Voting list
Compromise amendments to reject : 3, 4, 5, 7
Detailed analysis
Recital 12c (compromise amendment 4) describes the so-called "preventive" phase of the "graduated response".
The recital states that the "relevant" administrative authorities can issues orders to technical intermediaires imposing them to send warning messages in case of "specific problems".
The length of this recital is exceptional for a European directive. It contains provisions that are substantive and should never be included in a recital. It refers to the new drafting of article 33 of the framework directive (compromise amendment 7).
This article 33 installs the prinicple that administrative authorities in charge of regulating Internet usage encourage intermediaries to co-operate with the sectors having interest in "the protection and promotion of lawful contents". It precises that this co-operation will in particular follow the rules defined in article 21(4a) (compromise amendment 3).
This notion of "personal security" echoes directly amendment 69 from Syed Kamal adopted in the LIBE committee, which authorizes any legal or moral person to process personal data when it is done for security purposes. This amendment aims at the authorisation to process connection data without permission from the user and to enable the technical measures described in amendment 76 from Syed Kamal, also adopted in the LIBE committee. The aim is to make possible for compulsory standardised technical systems to intercept, detect et prevent infringements to IPR, circumventing the judidicial authorities role in authorising or completing these functions.
Article 22(3) (compromise amendment 5) plans for the standards of surveillance and filtering to be defined by National regulatory authorities under control from the European Commission. The procedure defined in this article does not meet standards of democratic control.