Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-601-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.48.2-601-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the tragic case of 15-year-old Amanda Todd from Canada a few days ago has shown us once again that there are some forms of behaviour on the internet which are harmful to other people. In this particular instance, it was cyber bullying, which is on the increase here in Europe as well. However, it is also about combating internet-based terrorism, crime in general and child abuse in particular, organised crime, right-wing extremism, and phishing. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime has now spoken out in favour of international standards for data retention. Of course, overall, we need to achieve a balance between fundamental rights and sound law enforcement by government authorities. In the case of Amanda Todd, the Anonymous hackers’ group has pledged to identify the bullies, but this kind of vigilante justice on the internet is not what we want either.
So those who say that data retention must be abolished are oversimplifying the matter. The same applies to those who are opposed to data retention but offer no solutions to the problem or fail to take proper account of the rights of the victims of internet crime. In my view, successful investigations, such as the identification of the person responsible for the attack in Toulouse, demonstrate the need for data storage and for data retention.
In its present form, the Directive does not yet appear to have achieved the balance that is necessary. That may be why it seems so important to bring forward a new and improved proposal based on the recommendations made in the 2011 evaluation.
More generally, however, it is completely unacceptable for the unity of European law, or indeed compliance with European law in this matter to be completely undermined by the German Justice Minister. Only last Monday, the Parliamentary State Secretary in Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice stated during a meeting of the Petitions Committee that the German Government would not bring forward a proposal for the transposition of the Data Retention Directive. Until the issues of transposition and the reform of the Directive are clarified, no such legislation will be forthcoming from Germany. My question is how much longer this is likely to take. These statements make one thing very clear, however: the infringement proceedings initiated back in May by you, Commissioner, are making very little impression on the German Justice Minister.
I fail to understand how a Justice Minister can consider herself to be above the law. After all, she of all people must know that every EU Member State is obliged to transpose European legislation, and, what’s more, must do so by the specified deadline.
The Justice Minister’s argument that the transposition of the existing Directive is impossible does not hold water. Perhaps you could make some kind of contribution to resolving this issue. At any rate, the example of Austria shows that a Member State that resisted for a very long time and refused to transpose the Directive can, in fact, create legislation that can serve as a very good model, with regulations that are sound and constitutional."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"((The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples