Exposing Computer Based Mind Control Of Private Corporate Governance.. The Theft Of Personal Identities And Public Data Of The World Has Ended.. Be Positive Life Is Just A Spiritual Journey (^^)// Love Mother Nature And Shine Bright Like A Super Star :) We Are Moving Towards A Dominated Female World Where Voluntary Non Profit Emotional Cooperation Is The New Way Of Living :D I Love You :X Unlock Your DNA With Love, Forgiveness And Spiritual Fire :D You Have The Right To Be A Sovereign Human :)
Showing posts with label european union collapse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label european union collapse. Show all posts
The European Parliament has responded to protests against a ban on pornography by spamfiltering its consistuents’ protests, then deleting the explanation of what the bill does from the bill. While this can be typical behavior from the European Parliament (as we saw in the ACTA battle), that doesn’t make it any more excusable. This is, quite frankly, not something that politicians deserve to get away with.
First, some background: a so-called initiative report is coming to a vote next week that seeks to reinforce a previous ban on pornography in advertising and extend it into an undefined scope of internet traffic. As the report is written, it is easy to read its language as including all sexual communication online between consenting adults; the language is very broad and vague in scope.
An initiative report is a way for Parliament to express its opinion to those actually drafting legislation. It has been described as “legally non-binding”, but it is a little more than that – when legislation is drafted, it falls back on the opinions expressed by Parliament. Therefore, it is closer to a request for drafting of legislation on the matter, which would later come to a (binding) vote.
So, “stop a pebble before you have to stop a landslide”.
Like all other reports, this one has a single Member of European Parliament who is responsible for it, but up until yesterday, it was a done deal. It would just pass without notice. This morning, a lot of confusion was caused as hundreds and hundreds of people mailed (as per yesterday’s article) to all of Parliament. The issue went from a done deal to open for discussion. This was a huge win in itself, and we should all pat ourselves on the back for that.
What happened next is just dishonorable. The European Parliament’s IT group started classifying mail from its constituents as spam, on the server side, so the Members of European Parliament never saw the protests. Apparently, this happened following requests from individual MEPs. The Pirate Party office in Brussels was practically screaming in French-language emails to explain the dishonor in this behavior, and MEP Christian Engström has more details.
Also, hundreds of protest mails kept pouring in that protested agricultural subsidies, so it was just the protests against the ban on online pornography that was targeted for spam filtering.
(UPDATE on this topic: technical tests showed that it was the words “gender stereotypes” that caused a mail to be silently dropped. On International Women’s Day. You couldn’t make it up if they gave you a million. Therefore, the mail template below deliberately misspells “gender stereotypes”.)
The second thing that happened was that a MEP that acted as responsible for the ban on online pornography removed the explanation of that from the report. Removed the explanation, but not the effect. The new report, as written, still extends a previous ban on pornography in advertising into new forms of media, specifically the internet, and still calls for ISP to police that ban. It just carefully hides the fact that it does so:
17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism;
Even with those words taken out, this is still a reference to this report, which still has this wording describing a legislative carpet ban on pornography in “the media”:
5. Calls for statutory measures to prevent any form of pornography in the media and in advertising and for a ban on advertising for pornographic products and sex tourism
So striking out those words in point 17 of the new report has no other effect than deliberately obscuring the purpose of the new report, following loud objections over it. The key words “the media” in the old report are still redefined in point 14 in the new report to include the Internet, and Internet Service Providers are still called upon to unaccountably police the net:
14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere
This can feel a bit like wrapping your head against a gentle slice of sweet soft lime, then banging it hard against a brick wall.
When I set up the mail alias yesterday to make it easier to mail the European Parliament, that was my goal – I wanted to lower the wall between elected and electorate. The elected swiftly responded by erecting new walls to not have to bother with their constituents, and that has me seriously annoyed. So instead of using my remailer at europarl-all-mar2013@falkvinge.net, I will supply you with all the addresses so that you can mail them all individually, rather than going through my server.
Therefore, I include the full list of addresses below. It looks quite large. That’s because it is.
The mail that has the best effect to Parliament is always one where you write exactly what you think and feel about an issue. One such mail is worth a hundred copied-and-pasted letters. So while I provide a sample mail below, I would really encourage you to write to the European Parliament from your heart instead. Don’t worry about getting the tone or the formalities right – these people work for you. You pay their salary. It is their job to listen to your concerns.
So send a mail right now:
From: (You) To:anne.delvaux@europarl.europa.eu,jean-luc.dehaene@europarl.europa.eu,ivo.belet@europarl.europa.eu,marianne.thyssen@europarl.europa.eu,mathieu.grosch@europarl.europa.eu,louis.michel@europarl.europa.eu,frederique.ries@europarl.europa.eu,guy.verhofstadt@europarl.europa.eu,philippe.debacker@europarl.europa.eu,annemie.neyts-uyttebroeck@europarl.europa.eu,isabelle.durant@europarl.europa.eu,philippe.lamberts@europarl.europa.eu,bart.staes@europarl.europa.eu,derkjan.eppink@europarl.europa.eu,frank.vanhecke@europarl.europa.eu,frederic.daerden@europarl.europa.eu,veronique.dekeyser@europarl.europa.eu,marc.tarabella@europarl.europa.eu,said.elkhadraoui@europarl.europa.eu,kathleen.vanbrempt@europarl.europa.eu,philip.claeys@europarl.europa.eu,Nadezhda.Neynsky@europarl.europa.eu,svetoslav.malinov@europarl.europa.eu,mariya.nedelcheva@europarl.europa.eu,andrey.kovatchev@europarl.europa.eu,emilstefanov.stoyanov@europarl.europa.eu,iliana.ivanova@europarl.europa.eu,vladimir.urutchev@europarl.europa.eu,metin.kazak@europarl.europa.eu,vladkotodorov.panayotov@europarl.europa.eu,filizhakaeva.hyusmenova@europarl.europa.eu,antonyia.parvanova@europarl.europa.eu,stanimir.ilchev@europarl.europa.eu,ivailo.kalfin@europarl.europa.eu,kristian.vigenin@europarl.europa.eu,ilianamalinova.iotova@europarl.europa.eu,evgeni.kirilov@europarl.europa.eu,slavi.binev@europarl.europa.eu,dimitar.stoyanov@europarl.europa.eu,eleni.theocharous@europarl.europa.eu,ioannis.kasoulides@europarl.europa.eu,takis.hadjigeorgiou@europarl.europa.eu,kyriacos.triantaphyllides@europarl.europa.eu,antigoni.papadopoulou@europarl.europa.eu,kyriakos.mavronikolas@europarl.europa.eu,bendt.bendtsen@europarl.europa.eu,annee.jensen@europarl.europa.eu,jens.rohde@europarl.europa.eu,morten.lokkegaard@europarl.europa.eu,margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu,emilie.turunen@europarl.europa.eu,sorenbo.sondergaard@europarl.europa.eu,anna.rosbach@europarl.europa.eu,morten.messerschmidt@europarl.europa.eu,britta.thomsen@europarl.europa.eu,dan.jorgensen@europarl.europa.eu,ole.christensen@europarl.europa.eu,christel.schaldemose@europarl.europa.eu,tunne.kelam@europarl.europa.eu,siiri.oviir@europarl.europa.eu,vilja.savisaar-toomast@europarl.europa.eu,kristiina.ojuland@europarl.europa.eu,indrek.tarand@europarl.europa.eu,ivari.padar@europarl.europa.eu,sirpa.pietikainen@europarl.europa.eu,petri.sarvamaa@europarl.europa.eu,eija-riitta.korhola@europarl.europa.eu,sari.essayah@europarl.europa.eu,hannu.takkula@europarl.europa.eu,riikka.manner@europarl.europa.eu,anneli.jaatteenmaki@europarl.europa.eu,tarja.cronberg@europarl.europa.eu,satu.hassi@europarl.europa.eu,sampo.terho@europarl.europa.eu,mitro.repo@europarl.europa.eu,liisa.jaakonsaari@europarl.europa.eu,michele.striffler@europarl.europa.eu,marielle.gallo@europarl.europa.eu,jean-marie.cavada@europarl.europa.eu,sophie.auconie@europarl.europa.eu,dominique.riquet@europarl.europa.eu,francoise.grossetete@europarl.europa.eu,maurice.ponga@europarl.europa.eu,franck.proust@europarl.europa.eu,jean-paul.gauzes@europarl.europa.eu,agnes.lebrun@europarl.europa.eu,arnaud.danjean@europarl.europa.eu,michel.dantin@europarl.europa.eu,rachida.dati@europarl.europa.eu,joseph.daul@europarl.europa.eu,jean.roatta@europarl.europa.eu,constance.legrip@europarl.europa.eu,alain.lamassoure@europarl.europa.eu,christine.deveyrac@europarl.europa.eu,gaston.franco@europarl.europa.eu,alain.cadec@europarl.europa.eu,brice.hortefeux@europarl.europa.eu,dominique.vlasto@europarl.europa.eu,philippe.juvin@europarl.europa.eu,elisabeth.morinchartier@europarl.europa.eu,philippe.boulland@europarl.europa.eu,jean-pierre.audy@europarl.europa.eu,marie-therese.sanchez-schmid@europarl.europa.eu,veronique.mathieu@europarl.europa.eu,tokia.saifi@europarl.europa.eu,corinne.lepage@europarl.europa.eu,sylvie.goulard@europarl.europa.eu,nathalie.griesbeck@europarl.europa.eu,robert.rochefort@europarl.europa.eu,marielle.desarnez@europarl.europa.eu,jean-luc.bennahmias@europarl.europa.eu,jose.bove@europarl.europa.eu,malika.benarab-attou@europarl.europa.eu,eva.joly@europarl.europa.eu,michele.rivasi@europarl.europa.eu,sandrine.belier@europarl.europa.eu,jean-paul.besset@europarl.europa.eu,catherine.greze@europarl.europa.eu,daniel.cohn-bendit@europarl.europa.eu,yves.cochet@europarl.europa.eu,karima.delli@europarl.europa.eu,helene.flautre@europarl.europa.eu,nicole.kiil-nielsen@europarl.europa.eu,yannick.jadot@europarl.europa.eu,francois.alfonsi@europarl.europa.eu,jacky.henin@europarl.europa.eu,marie-christine.vergiat@europarl.europa.eu,patrick.lehyaric@europarl.europa.eu,jean-luc.melenchon@europarl.europa.eu,younous.omarjee@europarl.europa.eu,philippe.devilliers@europarl.europa.eu,henri.weber@europarl.europa.eu,bernadette.vergnaud@europarl.europa.eu,pervenche.beres@europarl.europa.eu,stephane.lefoll@europarl.europa.eu,harlem.desir@europarl.europa.eu,liem.hoangngoc@europarl.europa.eu,catherine.trautmann@europarl.europa.eu,gilles.pargneaux@europarl.europa.eu,francoise.castex@europarl.europa.eu,patrice.tirolien@europarl.europa.eu,sylvie.guillaume@europarl.europa.eu,jean-marie.lepen@europarl.europa.eu,bruno.gollnisch@europarl.europa.eu,marine.lepen@europarl.europa.eu,rodi.kratsa-tsagaropoulou@europarl.europa.eu,georgios.papanikolaou@europarl.europa.eu,georgios.papastamkos@europarl.europa.eu,marietta.giannakou@europarl.europa.eu,konstantinos.poupakis@europarl.europa.eu,georgios.koumoutsakos@europarl.europa.eu,ioannis.tsoukalas@europarl.europa.eu,theodoros.skylakakis@europarl.europa.eu,nikos.chrysogelos@europarl.europa.eu,nikolaos.chountis@europarl.europa.eu,charalampos.angourakis@europarl.europa.eu,georgios.toussas@europarl.europa.eu,niki.tzavela@europarl.europa.eu,nikolaos.salavrakos@europarl.europa.eu,anni.podimata@europarl.europa.eu,chrysoula.paliadeli@europarl.europa.eu,mariaeleni.koppa@europarl.europa.eu,sylvana.rapti@europarl.europa.eu,dimitrios.droutsas@europarl.europa.eu,georgios.stavrakakis@europarl.europa.eu,kriton.arsenis@europarl.europa.eu,spyros.danellis@europarl.europa.eu,sean.kelly@europarl.europa.eu,jim.higgins@europarl.europa.eu,gay.mitchell@europarl.europa.eu,mairead.mcguinness@europarl.europa.eu,marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu,liam.aylward@europarl.europa.eu,briancrowleymep@eircom.net,patthecope.gallagher@europarl.europa.eu,paul.murphy@europarl.europa.eu,phil.prendergast@europarl.europa.eu,emer.costello@europarl.europa.eu,nessa.childers@europarl.europa.eu,cristiana.muscardini@europarl.europa.eu,salvatore.tatarella@europarl.europa.eu,alfredo.pallone@europarl.europa.eu,paolo.bartolozzi@europarl.europa.eu,iva.zanicchi@europarl.europa.eu,elisabetta.gardini@europarl.europa.eu,barbara.matera@europarl.europa.eu,mario.mauro@europarl.europa.eu,alfredo.antoniozzi@europarl.europa.eu,aldo.patriciello@europarl.europa.eu,lara.comi@europarl.europa.eu,amalia.sartori@europarl.europa.eu,raffaele.baldassarre@europarl.europa.eu,gabriele.albertini@europarl.europa.eu,carlo.fidanza@europarl.europa.eu,giovanni.lavia@europarl.europa.eu,erminia.mazzoni@europarl.europa.eu,sergio.berlato@europarl.europa.eu,salvatore.iacolino@europarl.europa.eu,potito.salatto@europarl.europa.eu,crescenzio.rivellini@europarl.europa.eu,vito.bonsignore@europarl.europa.eu,marco.scurria@europarl.europa.eu,sergio.silvestris@europarl.europa.eu,licia.ronzulli@europarl.europa.eu,antonio.cancian@europarl.europa.eu,roberta.angelilli@europarl.europa.eu,herbert.dorfmann@europarl.europa.eu,tiziano.motti@europarl.europa.eu,luigiciriaco.demita@europarl.europa.eu,giuseppe.gargani@europarl.europa.eu,carlo.casini@europarl.europa.eu,gino.trematerra@europarl.europa.eu,antonello.antinoro@europarl.europa.eu,clemente.mastella@europarl.europa.eu,vincenzo.iovine@europarl.europa.eu,giommaria.uggias@europarl.europa.eu,niccolo.rinaldi@europarl.europa.eu,andrea.zanoni@europarl.europa.eu,sonia.alfano@europarl.europa.eu,gianni.vattimo@europarl.europa.eu,magdicristiano.allam@europarl.europa.eu,matteo.salvini@europarl.europa.eu,fiorello.provera@europarl.europa.eu,oreste.rossi@europarl.europa.eu,mara.bizzotto@europarl.europa.eu,lorenzo.fontana@europarl.europa.eu,mario.borghezio@europarl.europa.eu,claudio.morganti@europarl.europa.eu,giancarlo.scotta@europarl.europa.eu,francescoenrico.speroni@europarl.europa.eu,gianluca.susta@europarl.europa.eu,rita.borsellino@europarl.europa.eu,patrizia.toia@europarl.europa.eu,francesco.deangelis@europarl.europa.eu,roberto.gualtieri@europarl.europa.eu,guido.milana@europarl.europa.eu,leonardo.domenici@europarl.europa.eu,luigi.berlinguer@europarl.europa.eu,paolo.decastro@europarl.europa.eu,debora.serracchiani@europarl.europa.eu,pino.arlacchi@europarl.europa.eu,gianni.pittella@europarl.europa.eu,mario.pirillo@europarl.europa.eu,silvia.costa@europarl.europa.eu,sergio.cofferati@europarl.europa.eu,vittorio.prodi@europarl.europa.eu,francesca.balzani@europarl.europa.eu,david.sassoli@europarl.europa.eu,salvatore.caronna@europarl.europa.eu,pierantonio.panzeri@europarl.europa.eu,andrea.cozzolino@europarl.europa.eu,krisjanis.karins@europarl.europa.eu,inese.vaidere@europarl.europa.eu,karlis.sadurskis@europarl.europa.eu,sandra.kalniete@europarl.europa.eu,ivars.godmanis@europarl.europa.eu,tatjana.zdanoka@europarl.europa.eu,alfreds.rubiks@europarl.europa.eu,roberts.zile@europarl.europa.eu,alexander.mirsky@europarl.europa.eu,laimaliucija.andrikiene@europarl.europa.eu,radvile.morkunaite-mikuleniene@europarl.europa.eu,vytautas.landsbergis@europarl.europa.eu,algirdas.saudargas@europarl.europa.eu,viktor.uspaskich@europarl.europa.eu,leonidas.donskis@europarl.europa.eu,valdemar.tomasevski@europarl.europa.eu,rolandas.paksas@europarl.europa.eu,juozas.imbrasas@europarl.europa.eu,vilija.blinkeviciute@europarl.europa.eu,zigmantas.balcytis@europarl.europa.eu,justas.paleckis@europarl.europa.eu,georges.bach@europarl.europa.eu,frank.engel@europarl.europa.eu,astrid.lulling@europarl.europa.eu,charles.goerens@europarl.europa.eu,claude.turmes@europarl.europa.eu,robert.goebbels@europarl.europa.eu,david.casa@europarl.europa.eu,simon.busuttil@europarl.europa.eu,louis.grech@europarl.europa.eu,joseph.cuschieri@europarl.europa.eu,john.attard-montalto@europarl.europa.eu,edward.scicluna@europarl.europa.eu,lambert.vannistelrooij@europarl.europa.eu,wim.vandecamp@europarl.europa.eu,corien.wortmann@europarl.europa.eu,ria.oomen-ruijten@europarl.europa.eu,esther.delange@europarl.europa.eu,sophie.intveld@europarl.europa.eu,marietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu,gerben-jan.gerbrandy@europarl.europa.eu,toine.manders@europarl.europa.eu,hans.vanbaalen@europarl.europa.eu,jan.mulder@europarl.europa.eu,marije.cornelissen@europarl.europa.eu,bas.eickhout@europarl.europa.eu,judith.sargentini@europarl.europa.eu,kartikatamara.liotard@europarl.europa.eu,dennis.dejong@europarl.europa.eu,peter.vandalen@europarl.europa.eu,bastiaan.belder@europarl.europa.eu,thijs.berman@europarl.europa.eu,emine.bozkurt@europarl.europa.eu,judith.merkies@europarl.europa.eu,daniel.vanderstoep@europarl.europa.eu,barry.madlener@europarl.europa.eu,lucas.hartong@europarl.europa.eu,auke.zijlstra@europarl.europa.eu,laurence.stassen@europarl.europa.eu,elzbieta.lukacijewska@europarl.europa.eu,rafal.trzaskowski@europarl.europa.eu,jacek.protasiewicz@europarl.europa.eu,joanna.skrzydlewska@europarl.europa.eu,jacek.saryusz-wolski@europarl.europa.eu,jan.kozlowski@europarl.europa.eu,slawomir.nitras@europarl.europa.eu,jan.olbrycht@europarl.europa.eu,jolantaemilia.hibner@europarl.europa.eu,tadeusz.zwiefka@europarl.europa.eu,piotr.borys@europarl.europa.eu,malgorzata.handzlik@europarl.europa.eu,krzysztof.lisek@europarl.europa.eu,roza.thun@europarl.europa.eu,artur.zasada@europarl.europa.eu,filip.kaczmarek@europarl.europa.eu,jaroslaw.walesa@europarl.europa.eu,lena.kolarska-bobinska@europarl.europa.eu,danuta.huebner@europarl.europa.eu,sidonia.jedrzejewska@europarl.europa.eu,jerzy.buzek@europarl.europa.eu,danuta.jazlowiecka@europarl.europa.eu,bogdan.marcinkiewicz@europarl.europa.eu,boguslaw.sonik@europarl.europa.eu,pawel.zalewski@europarl.europa.eu,andrzej.grzyb@europarl.europa.eu,jaroslaw.kalinowski@europarl.europa.eu,czeslaw.siekierski@europarl.europa.eu,arkadiusztomasz.bratkowski@europarl.europa.eu,marekhenryk.migalski@europarl.europa.eu,biuro@pawelkowal.pl,adam.bielan@europarl.europa.eu,michaltomasz.kaminski@europarl.europa.eu,miroslaw.piotrowski@europarl.europa.eu,janusz.wojciechowski@europarl.europa.eu,tomasz.poreba@europarl.europa.eu,ryszardantoni.legutko@europarl.europa.eu,marekjozef.grobarczyk@europarl.europa.eu,konrad.szymanski@europarl.europa.eu,ryszard.czarnecki@europarl.europa.eu,jacek.kurski@europarl.europa.eu,tadeusz.cymanski@europarl.europa.eu,zbigniew.ziobro@europarl.europa.eu,jacekwladyslaw.wlosowicz@europarl.europa.eu,wojciech.olejniczak@europarl.europa.eu,joanna.senyszyn@europarl.europa.eu,marek.siwiec@europarl.europa.eu,boguslaw.liberadzki@europarl.europa.eu,lidiajoanna.geringerdeoedenberg@europarl.europa.eu,janusz.zemke@europarl.europa.eu,adam.gierek@europarl.europa.eu,nuno.melo@europarl.europa.eu,diogo.feio@europarl.europa.eu,paulo.rangel@europarl.europa.eu,mariadagraca.carvalho@europarl.europa.eu,carlos.coelho@europarl.europa.eu,josemanuel.fernandes@europarl.europa.eu,nuno.teixeira@europarl.europa.eu,mariadoceu.patraoneves@europarl.europa.eu,regina.bastos@europarl.europa.eu,mario.david@europarl.europa.eu,rui.tavares@europarl.europa.eu,marisa.matias@europarl.europa.eu,ines.zuber@europarl.europa.eu,joao.ferreira@europarl.europa.eu,antonio.campos@europarl.europa.eu,luispaulo.alves@europarl.europa.eu,vital.moreira@europarl.europa.eu,anamaria.gomes@europarl.europa.eu,elisa.ferreira@europarl.europa.eu,luismanuel.capoulassantos@europarl.europa.eu,edite.estrela@europarl.europa.eu,traian.ungureanu@europarl.europa.eu,theodordumitru.stolojan@europarl.europa.eu,petru.luhan@europarl.europa.eu,marian-jean.marinescu@europarl.europa.eu,oana.antonescu@europarl.europa.eu,rares-lucian.niculescu@europarl.europa.eu,elena.basescu@europarl.europa.eu,sebastianvalentin.bodu@europarl.europa.eu,monica.macovei@europarl.europa.eu,iosif.matula@europarl.europa.eu,cristiandan.preda@europarl.europa.eu,iuliu.winkler@europarl.europa.eu,csaba.sogor@europarl.europa.eu,laszlo.tokes@europarl.europa.eu,norica.nicolai@europarl.europa.eu,adinaioana.valean@europarl.europa.eu,ramonanicole.manescu@europarl.europa.eu,renate.weber@europarl.europa.eu,cristiansilviu.busoi@europarl.europa.eu,catalin-sorin.ivan@europarl.europa.eu,vasilicaviorica.dancila@europarl.europa.eu,victor.bostinaru@europarl.europa.eu,silviaadriana.ticau@europarl.europa.eu,corina.cretu@europarl.europa.eu,dacianaoctavia.sarbu@europarl.europa.eu,rovana.plumb@europarl.europa.eu,ioan.enciu@europarl.europa.eu,claudiuciprian.tanasescu@europarl.europa.eu,ioanmircea.pascu@europarl.europa.eu,georgesabin.cutas@europarl.europa.eu,tudorcorneliu.vadim@europarl.europa.eu,george.becali@europarl.europa.eu,adrian.severin@europarl.europa.eu,miroslav.mikolasik@europarl.europa.eu,anna.zaborska@europarl.europa.eu,peter.stastny@europarl.europa.eu,eduard.kukan@europarl.europa.eu,edit.bauer@europarl.europa.eu,alajos.meszaros@europarl.europa.eu,sergej.kozlik@europarl.europa.eu,jaroslav.paska@europarl.europa.eu,monika.flasikovabenova@europarl.europa.eu,monika.smolkova@europarl.europa.eu,boris.zala@europarl.europa.eu,vladimir.manka@europarl.europa.eu,katarina.nevedalova@europarl.europa.eu,alojz.peterle@europarl.europa.eu,romana.jordancizelj@europarl.europa.eu,zofija.mazejkukovic@europarl.europa.eu,milan.zver@europarl.europa.eu,jelko.kacin@europarl.europa.eu,ivo.vajgl@europarl.europa.eu,mojca.kleva@europarl.europa.eu,tanja.fajon@europarl.europa.eu,agustin.diazdemera@europarl.europa.eu,joseignacio.salafranca@europarl.europa.eu,pablo.zalbabidegain@europarl.europa.eu,santiago.fisasayxela@europarl.europa.eu,esther.herranzgarcia@europarl.europa.eu,pilar.ayuso@europarl.europa.eu,gabriel.mato@europarl.europa.eu,rosa.estaras@europarl.europa.eu,cristina.gutierrez-cortines@europarl.europa.eu,pablo.ariasecheverria@europarl.europa.eu,mariaauxiliadora.correazamora@europarl.europa.eu,alejo.vidal-quadras@europarl.europa.eu,eva.ortizvilella@europarl.europa.eu,rick.falkvinge@piratpartiet.se,carmen.fragaestevez@europarl.europa.eu,salvador.garrigapolledo@europarl.europa.eu,francisco.millanmon@europarl.europa.eu,veronica.lopefontagne@europarl.europa.eu,juan.naranjoescobar@europarl.europa.eu,luis.degrandespascual@europarl.europa.eu,jaime.mayororeja@europarl.europa.eu,carlos.iturgaizangulo@europarl.europa.eu,antonio.lopezisturiz@europarl.europa.eu,pilar.delcastillo@europarl.europa.eu,teresa.jimenez-becerril@europarl.europa.eu,salvador.sedo@europarl.europa.eu,ramon.tremosa@europarl.europa.eu,izaskun.bilbaobarandica@europarl.europa.eu,ana.miranda@europarl.europa.eu,raul.romevairueda@europarl.europa.eu,willy.meyer@europarl.europa.eu,sergio.gutierrezprieto@europarl.europa.eu,eider.gardiazabalrubial@europarl.europa.eu,iratxe.garcia-perez@europarl.europa.eu,enrique.guerrerosalom@europarl.europa.eu,vicente.garcesramon@europarl.europa.eu,alejandro.cercas@europarl.europa.eu,luis.yanez@europarl.europa.eu,teresa.rieramadurell@europarl.europa.eu,ines.ayalasender@europarl.europa.eu,andres.perellorodriguez@europarl.europa.eu,dolores.garcia-hierrocaraballo@europarl.europa.eu,maria.irigoyenperez@europarl.europa.eu,juanfernando.lopezaguilar@europarl.europa.eu,maria.munizdeurquiza@europarl.europa.eu,antolin.sanchezpresedo@europarl.europa.eu,miguelangel.martinez@europarl.europa.eu,ricardo.corteslastra@europarl.europa.eu,antonio.masiphidalgo@europarl.europa.eu,josefa.andresbarea@europarl.europa.eu,carmen.romerolopez@europarl.europa.eu,emilio.menendezdelvalle@europarl.europa.eu,raimon.obiolsigerma@europarl.europa.eu,maria.badiaicutchet@europarl.europa.eu,francisco.sosawagner@europarl.europa.eu,phil.bennion@europarl.europa.eu,edward.mcmillan-scott@europarl.europa.eu,rebecca.taylor@europarl.europa.eu,graham.watson@europarl.europa.eu,chris@chrisdaviesmep.org.uk,fiona.hall@europarl.europa.eu,catherine.bearder@europarl.europa.eu,andrew.duff@europarl.europa.eu,sarah.ludford@europarl.europa.eu,sharon.bowles@europarl.europa.eu,george.lyon@europarl.europa.eu,bill.newtondunn@europarl.europa.eu,keith.taylor@europarl.europa.eu,jean.lambert@europarl.europa.eu,Jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu,ian.hudghton@europarl.europa.eu,alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu,bairbre.debrun@europarl.europa.eu,robert.sturdy@europarl.europa.eu,giles.chichester@europarl.europa.eu,vicky.ford@europarl.europa.eu,nirj.deva@europarl.europa.eu,struan.stevenson@europarl.europa.eu,ashley.fox@europarl.europa.eu,jacqueline.foster@europarl.europa.eu,james.elles@europarl.europa.eu,kay.swinburne@europarl.europa.eu,anthea.mcintyre@europarl.europa.eu,sajjad.karim@europarl.europa.eu,timothy.kirkhope@europarl.europa.eu,daniel.hannan@europarl.europa.eu,malcolm.harbour@europarl.europa.eu,martin.callanan@europarl.europa.eu,robert.atkins@europarl.europa.eu,philip.bradbourn@europarl.europa.eu,julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu,emma.mcclarkin@europarl.europa.eu,david.campbellbannerman@europarl.europa.eu,charles.tannock@europarl.europa.eu,geoffrey.vanorden@europarl.europa.eu,marina.yannakoudakis@europarl.europa.eu,richardjames.ashworth@europarl.europa.eu,james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu,roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu,nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu,godfrey.bloom@europarl.europa.eu,paul.nuttall@europarl.europa.eu,marta.andreasen@europarl.europa.eu,derekroland.clark@europarl.europa.eu,william.dartmouth@europarl.europa.eu,johnstuart.agnew@europarl.europa.eu,john.bufton@europarl.europa.eu,gerard.batten@europarl.europa.eu,catherine.stihler@europarl.europa.eu,michael.cashman@europarl.europa.eu,arlene.mccarthy@europarl.europa.eu,linda.mcavan@europarl.europa.eu,glenis.willmott@europarl.europa.eu,david.martin@europarl.europa.eu,claude.moraes@europarl.europa.eu,stephen.hughes@europarl.europa.eu,peter.skinner@europarl.europa.eu,brian.simpson@europarl.europa.eu,derek.vaughan@europarl.europa.eu,richard.howitt@europarl.europa.eu,mary.honeyball@europarl.europa.eu,andrew.brons@europarl.europa.eu,nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu,diane.dodds@europarl.europa.eu,trevor.colman@europarl.europa.eu,michaelhenry.nattrass@europarl.europa.eu,nikki.sinclaire@europarl.europa.eu,alf.svensson@europarl.europa.eu,anna.ibrisagic@europarl.europa.eu,christofer.fjellner@europarl.europa.eu,annamaria.corazzabildt@europarl.europa.eu,gunnar.hokmark@europarl.europa.eu,kent.johansson@europarl.europa.eu,olle.schmidt@europarl.europa.eu,marit.paulsen@europarl.europa.eu,cecilia.wikstrom@europarl.europa.eu,carl.schlyter@europarl.europa.eu,isabella.loevin@europarl.europa.eu,christian.engstroem@europarl.europa.eu Subject: Disappointed and concerned regarding handling of gedner steroetype report
Dear MEP,
(Write your own here. Below provided as sample. Do not use.)
I have a problem with three recent events in the European Parliament, and I would ask you to listen to my concerns.
Yesterday, there was a legitimate protest against an extension on a ban against pornography in advertising to cover the Internet in the report “Eliminating Genedr Steoretypes in the EU”. The language is so vague and broad that it can easily be read to include a ban on sexual communication against consenting adults, and as such, passing this report would be incompatible with fundamental rights and freedoms in a democratic society.
This report is my first problem. The response to the legitimate objections are the two others.
The European Parliament responded by deleting the explanation (but not the legal meaning) of this report, deliberately obscuring the legal meaning that led to the protests, and by classifying mail from its own constituents as spam, filtering out voters who tried to reach their representatives – essentially throwing letters from voters in the trash, letters about gedner steroretypes (deliberately misspelled here) on International Women’s Day. Seriously, what was Parliament _thinking_?
While the first can be seen as an understandable mistake that is intended to be caught by democratic checks and balances, the other two of these actions are unprofessional and unworthy of the European Union as the world’s largest democracy. We elect you every five years and expect you to be proud of your work when presenting it in full to the electorate for re-election. This is not something I would be proud of in such a situation.
In summary, I urge you to reject the initiative report mentioned above, and consider the fact that we do put a value on being in touch with our elected representatives.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your country]
Mail something like this to the European Parliament right now and tell them exactly how you feel about this display of disrespect and unprofessionalism.
EU set to vote on blanket porn ban; internet freedoms at risk
Summary: In a severe threat to online freedoms in the region, the European Parliament is set to vote in the next week on 'a ban on all forms of pornography in the media'.
The European Parliament will vote next Tuesday on a report that could lead to a blanket ban on pornography in any form of media, not limited to advertising, television, and radio, but also on the web.
In the process, it could have wide-ranging implications for freedom of expression in the 27 member state bloc.
Titled "Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", the report, on the face of it, would allow the EU to help secure the rights for those across the gender spectrum, particularly women, who are objectified, and those in regions where gender roles are "shaped and imposed" by social influences, such as in the media and education.
While the report states that there is an "increasingly noticeable tendency ... to show provocatively dressed women in sexual poses", it also notes that pornography is becoming mainstream and is "slipping into our everyday lives as an ever more universally accepted, often idealised, cultural element".
But if adopted, the opinion formed by the lawmakers would seemingly go against the grain of Europe's fundamental human rights, and could lead to the infringement of certain civil liberties in the 500 million-strong population.
Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Pirate Party, said on his blog that the "devil is in the detail". He warned that the wording in an older resolution from 1997 could lead to "statutory measures to prevent any form of pornography in the media".
Dutch MEP for the Socialist Party Kartika Tamara Liotard tabled the report in the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) late last year.
In one section of the new report, Liotard calls on the European Union to enforce a blanket ban on pornography in the media of the 27 member states, which could also include online pornography.
The report says (emphasis added):
17. Calls on the EU and its member states to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism.
The scope of "the media" has for years been ill defined and vague at best, but the report specifically includes internet-related activities. And because the Bill encompasses "any media", the belief by Engström is that this will also include the web, social networks, emails, and even the photos that European citizens upload.
As Engström noted, "To a certain extent, the exact meaning on this proposed ban on pornography is unclear, since neither the 1997 resolution nor the text we will be voting on next week contains any definition of what is meant by 'in the media'."
The report goes on:
14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere
The wording suggests that while internet service providers (ISPs) may not be forced to comply with the principles of the report, it could give these companies "policing rights" over their customers, similar to the "six-strike" rule in the US relating to online piracy.
Point 14 also suggests that any kind of sexual content on the web, such as on open platforms like Twitter, could eventually be ruled out. Legislation at best can be vague, and does not always specify exactly what the Bill intends to do.
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the US, for instance, are two fine examples of how specific and yet so vague some laws can be. In the case of FISA, US authorities have a secret interpretation of the data snooping and wiretapping law, which has yet to be released to the public in an unredacted form.
Worryingly for principles governing the freedom of the press in the region, the report calls on all 27 countries in the EU to create regulatory bodies that could ultimately control and punish the media and companies that use discriminatory advertising, for instance.
19. Calls on the member states to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls
This initiative report, which will be voted on, is not a draft legislative measure, though it is a report to suggest that legislation should in the future be drafted and voted on.
While at this stage it is merely an opinion formed by a vote in the parliament, this is one of the first ways in which a new draft law could serve as a basis for the European Commission to propose such laws. The European Parliament would then bring it to a vote that could then see the draft ratified into law. This article was first published on CNET.
European Parliament blocks citizen e-mails protesting EU 'porn ban'
After European citizens began to complain en masse over a report proposing that porn should be banned in the 27-member state bloc, European politicians blew the whistle on their own IT department.
One member of the European Parliament (MEP) claims the upper house's own IT department is censoring e-mails from citizens.
The European Parliament in Strasbourg, France
(Credit: European Parliament/Flickr)
Pirate Party member Christian Engström MEP blew the whistle on his fellow political colleagues after they had complained to the parliament's IT department that they were receiving vast numbers of e-mails from the very people they represent.
It comes only a day after CNET reported that other European politicians are set to vote next week on a report that could lead to a pan-European EU ban on all forms of pornography in the region.
On his Web site, Engström said that it was "absolutely excellent" that citizens were actively engaging in the democratic process, and that he had received some 350 emails to his office before 12 midday today.
After this, he said, "these mails suddenly stopped arriving," he said. He claimed, quite frankly, that: "The IT department of the European Parliament is blocking the delivery of the e-mails on this issue, after some members of the parliament complained about getting e-mails from citizens."
He described the block as an "absolute disgrace" and that the European upper house views input from its citizens "as spam." He noted that he will be writing a letter to the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, about this "totally undemocratic practice."
The massive influx of e-mails stemmed from a report written by Dutch MEP for the Socialist Party, Kartika Tamara Liotard, who called on the European Union to enforce a blanket ban on pornography in the media of the 27 member states, including online.
While this initiative report is not a draft legislative measure, it suggests an opinion by the wider European Parliament that could lead to legislation in the future. The vote is scheduled for this coming Tuesday.
This is not the first time the Parliament has been blamed for blocking e-mails from its citizens, however. During the widespread anger over a new transatlantic treaty -- the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) -- e-mails were also blocked by the European Parliament after Brussels-based politicians complained.
The treaty that on one hand would counter the illegal counterfeit goods trade across borders but on the other would have made it make it far easier for Internet providers to monitor consumers. ACTA would have also allowed for local authorities to impose new criminal sanctions on those who flout copyright and patent laws.
ACTA eventually crumbled in the European Parliament, sending the global agreement into turmoil.
Paris, 7 February 2013 – Commissioner De Gucht is currently in Canada, trying to conclude CETA,
the Canada-EU Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, he has started negotiating
with the US on TAFTA, a new US-EU "trade agreement". La Quadrature du
Net recalls that there is still no credible evidence to suggest that
ACTA-like criminal sanctions and repressive copyright provisions
damaging a free Internet were removed from CETA, and it is likely that
they will appear in TAFTA. Karel De Gucht, who several times lied openly
to the public and the European Parliament during the ACTA debate, might
once again push for repressive measures undermining fundamental
freedoms, under the cover of trade agreements. Citizens must remain
watchful and denounce this growing trend.
Negotiated since 2009 instead of being democratically debated, CETA
(the Canada-EU Trade Agreement), could be concluded soon. Karel De
Gucht, the EU Commissioner for Trade and one of the main negotiators of
ACTA, is currently in Ottawa for a ministerial meeting aiming to
finalize it. Leaks dated of February 2012 have showed that the worst repressive bits of ACTA were copy/pasted
into CETA. Since then, the negotiations have continued, still in secret
and without participation of citizens or their representatives. As long
as the current version of the text is kept secret, it will be
impossible to affirm that the EU Commission and Karel De Gucht are not
trying to impose repression of online communications through the
back-door.
Commissioner De Gucht showed in the past he was ready to push for the
repressive measures demanded by the entertainment industry. He did not
hesitate to lie to the EU Parliament, to assert that he would ignore a MEPs' negative vote on ACTA1,
and to insert the repressive measures in another trade agreement that
he is negotiating. As Karel De Gucht starts to discuss of a new trade
agreement between the US and the EU, TAFTA (the Transatlantic Free Trade
Area), it is likely that the latter will contain new dangerous measures
threatening our freedoms, inspired by ACTA and CETA. “The inclusion in trade agreements of provisions that
undermine fundamental freedoms and a free Internet is not acceptable and
will never be legitimate. Copyright-related measures, including
criminal sanctions, that threaten Internet and our freedoms must be
debated in a democratic and transparent way, rather than negotiated in
total opacity, whether in CETA, TAFTA, or in any other 'trade
agreement'. Citizens must oppose this anti-democractic trend by alerting
public opinion and their elected representatives” declared Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net.
To get more information and discuss this, you can visit our forum.
1.“If
you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me
tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the
current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative
vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice.” Karel De Gucht, INTA Committee - Brussels 20 June 2012
*** UPDATE — 18 February 2013: publication of the "compromise amendments" dated February 18th ***
Paris, 13 February 2013 — After the US corporations' victory in the European Parliament's “Consumer” committee (IMCO) in late January, more committees will cast their opinion votes on the data protection regulation next week1. As lobbying pressure from industrial actors intensifies, La Quadrature du Net publishes the “compromise amendments” currently negotiated in the “Industry” (ITRE) Committee to illustrate how the protection of our privacy is under attack. Citizens must react by urging Members of the Parliament to impose tough safeguards against the commercialization of our private lives and behaviour online.
Scheduled, respectively, for the 20th and the 21st February, the “Industry” (ITRE) and the “Employment” (EMPL) committees' opinion votes are rapidly approaching. As did the “Consumer” committee (IMCO), who voted to weaken safeguards for citizens' privacy, both of those committees have to vote on their opinion on the draft report of the “Civil Liberties” (LIBE) committee2. Opinion votes can have a major impact on the LIBE's report, and in the end, on the final vote.
The lobbying by US companies, joined in the case of banks and insurance companies by their European counterparts, is extremely strong and relentless.The LobbyPlag.eu
website clearly shows that changes proposed by lobbyists have gone
verbatim into amendments tabled by MEPs. To illustrate how protection of
our privacy is currently under attack, La Quadrature du Net publishes
the "compromise amendments"3, dated February 6th, currently being negotiated in the “Industry” (ITRE) committee. These proposals from MEPs copied in some cases directly from lobbies, are tabled on Sean Kelly's (Ireland - EPP) draft opinion,
the rapporteur for the ITRE committee. Most of the compromise
amendments attempt to modify the report by relaxing the obligations made
to actors collecting personal data. They are still under negotiation
and may be adopted by the committee during its vote of the 20th
February. The text in bold characters in the following examples indicate
the additions suggested by MEPs:
CA 41
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3.The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent any time. If
the consent is part of a contractual or statutory relationship the
withdrawal shall depend on the contractual or legal conditions. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. It
is acknowledged that the withdrawal of consent can lead to the
termination of the service and of the relationship with the controller.
Aims at replacing the right to withdrawal of consent to collection,
processing or storage by a contractual obligation, controlled by
companies.
CA 62
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a personal data breach relating to special
categories of personal date, personal data which are subject to
professional secrecy, personal data relating to criminal offences or to
the suspicion of a criminal act or personal data relating to bank or
credit card accounts, which seriously threaten the rights or legitimate
interests of the data subject, the controller shall without undue delay notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority.
Replaces the obligation of notification of a breach of personal data by obligation of notification of certain types of data.
These amendments are currently being negotiated, and as such, are
still subject to change. In order to allow all citizens to take action
against these dangerous proposals, La Quadrature du Net encourages
citizens to use its Piphone, a campaigning tool allowing to call targeted MEPs, free of charge. From next Monday4
until the votes, EU citizens can call their MEPs and demand the
protection of their rights and freedoms, by the adoption of strong
safeguards for their privacy. Here are the key messages to use while
calling MEPs:
Defend the principle of explicit, informed and for specific purpose(s) consent, no more, no less
Delete any mention of “legitimate interests” (for corporations to bypass privacy safeguards)
Protect all personal data, even if pseudonymous or encrypted, refuse
that absurd concept of “pseudonymous” data be used as derogation to
safeguards
Oblige both “controllers” and “processors“ of personal data to protect it
Ensure that every breach of personal data be notified to the
relevant bodies, and severely sanctioned if harmful and done on purpose
“After the citizen defeat in the Consumer committee,
it is time to act to protect our fundamental right to privacy. European
citizens should act to urge their MEPs not to give in to the lobbying
from giant companies that sell our personal data. If our elected
representatives want to protect the general interest rather than some
private interests, they must get involved and adopt strong safeguards
against the abusive collection, process and trade of our personal data.”
concluded Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net.
To get more information and discuss this, you can visit our forum.
1. The Industry (ITRE) committee will vote on its opinion on the 20th February, and the Employment (EMPL) committee will vote on its one the 21st February.
2. The LIBE committee, with the rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht
(Germany - Greens/EFA), is the main committee working on the revision
of the European regulation concerning the protection of personal data (95/46/EC):
its final report, which must into account the opinions expressed by the
IMCO, ITRE, EMPL and JURI committees, will call the whole European
Parliament to vote in favour or against the new Regulation during the
final vote in plenary session.
3.
Compromise amendments are amendments negotiated before a vote between
political groups to replace regular amendments. If they reach an
agreement, MEPs vote only on the compromise amendments and avoid a long
review of all amendments tabled on a text.
Paris, 20 February 2013 — While the “Industry” (ITRE)
committee is about to vote on its opinion regarding data protection
regulation, it is now clear that the outcome will depend on the Members
of the liberal ALDE
group. They will have to choose between allowing full-on exploitation
of our personal data or imposing tough safeguards to protect our
fundamental right to privacy. Citizens must act today 20 February before
4pm and urge their MEPs to defend the general interest by choosing the latter.
The “Industry” (ITRE) committee will vote its opinion on the draft report of the “Civil Liberties” (LIBE) committee1 today 20 February at 4pm. As shown in the latest version of the “compromise amendments” published
by La Quadrature du Net, the dangerous amendments supported by EPP
(conservatives) and ECR (eurosceptic conservatives) cannot be adopted without the votes of the 6 ALDE Members2:
ALDE MEPs of the ITRE committee have already shown they are sometimes
willing to sacrifice the interests of citizens, such as in the vote on
ACTA in May 2012. While the ALDE group called for the rejection of the
dangerous trade agreement, some of its ITRE Members, led by Jens Rohde, supported an EPP attempt to neutralize recommendations protecting citizens.
This time, it is on data protection and privacy that ALDE MEPs could
walk away from defending citizens' fundamental freedoms, by giving in to
US corporations that have engaged in particularly strong lobbying, leading to key MEPs being caught copy-pasting industry amendments .
Up until 4pm, citizens must act and urge their ITRE MEPs to protect
their fundamental right to privacy. They can do so easily by calling
them for free with the Piphone, by using microblogging, or any other means. “Liberal Members of the ITRE committee have a great
responsibility in their hands. Will they contribute to a full-on
plundering of our privacy, allowing US Internet giants, banks and
insurance companies to collect, process, and sell our personal data? Or
will they stand by fundamental freedoms and the founding principles of
the European Union by mandating strong privacy safeguards? Citizens must
act and remain watchful.” concluded Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net.
On 21 February at 9.30am, the “Employment” (EMPL) committee will also vote on its opinion on the draft report of the LIBE committee, and its MEPs should be contacted too.
To get more information and discuss this, you can visit our forum.
1. The LIBE committee, with the rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht
(Germany - Greens/EFA), is the main committee working on the revision
of the European regulation concerning the protection of personal data (95/46/EC):
its final report, which must take into account the opinions expressed
by the IMCO, ITRE, EMPL and JURI committees, will call the whole
European Parliament to vote in favour or against the new Regulation
during the final vote in plenary session.
Paris, 21 February 2013 — One month after the terrible opinion vote of the “Consumers” (IMCO) Committee, MEPs from the “Industry” (ITRE) committee, and to a lesser extent from the “Employment” (EMPL) one, have also voted to weaken protection of EU citizens' privacy. In the ITRE committee, because of the support of Members of the liberal (ALDE)
group, conservatives' amendments lifting restrictions on the
collection, processing and resale of citizens' personal data by
companies have been adopted. Before the “Legal Affairs” (JURI) committee's opinion vote1 and the main, crucial, “Civil Liberties” (LIBE) committee's report vote2, citizens should act and urge their MEPs to break away from big corporations' lobbying and to protect their fundamental right to privacy.
The revision of the European regulation concerning the protection of
personal data, initiated by the European Commission in 2012, is ongoing.
After the “Consumers” (IMCO) Committee opinion vote in January, the “Industry” (ITRE) and “Employment” (EMPL) committees have just voted their opinion on the draft report of the “Civil Liberties” (LIBE)
committee. All three of them, have voted to water down the safeguards
protecting our privacy, as corporate lobbies had hoped, although most of
the EMPL committee opinion focused on measures concerning work. As
shown on La Quadrature's wiki and by testimonies from MEPs, the lobbying pressure in the European Parliament from industrial actors has reached a state of unique intensity. As the lobbyplag.eu
website clearly shows, changes proposed by industry lobbyists are
sometimes copy-pasted verbatim into amendments tabled by MEPs. These
victories of corporations that collect, process and trade data on
citizens are alarming and anyone concerned about their rights and
freedoms should learn more and act.
In ITRE committee, votes by the Members of the liberal ALDE group3 helped amendments tabled by EPP and ECR conservatives to be adopted. Once more,
these MEPs choose to support neutralising rules protecting citizens and
adding vague and dangerous notions such as “pseudonimized data”4 as well as measures allowing for more profiling of citizens and less constraints on careless companies5.
The next step is the “Legal Affairs” (JURI) committee's opinion vote, led by ACTA's main proponent Marielle Gallo
(France - EPP) and scheduled for the 18-19 March 2013. Following that,
the main committee working on the Data Protection Regulation, the “Civil
Liberties (LIBE) Committee, led by Jan Philipp Albrecht (Germany - Greens/EFA), will vote on its report
the 24-25th April 2013, taking into account the opinions expressed by
the IMCO, ITRE, EMPL and JURI committees. The final LIBE committee
report will call the whole European Parliament to vote during the first
reading vote in plenary session, expected for the end of 2013. The
further ahead this procedure moves, the less occasions citizens will
have to reverse the current trend. They should therefore increase
efforts to ensure that MEPs will finally vote to protect their rights.
To get more information and discuss this, you can visit our forum.
