Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.11.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| 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."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples