Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-379"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.11.3-379"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the first place I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, but on behalf of Mr Westendorp, the Chairman of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I must lodge a serious objection to the procedure followed. It had been agreed that use would be made of a strengthened Hughes procedure, but little has come of that. I will not go into detail. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has not wanted to hold up this debate because of the urgency, but we nevertheless wish to make a serious protest.
We are ultimately concerned here with two important political questions. In the first place whether we choose “opt-in” or “opt-out” or a mixed system for a certain amount of time. The second question concerns the nature and storage of traffic data. I myself am a supporter of “opt-in” and would like to mention a few arguments. Mrs Plooij has already pointed to the study by the European Commission which shows that European citizens alone spend some ten billion on junk e-mail.
I consider it a much more important point that public support for the knowledge society is waning. People are already sick of the fact that, for every two e-mails you are happy to receive because of whom they come from, there are 74 others that you do not want at all. Then you must actually pay for them. Mr President, that causes immense irritation, which in the United States has led to the new term ‘permission-based marketing’. One is asked in advance if one wants something. This is a form of self-regulation that we in Europe must also move towards. We are still lagging behind and we must establish a semblance of order. For that reason, Mrs De Palacio’s amendment is apposite, although it talks of 2006. It is true that in 2006 we can indeed move towards self-regulation, but we need “opt-in” for now.
Mr President, my third objection is that almost everyone talks about e-mails and, fortunately, a number of fellow MEPs have spoken on this issue. Just imagine, we now receive all kinds of welcome messages when we cross the French or Luxembourg frontier. We do not know what is behind them, because we do not have the impression that there is any further message behind them. So we have to call an end to this and that costs money. Imagine getting a message every two minutes in this Chamber from well-intentioned medium-sized and small companies about a new product. Who is going to foot the bill, Mr President? That is the question before us and we must give it further consideration.
The fourth, reason, Mr President, why I am in favour is that the majority of states – they no longer number four but actually seven – have chosen the “opt-in” system. Mr President, this concerns a fundamental question and I am requesting the Commission to give an answer. Why are two systems acceptable in e-commerce and not here? Have I understood correctly that the fundamental reason is that in the case of e-commerce, the harmonising articles were sidelined, not included and hence placed in parentheses? The core of this directive is that it deals expressly with harmonisation.
The second problem is, of course, what happens in practice if one Member State chooses “opt-in” and the other “opt-out”, since e-mails make no distinction between borders. I believe that the Commission will have to say something about both the costs and the question whether the two judicial systems can exist alongside one other.
My last comment concerns the possibilities of tracing. Of course we do not see the providers as tracing services and for that reason the restriction of the nature of traffic data and the term for storing traffic data are of essential importance. Therefore it is possible with the amendments in this field to prevent citizens from feeling that via e-mail and via our mobile phones a disguised ECHELON system is again being introduced."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples