali. E’ un testo scadente e sono fiero di aver votato contro questa normativa nella sua forma attuale."@it¹² "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@lt^14,14 "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@lv¹³ "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@mt¹⁵ "Ik steun het standpunt van de Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden, justitie en binnenlandse zaken, maar heb tegen de resolutie als geheel gestemd. Haastige wetgeving is doorgaans slechte wetgeving. Deze is er door het Britse voorzitterschap van de Raad doorgedrukt. Het is zeer betreurenswaardig dat twee grote fracties in het Europees Parlement de ontwerpwetgeving in een enkele lezing hebben aangenomen, in plaats van die aan een grondig onderzoek te onderwerpen. De richtlijn heeft vele tekortkomingen. De omschrijving van “ernstige misdrijven” is onnauwkeurig, zodat elk van de vijfentwintig nationale regeringen daar haar eigen invulling aan kan geven. Het kostenaspect is onduidelijk. De klanten - de nationale regeringen - moeten betalen, niet de individuele burger. Het is ondoordacht om e-mail in de richtlijn op te nemen. De sector is nooit formeel geraadpleegd. Hotmail en Yahoo vallen niet onder de richtlijn. Bij de aanslagen van 2004 in Madrid, verstuurden de terroristen geen e-mails. Wel zette een van hen een tekstje op Yahoo. Zijn medeplichtigen logden in en lazen het. Er wordt zoveel ‘spam’ verstuurd. Waarom willen de regeringen dat nou in stand houden? De tekst geeft de vijfentwintig regeringen teveel speelruimte om naar eigen goeddunken te handelen. Hij laat de invulling van de details aan hen over, terwijl die niet meer door de nationale parlementen geamendeerd kunnen worden. Dit is ondermaatse wetgeving. Ik ben er trots op die in zijn huidige vorm verworpen te hebben."@nl³ "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@pl^16,16 "Votei a favor da posição da Comissão das Liberdades Cívicas, da Justiça e dos Assuntos Internos, mas contra a proposta de resolução no seu conjunto. Uma lei feita à pressa é geralmente uma má lei. A Presidência britânica do Conselho apressou a tramitação desta proposta de directiva. É de lamentar que dois grandes grupos parlamentares a tenham aprovado numa única leitura, em lugar de requerer uma avaliação exaustiva da mesma. Trata-se de uma peça legislativa eivada de deficiências. A definição de "infracções penais graves" é dúbia, sendo deixada ao livre arbítrio de cada um dos 25 governos da União. A questão dos custos também é pouco clara. Devem ser os governos, enquanto requerentes, a pagar, não o contribuinte. A inclusão de e-mails foi uma questão mal pensada, do princípio ao fim. A indústria nunca foi formalmente consultada. São excluídos os e-mails enviados através dos servidores Hotmail e Yahoo. Nos ataques bombistas de Madrid em 2004, os terroristas não enviaram um único e-mail: um deles, porém, esboçou um esquema no Yahoo, que os seus cúmplices, depois de entrarem no sistema, puderam ler. É enviada uma enorme quantidade de e-mails "spam". Por que querem os governos conservar tais e-mails? O documento dá a cada um dos 25 governos uma margem de manobra demasiado grande para actuar como muito bem entende. As questões de pormenor podem ser decididas individualmente por cada governo, sem que os parlamentos nacionais as possam alterar. Trata-se de uma peça legislativa que deixa a desejar. Orgulho-me de ter votado contra a mesma, na sua actual versão."@pt¹⁷ "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@sk^18,18 "I voted for the LIBE committee's position, but against the overall resolution. Hurried law is usually bad law. This has been rushed through by the UK presidency of the Council. It is tragic that two large MEP groups have passed this in a single reading rather than have a thorough scrutiny. It has many defects. The definition of "serious crimes" is uncertain, being left to 25 separate governments to each decide in their own way. The question of costs is unclear. The demanders, the governments, should pay, not the individual citizen. The inclusion of emails was badly thought through. The industry was never formally consulted. Hotmail and Yahoo emails are excluded. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, no emails were sent by terrorists ; instead one wrote a draft on Yahoo, and his accomplices logged on and read it. So much "Spam" email is sent. Why do the governments want to preserve spam ? The text gives too much latitude to the 25 governments to do what they wish. It allows them to decide the details themselves, and cannot be amended by national parliaments. This is an unsatisfactory law. I am proud to have opposed it in its present form."@sl¹⁹ ". Jag röstade för ståndpunkten från utskottet för medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter samt rättsliga och inrikes frågor men mot resolutionen som helhet. Påskyndade lagar är ofta dåliga lagar. Detta har forcerats fram av det brittiska rådsordförandeskapet. Det är tragiskt att två stora grupper av ledamöter antagit resolutionen i första behandlingen i stället för att genomföra en ordentlig granskning. Den innehåller många felaktigheter. Definitionen av allvarliga brott är oklar och överlåts åt 25 olika regeringar att uttolka på sitt sätt. Frågan om kostnaderna är oklar. Beställarna, regeringarna bör betala, inte den enskilda medborgaren. Att inkludera e-postmeddelanden var dåligt genomtänkt. Inget formellt samråd med branschen ägde rum. E-postmeddelanden via Hotmail och Yahoo omfattas inte. Vid bombningarna i Madrid 2004 skickade terroristerna inga e-postmeddelanden. En av dem skrev ett utkast på Yahoo, och hans medbrottslingar loggade in och läste det. Det sänds så mycket skräppost. Varför vill regeringarna bevara skräppost? Genom skrivningen ges de 25 regeringarna för mycket spelrum att göra som de vill. Den låter dem besluta om detaljerna själva, och den kan inte ändras av nationella parlament. Denna lag är otillfredsställande. Jag är stolt över att ha motsatt mig den i dess nuvarande form."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE ),"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "Hotmail"¹² "Yahoo"¹² "blog"¹² "in writing"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "spam"¹²