Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.7.3-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to speak about the issue of electronic data protection, which has already been mentioned. To come back to the points made by Mrs Cederschiöld, I have heard in many forums and many other communications media in the Internet and e-mail that there has been a great deal of annoyance among users. This is logical, for if we examine the principles of opt-in and opt-out using the example of letter mail, opt-out simply means that e-mails are paid on delivery, i.e. by the addressee. After all, it is the users who pay the Internet access fees. I would get very annoyed about this too. This is not to say that this is a bad intervention, but I would vote for an opt-in system for e-mails.
Otherwise, I think that the directive’s major shortcoming is what is not regulated, namely monitoring by the state, which is explicitly excluded. I think that this poses the greatest threat to fundamental rights in the European Union – and fundamental rights are there to protect citizens from the state. This is excluded here, which means that the directive is inadequate. The rest offers quite a good level of protection. However, if we draw together the opinion on
and Parliament’s opinion on terrorism, it is quite striking that a great many things are thrown together and criminalised: for example, “everything which is illegal offline should be illegal online”. This is the case anyway, so we do not need any directives on cybercrime. No one has yet given me a plausible explanation of why we actually need this, and which new laws will be adopted and crimes defined which are not already covered elsewhere. In my view, this whole cybercrime issue is primarily intended to legitimise intervention in fundamental rights.
Finally, I should like to remind you of an anniversary which took place two days ago. A hundred years ago, the typewriter was banned in Turkey. Why? Because it was feared that it would enable people to communicate anonymously; they could no longer be identified by their handwriting, and this would open the door to crime. Banning the typewriter was intended to prevent this. Perhaps this would be appropriate once again today?!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"cybercrime"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples