EU-parlamentet går inn for at en skal være nødt til å aktivt reservere
seg om en ikke ønsker å motta spam og annen uønsket epost.
Kommisjonen hadde gått inn for et opt-in-system, men ble nedstemt.
Anti-spam-lobbyen hadde bommet totalt i sin strategi (stort sett var
de usynlige, iflg. en annen innsider jeg kjenner), og ble uansett
overkjørt av industrilobbyen.
Jeg vet ikke hva slags innvirkning dette vil ha på Norge.
------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: explorers@whyte.com (Nicholas Whyte)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,news.admin.net-abuse.email,dk.admin.netmisbrug,fr.misc.droit.internet,it.news.net-abuse,de.admin.net-abuse.mail,be.comp.internet
Subject: SPAM debate in European Parliament yesterday (12 November)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:40:43 GMT
A summary of yesterday's debate (in English) from the EP's press
service is attached. (The vote takes place shortly, but I am posting
this in the expectation that it will go the wrong way.) The full
report of the debate is at
http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=PDF&FILE 011112.pdf&TYPE=CRE
(in original languages, pp.27-33)
I particularly recommend people to read Commissioner Liikanen's
response at the end of the debate. He gets my vote (except that you
can't actually vote for Commissioners). I find it bizarre that I am
more in agreement with the loony eurosceptics of the EDD group than I
am with the Liberals on this one. If you can read Dutch, Blokland's
speech is rather a good one.
However, the point is that there were five speakers in favour of
opt-out during the debate and only three against (not counting the
Commissioner). Our lobbying efforts have not only failed but backfired
- Cashman said "we have been bullied and lobbied on the Internet and
via the fax machines that are in all our offices" - a sad commentary
on his view of the link between representative and citizen, but also a
reflection of how the anti-spam lobby has shot itself in the foot by
harassing MEPs who were never going to support us, rather than
concentrate reasoned arguments on the neutrals who had not made up
their minds.
I want to make a positive proposal that those of us who are interested
in getting this right next time round meet in Brussels in the last
week of this month (I am travelling a lot this week and next). Is
there any interest from ng members in having such a meeting?
Nicholas
Nicholas Whyte, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels
CEPS - thinking ahead for Europe
(phone) +32 2 229 3942/3911 (mobile) +32 495 544 467
CEPS web-site: http://www.ceps.be/
Northern Ireland elections web-site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
Reporting for a second time on behalf of the Citizens' Freedoms
Committee, Marco CAPPATO (IND, I) urged the House to support the
committee's compromise on the question of unsolicited emails. The
committee is recommending that the Member States should take a
decision on whether or not to allow subscribers to 'opt-in' or
'opt-out' by having their names removed from mailing lists. He
recognised that this was not a completely satisfactory solution but
felt it was better than the Commission's alternative to provide for
'opt-in' on a European basis.
Furthermore, concerns had been expressed by voluntary organisations
that the Commission's approach would have an adverse effect on their
activities. He recognised that there was also a privacy concern with
unsolicited messages and at the same time did not want to go down the
road that would give the police or other authorities unwarranted
freedom for action. There would be a delay of some years before the
legislation comes into force.
In the debate, there was support for the compromise from EPP-ED
spokesman Christian Ulrik von BOETTICHER (D) and Baroness Sarah
LUDFORD (ELDR, London) for the Liberals. Ilka SCHRÖDER (D), however,
speaking on behalf of the Industry Committee, supported the
Commission's approach on 'opt-in' while Ornella PACIOTTI (I) on behalf
of the PES group also wanted action taken to counter the number of
unsolicited electronic messages. Citizens should be allowed to chose
not to receive such communications, she felt and this view is
reflected in one amendment tabled.
Urging support of the compromise Mr von Boetticher pointed out that
any ban on receiving advertising material on the Internet in Europe
would only play into the hands of US business in an important area of
high technology.
Mrs Ludford did not think that civil liberties was an issue in this
case and indeed pointed out that spamming or sending junk mail is
already breaking the law and that this did not equate with unsolicited
emails as such.
An 'opt-in' system could have adverse consequences for small firms and
charities.
For the EDD, Hans BLOKLAND (NL) too recognised these difficulties but
pointed out that a national approach in the age of emails being sent
across borders was not a satisfactory solution. He supported an
international approach.
Michael CASHMAN (PES, West Midlands) was another speaker to support
the compromise. He too was weary of any legislation which could, as he
put it, introduce censorship through the back door. He pointed to the
vast strides to be made, thanks to the Internet, in freeing people
from oppression across the world. Furthermore, individuals would be
left to chose by pressing the 'delete' button.
Malcolm HARBOUR (EPP-ED, West Midlands) too supported the compromise
although he recognised that a global solution would be preferable.
Defending the Commission's position Erkki LIIKANEN felt that in an age
of rapidly developing electronic communications which in Japan had
resulted in up to 85% of 850 million text messages containing
unsolicited junk mail, there was a need for action. He could not agree
to any differentiation between the legislation applying to different
forms of communications i.e. the amendment which would allow
subscribers to 'opt-in' to faxes and texts messages on mobile phones
but would not apply to the Internet. He did indicate, however, that
there was room for compromise on the 'opting-in' question in general.
Vote: Tomorrow 12 noon.
Email to this address will be treated as SPAM.
My real address is explorers (at) whyte (dot) com
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/
------- End of forwarded message -------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST