Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-12-Speech-1-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011112.9.1-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will be voting on the Cappato report for the second time. Our positions have moved closer, without, however, becoming identical. So the rapporteur has taken misgivings on the left of this House into account, in that the consumer's consent will in future be required for the sending of SMS advertising. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has accepted by a substantial majority the so-called soft opt-out compromise supported by the rapporteur. This proposal alone defends the interests of consumers without doing away with European jobs on a massive scale. Why?
If Parliament were to generally prohibit business-to-customer advertising from the outset, as Mrs Paciotti's proposal would have it, businesses would simply send their advertising material into the European Union from the USA or other third States. The European consumer would have gained nothing, absolutely nothing, and the only effect would be to weaken the European e-business market. We therefore want to let those states that at present have an opt-out system retain it, keep an eye on developments and come to a new decision after two years.
At the same time, the Cappato proposal takes three steps to protect the consumer. First, the consumer can put his name on what is termed a ‘Robinson list’, so that advertising material may not generally be sent to him. Secondly, the consumer can, simply and without charge, indicate his wish not to receive e-mail advertising from specific companies. Thirdly, e-mail advertising will be easily recognisable as such in the inbox and will be able to be deleted simply and without cost.
This last option is already available from providers such as AOL – I am sure Mr van Velzen is about to point that out – but this does not put AOL in a monopolistic position. Such an assertion is complete nonsense, as anyone can already download from the Internet a spam recognition program of this sort, no matter what Internet Service Provider he has a contract with for everything else. By the way, AOL was itself opposed to such a regulation. So I would ask you to support Mr Cappato's proposed compromise by a significant majority."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples