Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-374"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.11.3-374"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to address all the issues raised in the Commission’s proposal for a directive on data protection in electronic communications. Most of the proposals are well-founded and necessary, and have our support. This also applies to the work of the rapporteur, Mr Cappato, whom I would like to congratulate on his work.
There is one highly controversial issue, however. What is our position on direct advertising by e-mail? At present, there are four Member States in Europe which have opt-in systems, which means that commercial e-mails are banned if they are unsolicited, and are permitted only with the prior consent of the recipient. Most other Member States have an opt-out solution, with individuals having to register on Robinson lists if they do not wish to receive commercial e-mails.
We therefore have two options: Amendments Nos 42, 43 and 44 proposed by the Committee and the rapporteur call for an opt-out solution as a minimum standard, supplemented by Amendment No 61, which provides for review after three years. Countries which have an existing opt-in system can continue with this as an “add-on” to the minimum standard.
Amendments Nos 53, 60 and 62 call for an immediate introduction of the opt-in system which would then be compulsory for all Member States. There are good arguments for both opt-in and opt-out and we will hear many more of them in this debate, undoubtedly presented with passion. I confess that I tend to favour an opt-in solution. Nonetheless, there is a serious decision before us today, and that is whether to adopt option 1, i.e. opt-out as the minimum standard, thus maintaining the status quo in the Member States.
Why do we have this situation? Firstly, we chose the opt-out solution as a minimum standard in the
Commerce Directive a year ago, although this will also be reviewed in three years. It would be absurd, incoherent and contradictory to adopt a conclusive solution in this directive, whether it be opt-in or opt-out, just a year later.
Secondly, no one can predict the precise course of events. No one can say with certainty what the advantages and disadvantages of the two options will be in the next two years. Trade practices, citizens’ information requirements, but also their security needs are undergoing rapid change. It is quite impossible to predict how the commercial sector will respond to the new opportunities afforded by direct advertising by e-mail. It may be tempting to make comparisons with conventional mailshots, but this is inappropriate. Let us remain faithful to our original approach, without drawing any hasty conclusions, and wait for the outcomes of this House’s wise decision – which was adopted with an overwhelming majority – on the
Commerce Directive: opt-out as a minimum standard, and the option of opt-in for Member States, with monitoring of the two approaches."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples