Telecoms Package Plenary Speeches

Official transcript is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20080902+ITEM-010+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.

HELP NEEDED! You can help us by reviewing the automatic translation of some speeches from your native language to english. Just edit this page and fix the translation. Thank you!

English

Luc Chatel, President of the Council in office

As regards to copyright, Mr. Harbour says that we should have a
notification requirement for electronic communications networks
services providers to inform subscribers about unlawful uses of
networks and services. He also says that we should encourage
cooperation between the stakeholders in order to promote the
broadcasting of legal content. This seems to be very balanced views
but we have to err on the side of caution now because this is a very
sensitive subject in your assembly as well as in the Council.

Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission

However, what I find more difficult is to understand why Parliament
has changed the text in such a way that subscribers are not similarly
empowered and informed when it comes to the privacy of their personal
data. I know that Parliament takes the protection of consumers and of
citizens’ fundamental rights very seriously, and that is why I am so
surprised that the breach notification requirements in the
Commission’s proposals are diluted by the changes now on the table.

The default position should be that subscribers know of a breach of
security concerning their personal data so that they can take
precautions, and it cannot be left to the service provider to
determine whether such a breach is likely to cause a subscriber harm
– it is the subscriber and his own data which have to be protected.
How, for example, can a provider know how sensitive that information
is in an individual case? I would, therefore, urge Parliament to
reconsider its position on this issue.

Catherine Trautmann, Rapporteur

A final problem appeared late in the work, that is the protection of
intellectual property rights. I regret that this debate came to the
floor at this stage in the drafting of this package, it's a bit late
in the day for that to go deeper in the mechanisms allowing a strict
enforcement of intellectual property rights.

I just want to say that I hope that we would be able to complete the
analysis of this package with calm and serenity, without being
disturbed by this subject, admittedly important, since creative
contants are subject from a communication by Commission.

Malcolm Harbour, Rapporteur

However, I feel that consumers are also entitled to be informed about
some of the problems they might encounter, be this potential for
infringing copyright, potential for unauthorised use or potential,
for example, for buying things that could damage their health, like
counterfeit medicines. Why should we not demand that electronic
service providers carry public service messages in the same way that
television channels do at the moment? That is what we are talking
about, colleagues. We are not talking about this as a mechanism for
enforcing copyright, which is the responsibility of national
governments, but we are talking about making life easier and better
for consumers. 

Manolis Mavrommatis, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education

Madam President, as rapporteur of the opinion of the Commission
Culture, I would like to point out that it is extremely important to
address copyright as a fundamental right.

Everybody, especially legislators, must bear in mind that if
intellectual creation is not protected and if, in the name of
safeguard of personal data, the legitimate rights of authors is
ignored, then artistic content available to users will be reduced.

Piracy and illegal distribution of music and films on the Internet is
a reality which nobody can deny. However, in another state of
technology, losers are the creators, who - whether we like it or not
- are the source of material offered.

Therefore, for the Committee on Culture, I invite all Members of all
committees and political groups to protect European creativity and
thereby preserve the artistic content available in new media.

Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education

Committee on Culture has taken this subject very seriously from the
beginning, because one cannot legislate on electronic network or on
spectrum while ignoring the reality of content that circulate on
networks or use spectrum. This cannot be achieved only with pure
technical concerns, nor economical ones, that would not take into
account of the goals of the cultural policy and defense of diversity.
The reality of a digital world forces us to work together, television
operators and electronic services providers, and to legislate to
promote an internal market for telecommunications, which has become
inseparable from the audiovisual market.

We also need a balanced response to the problem of unlawful content
on Internet, that makes everyone faces his responsibility in a fight
that should interest everybody in order to protect both children and
culture as we know it.

Therefore I support these texts as a whole as they've reached this
stage and I hope that our debate and the final vote won't be infected
by not informed enough external pressures.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs

In addition, customers must have the right to reliable information
not only about the legal obligations arising from the use of the
service, for example in relation to intellectual property rights'
holders, but also about legally imposed limits. The key for a better
protection of the consumer is primarly to define with precision the
responsibility of the national regulatory authorities in enforcing
the terms of everyday consumer's rights.

Manuel Medina Ortega, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs

Mrs. President, the speaker, Mrs. Trautmann, told that questions on
intelectual property should not be mixed in this debate. I agree her,
since I believe that protection of intelectual property, as well as
protection of intimacy and another legal concepts, are already
defined in other legal frameworks.

However, it is convenient to remind at this moment that the
protection of intelectual property is still important as to the
content maintaining refers. It has been said that the
telecommunications are like big highways where you can freely drive;
but in the highway, if somebody commits a crime, the police appears.
You cannot steal a car, drive it on the highway and, when the police
appears, say that there exists the driving freedom on the highway.

I believe that is important, from the point of view of the
Parliament, to reiterate the importance of the protection of
intelectual property, to reiterate the protection of private life, to
even reiterate the right of people to their own intimacy, which in
this moment is being infringed by the big telecommunications
companies.

Rebecca Harms, in the name of Verts/ALE Group

My group doesn't agree with the attempt to regulate copyright in this
report. Neither the french model, to address the french Presidency of
the European Council, nor the "Three Strikes"-model will be supported
by my group. Far from it! To consider this we are further on feared
for the copyright as well as for the privacy protection in the
Internet.

A last comment about the report of Alvaro: Mr. Alvaro, once again you
talked about data protection in a dedicated way but at the moment I
can't see that you draw a continuous line, for example for the
protection of the IP-addresses. The experiences with the
Telekom-affair and the dealing with addresses via call centres are
showing that IP-addresses need a highly protection. I hope we come to
an agreement about that in the next two weeks.

Eva-Britt Svensson, in the name of GUE/NGL Group

Madam President, I hope that many of our fellow citizens follow this
debate and get involved before the vote because this is so great
changes, including on the Internet.

[...]

Third, Left reacts against the large influence that various industry
lobby groups have had. Telecoms package should not affect copyright,
but yet industry lobbies have received a hearing for the proposal.
Lobbying the proposal accepted by all groups except the European
United Left - the only group that voted against the Committee on
Internal Market and Consumer Protection - opens possibilities for
control of downloading and free access to sites such as myspace and
youtube.

The amendments came in late and through the back door but there has
been little debate among citizens about these major changes. For
example, in Sweden, we have had a wide-ranging debate on file
sharing. I work against the decision to prohibit file sharing at the
national level, and I do so also at the EU level. The risk that we
now take a decision at the EU level is greater than in the case of
national decisions, because the lobby groups have had a major impact
and influence in the EU system, and because many citizens do not have
sufficient information when we discuss the issues at EU level. I hope
for a strong civic opinion to guarantee freedom of expression and
access to Internet services!

Desislav Chukolov (NI)

Dear Mr. President, Honourable colleagues, I'm surprised how things
are being said today in this hall, and no one focused on the
preservation of confidentiality of correspondence. I call on you when
you discuss something as important in any way to not take an example
from the United States.

You know that using the subterfuge called "fight terrorism and
piracy", supranational oligarchy tries to put as many citizens under
the total, unconditional and inalienable civil society control. We
must preserve the confidentiality of personal correspondence at all
costs. I repeat again: at all costs!

In Bulgaria now all phone calls are controlled. Starting from next
year, our leaders want to have a full and unconditional access to all
log files and exchange electronic messages from any computer. This is
not done in helplessness. In Bulgaria, as well as in Europe, there
are enough literate and educated professionals who can fight against
any form of computer crime. This is done, I repeat again, in order to
have absolute control over citizens.

The right to freedom and to ensure our right to human dignity. Anyone
who tries to take away our dignity must be reprimanded and denounced,
but not the media  who implements his intentions in this way.

Before time in Bulgaria was held a shy discussion on the rights of
citizens in the electronic world. The only conclusion you can do then
is that any citizen to ask, happens to them what they needed. In
absolute hardness guarantee all citizens in Bulgaria that the party
"Attack" from the outset of his administration next year will roll
over all attacks correspondence and monitoring on the Internet.

In conclusion, I want you to say that if once we restrict the right
of private correspondence, this will always remain so. Even if
terrorists start using pigeons and correspondence. That replaced
their freedom for security deserves neither liberty is not known and
their own security. Thank you for your attention.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE)

Dear colleagues, the development of information society is based on
networks and electronic communications services.

The transition from analog television to the digital until 2012 will
issue at European level a significant range of frequencies, thus
allowing development of new technologies and innovative solutions,
the impetus to European competitiveness in this sector. To fully
benefit from the digital dividend in Europe, the European Parliament
supports a common approach, flexible and balanced use, allowing, on
the one hand, broadcasters continue to provide and expand their
services and, on the other hand, operators of electronic
communications to use this resource to provide services relating to
social and economic uses and stresses the importance that digital
dividend should be allocated to respecting the principle of
technological neutrality.

[...]

Consumers' confidence in the information society services depends on
the quality of services, electronic communications, safety and
protection of personal data. It is essential that national regulatory
authorities to ensure the consultation of all suppliers of electronic
communications services before adopting specific measures in the
security and integrity of electronic communications networks.

David Hammerstein (Verts/ALE)

It is obvious that only a light shadow is what remains of the
ambitious project that the European Commission introduced one year
ago. It is a pity by many reasons, since consumers need an
independent european management and not a club of national regulators
strongly influenced by the national champions.
 
The Greens are against turning the European Agency for the Regulation
of the Telecommunication Market in a simple club of regulators funded
by themselves, lacking transparency and with not enough control or
capacity of veto by the European Commission. The independence of this
new body is in question.
 
It is also a pity that, because of the pressure of the big
telecommunication operators, it is not provided the access to the big
telecommunications infrastructures to the new innovative bussiness,
thus forcing doubling the infrastructures.

The Greens defend technological neutrality and functional
disaggregation to end with the dominant positions of the national big
telecommunciations operators. However, the European Parliament has
showed itself too shy, influenced by the lobbies, avoiding the
interest of the new and more innovative enterprises, which are
already providing a big part of the wireless services in Europe and
which favor the citizens.
 
I regret to tell that, in general, a big opportunity to give much
more european value added to the telecommunications market has been
lost. We are worried particularly by some dangerous proposals of
Harbour report which clearly infringe the Net Neutrality principle as
a communication media, threaten the users' privacy, threatens feedom
on the Net and above all, clearly exceed the legal scope of the
telecommunication package when it talks about content, when talking
about what is lawful or unlawful, legal or illegal, of intelectual
property, when talking of information filtering.
 
This package deals with market infrastructure, deals with consumers
and not about turning the Internet servers into digital policemen.

Hanne Dahl (IND/DEM)

But the package also contains some very undesirable elements, as the
previous speaker said. The question of defining what is lawful and
unlawful content on websites, opens the door for monitoring,
recording and control of all our communications and commerce over the
Internet. And to a degree that is, in some country, we do not
normally consider to be democratic, dignified!

We can not allow the registration, just as we can not allow service
arbitrarily to close traffic, as some consider to be harmful. It
corresponds to employ an army of inspectors on Europe's post offices
to dissect out letters, which we consider to be harmful reading for
the recipient. Who is it just to be allowed to read my mail? We must
ensure that future legislation will not be an electronic
straitjacket, but rather a framework in which the future of culture,
society and interactive life can develop.

Eric Besson, President of the Council in office

Mrs Harms, just a few words to you Madam. In our minds, we're not
talking about developpement of Internet on the one hand, and the
protecting of copyrights in the other hand, piting the two against each
other. This is the moment of convergence, and we need to therefore
work both on the containers, the networks, and on content. We
therefore need to give an advantage to authors and to creators. As
you said quite rightly Madam, France attaches a great importance to
copyright and the French presidency in office is not seeking to
impose some kind of example, that we're taking in France with the
graduated response, know as the Creation and Internet Law.

We are very aware of the need to protect private life and personal
data absolutely and I don't think this is in any way incompatible
with other concerns we can have, Madam.

Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE)

Protection of privacy was also part of priorities, as well as
protection of children, access providers having to provide free of
charges parental control softwares to consumers.

All these progress had to be made for the profit of the many.
Therefore many provisions are about equal access to people with
disabilities. People with low income or SMEs have not been forgotten.
So, we tried to extend the universal services application field to
high speed broadband, this is one of the priority of the French
presidency, which is a very good thing.

Now I would like to address content and copyright, which has tended
to overshadow the rest of the improvements included in this text. Our
goal has always be to provide consumers with general information
about copyright, in accordance with the original proposal from
Commission. Until the final vote, we will work to improve the wording
of the compromises, respecting the principle of neutrality for
content access. Some amendment adopted in the "Privacy" Directive,
however, are quite problematic and we make sure to remove them.

I would like to thank again my colleagues and I'm waiting more
precise proposition from the presidency in order to improve moreover
this text until the next plenary session.

Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE)

We had a very delicate discussion on network neutrality. My opinion
is that extreme network neutrality, as we experienced in some
amendments, will make networks more congested, slower, less efficient
and more expensive. Network management is necessary to run efficient
and intelligent networks and to maximise the overall user experience
and value.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM)

I am a committed proponent of net neutrality. As the world becomes
more globalised it is crucial that people have the ability to
communicate freely. However, this freedom, which is of great value,
must be used with respect. It must be recognised that without this
respect the internet harbours the potential for abuse. 

We have taken action on some of the worst abuses on the internet,
such as paedophilia. However, other abuses also need to be tackled.
Internet service providers must play their part in preventing their
platform being used for destructive forces like libel, hate and
exploitation. I would say to the Commissioner that we need to do
everything in our power to protect freedom and, at the same time, to
promote responsibility on the internet.

Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE)

I am even more comfortable to say to Catherine Trautmann that I don't
agree with her when she wants to completely exclude any reference to
intellectual property rights. Beyond platforms and channels that we
are talking about, specially in the text she's responsible of, what
matters to everyone is what these platforms and channels allow to
know. What they allow access, ie the content. And our colleagues
Guardans, Medina or Mavrommatis have said this very well and I
support them.

There were in Commission's text two references, it would have been
better to keep them. Today's discussion focuses on a reference to
directives on copyright from 2001 and 2004 and on cooperation between
stakeholders. What for? To promote legal offers, ie content that help
consolidate the prosperity of our industry and our cultural
diversity. In an offensive against these texts, which I heard a few
echoes still here on these benches, it was made a scarecrow from, for
example,  OLIVENNES agreements. But the model we should follow is the
memorandum of understanding adopted on July 24 by the British
government, OFCOM and different stakeholders. As far as I know they
are not supporters of bureaucracy and dictatorship on the Internet.

It is about not preventing laws of our states to be enforced, about
ensuring to reconcile the fundamental rights and to not prevent what
could bring the new technology, new economy, at the service of our
cultural diversity, of our proactive industries, of the Europeans'
intelligence and talent, that are the best weapon and our best asset
in global competition.

Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE)

There are parts which have to be revised - this is correct. Ms.
Reding, you said at the beginning that you are surprised about the
European Parliament which want to decrease the data protection. I
want to say something to you about this: The European Parliament
still doesn't have a mind of it's own because it will vote on these
questions not earlier than in two weeks. Until then we'll revise the
critical parts. I promise you that in our group there will be no
diminution of data protection.  When we won't come to an agreement in
principle in the fields of data protection, access to the Internet
and it's neutrality in the Parliament my group won't agree to it and
then we have to see how to get on.

Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar (PSE)

First of all, I want to congratulate the draftpersons, since they
have made a good job. This review carry out the planned objectives
and it adapts to the new times and the new challenges, both for
enterprises and consumers.

But let me stop at a particular point in the Harbour report. It is
true that the draftsman has made a magnificient job, but I believe
that is not convenient to tackle in this place that set of final
amendments dealing with the issue of content in the Net, in this
directive, since these amendments definitely allow the undertakings
to filter and block the content flowing through the Net, and finally
are the consumers the ones who will lost its anonymity.

Honourable members, this position is contrary to the article 12 of
the Directive on Electronic Commerce, which already establishes that
the undertakings must act as “mere conduit” when they tansmit
electronic information.

Hence, in a Rule of Law we cannot make in the Net things that we
would not do in other communications. That is why I urge Mr. Harbour
to remove these amendments to recover balance between copyright and
the users' rights on the Internet.

Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where
everyone, governments, private companies and criminals tries to have
the greatest and most uncontrolled access to our data electronically.

Hence, any change in the "e-privacy directive" should do what the
title implies, namely ensuring the widest possible protection of our
personal data and our private life.

For this reason I oppose any attempt to weaken the definition of what
constitutes privacy - and therefore under the protection of the law -
given European citizens. The target exceptions, specifically
addresses IP, circumvent through the back door existing European
legislation.

And do not think that Internet providers are allowed to judge for
themselves which breaches in the security of their networks harms
their users and which is not, and therefore to decide for themselves
when to notify users and authorities for even flagrant omissions.

I respect the role and the offer of private companies, but the
economic interests of large Internet companies can not dictate the
laws adopted in Europe for the defence of fundamental rights of
citizens.

Luc Chatel, President of the Council in office

The third subject that I intended to address, which has also come out
several times in your debates, is of course the question of the
protection of personal data and, more generally, issues related to
content, compared to the container. Eric Besson has responded in part
to you on this subject, I believe that the goal of Presidency is not
to oppose each another or to impose a model, but I was sensitive to a
number of interventions which have been raised this afternoon to
indicate that if we build all this, this economy of the future,
source of growth for tomorrow, it is of course for the European
economy, but it is also to enable our culture, our players in this
field, to disseminate more on a worldwide scale. So I think we cannot
separate the two subjects, even though I know that in other circles
some important debates are also underway on subject. One must keep in
mind that this modernization of containers must also be designed to
promote dissemination of our content and copyright protection so as
to preserve the creation in the European Union.

Catherine Trautmann, Rapporteur

Let me also say, since I was questioned shortly by Mr. Toubon, that
you cannot blame me here for not willing to take into account the
necessary support to the creation in Europe. I believe it is a real
vehicle for innovation, a wealth and an intellectual increase in
value which is absolutely indispensable in today's world.

But we must also take into account the freedom that we have to ensure
with our laws - we have voted extremely important texts about the
protection of personal data, and we're the only ones to have done so
in the world as of today. We must reconcile these two aspects. There
is no contradiction. It's indeed the same ambition to devote what
falls in creative freedom as what falls in freedom of each
individual. It is in that spirit that we will still go forward
improving our proposals.

Pilar del Castillo Vera

Madam President, in this final intervention I want to thank the
Council for its availability, that has again proved today. I also
want to thank, and a lot, to the Commission, in particular to the
Commissioner, the sensibility she has always proved in her fireproof
defense –I would say- of an electronic communication market more
competitive and of the protection to consumers. And I also want to
make public my gratitude, in a very first place, to my colleagues,
who, both here today and in previous working days, have proved up to
which point are they sensitive to the importance this sector has for
european economic growth and hence, for the employment and the
welfare of all the citizens of Europe.

Now, I want to just ask the Council that, in this final period to the
end of the current Presidency, give this Telecom package at least a
similar priority to the one given to energy –what is very important,
but this package is not less important- in order we can advance from
this point of equilibrium we have found and that has just pointed out
my colleague Trautmann.

The Parliament offers a series of proposals, in general very well
balanced, I would say, that in a later stage, during the negociations
with the Council and the Commission, could solve this problem
successfully. Thank you very much. We expected a lot from the
Presidency in this sense.

Malcolm Harbour, Rapporteur

Madam President, I find myself in the uncharacteristic position of
having the last word in this major debate so I will perhaps make a
few broad‑ranging remarks at the end.

But first of all I would like, regarding my own report, to thank the
many colleagues who have contributed and have reinforced the
determination of our committee to make and carry forward those
improvements. I would like to assure my colleagues that over the next
couple of weeks we will be working to make those further
improvements, particularly around the areas of data protection, on
which we had a very successful meeting this morning: I think we can
reach an agreement there. On the question of data‑breach
notification, it is perhaps not surprising that we still have work to
do because that was an entirely fresh piece of work that we did. I
cordially invite the Commission, who have already been involved, to
help us complete the drafting because, after all, it was not in their
original proposal.

The other point I want to make is addressed to Mrs Harms, as she is
the only representative of the Green Party here. I was absolutely
astounded to hear from her colleague, David Hammerstein Mintz – who I
get on very well with – that he considers my report to be dangerous
to net neutrality. We have spent a lot of time crafting a new
proposal to actually allow regulators to intervene if they see net
neutrality being trespassed upon. Yet Mr Hammerstein Mintz comes to
this Chamber, without talking to me beforehand and without submitting
any alternative, and tells me my report is dangerous. All I would say
to Mrs Harms is that if the Green Group continue with this sort of
scaremongering and demonising of our report, it will be dangerous for
consumers because it will endanger everything else. I cordially
invite them to come round our table and to say why our report is
dangerous. Let us see if we can satisfy their concerns. Many of you
may well even be receiving daily e‑mails. I had one telling me that
this report is a danger to net neutrality. All I can say to you is
that our intention is entirely the opposite.

In conclusion, we now all have a huge responsibility to help the
French presidency reach agreement. I want to emphasise that point.
There is a lot of uncertainty out in the real world, among the people
who are poised to make the big investments – the next‑generation
networks – who want this package settled as soon as possible. We can
help do that by working together as we have done successfully. It is
a really big responsibility. I pledge from my side – and I know my
colleagues will come with me on this – that we will spare no effort
in working with the French Presidency. I want to pay particular
tribute to Mr Chatel and Mr Besson for their deep engagement to this
whole process and their real knowledge of the issues. Together I am
sure we can get this package through in the quickest possible time.

Spanish

Thanks to Informática Verde.

Luc CHATEL, francés, por parte del Consejo

Agradece a Harbour su trabajo, y dice que su informe en materia de derechos de autor incorpora la obligación de informar a los usuarios sobre usos ilegales, y sobre la cooperación entre las partes (ambas enmiendas torpedo). Dice que en el Consejo hay gente preocupada por esto y que hay que ser prudentes con estos temas.

Viviane REDING, luxemburguesa, comisaria de Sociedad de la Información

No hace referencia a los temas de propiedad intelectual. La Comisión tiene diferencias con el Parlamento, pero no cita en ningún momento las torpedo.

Catherine TRAUTTMAN, socialista francesa, ponente de un informe

En cuanto a propiedad intelectual, dice que no se ha podido profundizar en el mecanismo para defenderla. Desea que ese tema no interfiera en esta regulación, porque habrá una nueva comunicación al respecto de la propiedad intelectual por parte de la Comisión en breve.

Malcom HARBOUR, conservador, británico

Los usuarios tienen derecho a saber sus derechos, derecho a saber si están incumpliendo el copyright, o a saber si hacen un uso no autorizado. No es un mecanismo para defender el copyright, sino para hacer la vida más fácil al usuario.

MAVROMMATIS, griego, popular

En favor de los derechos de los autores. La piratería y la distribución por Internet de películas genera un enorme daño, insta a proteger la creatividad europea.

GUARDANS, liberal, español

La realidad obliga a trabajar juntos legisladores, empresas, y autores. Necesitamos una respuesta equilibrada ante lo ilegal, para proteger tanto a los usuarios como a la cultura. Quisiera que el texto no se contamine por presiones externas.

Lidia GERINGER, polaca, socialista

Hay que defender los derechos de los autores.

Manuel MEDINA, español, socialista

Vale que haya otra comunicación pronto sobre propiedad intelectual, pero es importante que ahora en cuanto a los contenidos hagamos un refuerzo. Si alguien comete un delito, la policía interviene. Si alguien va a toda velocidad por la autopista y se le detiene no puede ampararse en la libertad. Es importante reiterar la protección de la propiedad intelectual y reiterar el derecho a la intimidad que ahora está siendo violada por las compañías de telecomunicaciones.

Rebeca HARMS, alemana, Verdes

No queda clara la protección de las direcciones IP como dato personal.

Eva-Brit SVENSSON, sueca, izquierda unitaria

Votaremos en contra de enmiendas que bloqueen el acceso a MySpace o a Youtube.

CHUKOLOV, no inscritos, Bulgaria

Defiende la confidencialidad de las comunicaciones, en Bulgaria quieren controlar todo lo que se mueve por Internet, ya controlan todas las llamadas, eso atenta contra la dignidad humana.

TICAU, Rumanía, socialistas

Defiende la neutralidad tecnológica.

HAMMERSTEIN, Verdes, España

Nos preocupa, en particular, algunas propuestas peligrosas del informe Harbour que vulneran el principio de neutralidad de la red como un medio de comunicación, atentan contra la privacidad de los usuarios, amenazan la libertad en internet y sobretodo, superan claramente el ámbito legal del Paquete de Telecomunicaciones al hablar de contenido, al hablar de lo que es "lícito" o "ilícito", legal o ilegal, de la propiedad intelectual, de filtros de información, etc.. Este paquete se trata de la infraestructura, del mercado y de los consumidores y no de convertir los servidores de internet en policías digitales.

Hahn DAHL, dinamarca, Independencia y Democracia

Intervenir en las comunicaciones es como ponerse una camisa de fuerza. Es como si me miran el interior de mis cartas.

Luc BESSON, Consejo

Niega que se pretenda imponer la respuesta graduada.

BUSOI, liberales, Rumanía

La neutralidad de la red puede hacer que las redes sean más caras y menos eficaz.

TOUBON, francés, populares

No está de acuerdo con eliminar las referencias a la propiedad intelectual. Apoya a Guardans, Medina y Mavromatis. Hay una ofensiva contra estos textos (enmiendas) en las que se han esgrimido argumentos tremendistas. De lo que se trata es de que no se pongan trabas a la aplicación de las leyes nacionales.

GEBHART, alemana, socialista

Queremos neutralidad en la red.

Francisca PLEGUEZUELOS, socialista, España

No es el sitio de tratar las enmiendas de Harbour. Al final los consumidores van a perder su anonimato. Va contra la directiva de comercio electrónico (artículo 12). No podemos hacer en la red lo que no hacemos en otras comunicaciones. Pido a Harbour que retire las enmiendas.

LAMBRINIDIS, socialista, Grecia

Los proveedores no pueden decidir qué es ilegal o no. Siempre hay que notificar a las partes afectadas. Los proveedores no pueden vulnerar derechos de los ciudadanos.

Cierra HARBOUR

Hoy el señor Hammerstein ha dicho que mi informe es peligroso, y me
he quedado boquiabierto. Sin hablar conmigo anteriormente ha llegado
y ha dicho de sopetón que es peligroso. Si el grupo verde continúa
demonizando mi informe, eso sí que será peligroso. Que vengan Los
Verdes a verme, a hablar conmigo primero, nadie ha hablado conmigo.
Hoy me ha llegado otro correo diciéndome que mi informe es peligroso.

French

Luc Chatel, président en exercice du Conseil

Enfin, sur la question spécifique du droit d'auteur, le rapport de
M. Harbour propose de maintenir une obligation générale d'information
des abonnés par les fournisseurs de réseaux des services de
communications électroniques sur les utilisations illégales des
réseaux et des services. Il propose également d'encourager la
coopération entre parties prenantes afin de favoriser la diffusion
d'offres légales. Ces dispositions paraissent équilibrées mais il
faudra tenir compte de la grande sensibilité de ce sujet, tant pour
votre assemblée que pour le Conseil.

Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur

Un dernier problème est apparu sur le tard, celui de la protection de
la propriété intellectuelle. Je regrette que ce débat ait interféré à
ce point dans l'examen du paquet, je ne crois pas que ce soit le lieu
pour approfondir les mécanismes permettant le strict respect de la
propriété intellectuelle.

Je veux simplement dire que je souhaite que nous puissions terminer
l'examen de ce paquet dans la sérénité, sans se laisser perturber par
cette question, certes importante, puisque les contenus créatifs font
l'objet d'une communication de la Commission.

Ignasi Guardans Cambó, rapporteur pour avis de la commission de la culture et de l'éducation

La commission de la culture a pris dès le début ce dossier très au
sérieux et ce parce qu'on ne peut plus légiférer sur le réseau
électronique ou sur le spectre en ignorant la réalité des contenus
qui y circulent et l'utilisent. Ceci ne peut pas se faire avec des
critères purement techniques, voire économiques, qui ne tiendraient
pas compte des objectifs de politique culturelle et de la défense de
la diversité. La réalité d'un monde numérique nous oblige à
travailler ensemble, opérateurs de télévision et fournisseurs de
services électroniques, et à légiférer pour un marché intérieur des
télécommunications, qui est devenu inséparable du marché audiovisuel.

Il nous faut aussi une réponse équilibrée au problème des contenus
illégaux sur Internet, qui met chacun devant ses propres
responsabilités dans une lutte qui doit nous intéresser tous pour
protéger et les enfants et la culture telle que nous la connaissons.

Je soutiens donc l'ensemble de ces textes tels qu'ils sont arrivés
jusqu'ici avec l'espoir que notre débat et le vote final ne soient
pas contaminés par des pressions extérieures pas assez informées.

Eric Besson, président en exercice du Conseil

Je voudrais simplement ajouter un mot à l'attention de Mme Harms,
pour lui dire qu'il ne s'agit pas, dans notre esprit, d'opposer le
développement d'Internet et la protection des droits d'auteur. À
l'heure de la convergence, il faut à la fois développer les
contenants, les réseaux, et les contenus et, donc, favoriser la
création et les auteurs. La France, vous l'avez rappelé, est attachée
aux droits d'auteur et la présidence française ne cherche pas à
imposer l'exemple, que nous allons promouvoir en France, de
prévention et de réponse graduée, ce que nous appelons la loi
création et Internet.

Nous sommes enfin très conscients, comme vous l'avez dit, des
nécessités de protéger à la fois la vie privée et les données
personnelles. Cela ne nous paraît absolument pas incompatible avec
d'autres préoccupations.

Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE)

La protection de la vie privée a aussi fait partie des priorités, de
même que la protection des enfants, les fournisseurs d'accès devant
fournir gratuitement aux clients les logiciels de contrôle parental.

Toutes ces avancées se devaient d'être assurées pour le plus grand
nombre. De nombreuses mesures concernent donc l'égal accès pour les
usagers handicapés, les personnes à faibles revenus et les PME n'ont
pas été oubliées. De même, le rapport insiste sur la nécessité
d'élargir le champ d'application du service universel au haut débit
notamment et l'inscription de ce point dans les priorités de la
présidence française est une très bonne chose.

Je voudrais maintenant évoquer la question des contenus et des droits
d'auteur, qui a eu tendance à éclipser le reste des améliorations
contenues dans ce texte. Notre objectif a toujours été de fournir aux
consommateurs une information générale sur le respect des droits
d'auteur, conformément à la proposition initiale de la Commission.
Jusqu'au vote final, nous travaillerons à améliorer la formulation
des compromis en veillant au respect du principe de neutralité
d'accès au contenu. Certains amendements adoptés dans la directive
"Vie privée" sont en revanche réellement problématiques et nous
veillerons à les supprimer. 

Je tiens encore à remercier mes collègues et j'attends des
propositions plus précises de la présidence afin d'améliorer encore
ce texte d'ici la prochaine session plénière. 

Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE)

Je suis d'autant plus à l'aise pour dire à Catherine Trautmann que je
ne suis pas d'accord avec elle lorsqu'elle veut exclure totalement
toute référence à la propriété intellectuelle. Au delà des
plateformes et des canaux dont nous parlons, en particulier dans le
texte dont elle a la responsabilité, ce qui importe à tous c'est ce
que ces plateformes et ces canaux permettent de connaître. À quoi ils
permettent d'accéder, c'est-à-dire les contenus. Et nos collègues
Guardans, Medina ou Mavrommatis l'ont dit excellemment et je les
soutiens.

Il y avait dans le texte de la Commission deux références, il aurait
mieux valu les conserver. Aujourd'hui la discussion porte sur une
référence aux directives de 2001 et 2004 sur les droits d'auteur et
sur la coopération entre les parties prenantes. Pour quoi faire? Pour
promouvoir les offres légales, c'est-à-dire des contenus qui
permettent d'asseoir la prospérité de notre industrie et notre
diversité culturelle. On a fait, dans une offensive contre ces textes
dont j'ai entendu quelques échos encore ici sur ces bancs, un
épouvantail, par exemple, des accords OLIVENNES. Mais le modèle que
nous devons suivre c'est le memorandum of understanding adopté le
24 juillet par le gouvernement britannique, l'OFCOM et les
différentes parties prenantes. Que je sache ils ne sont pas des
partisans de la bureaucratie et de la dictature sur l'Internet.

Il s'agit de ne pas empêcher d'appliquer les lois de nos États, de
faire en sorte de concilier les droits fondamentaux et de ne pas
empêcher ce qui pourra mettre la nouvelle technologie, la nouvelle
économie, au service de notre diversité culturelle, de nos industries
proactives, de l'intelligence et du talent des Européens qui sont la
meilleure arme et notre meilleur atout dans la compétition mondiale.

Luc Chatel, président en exercice du Conseil

Le troisième sujet que je comptais aborder, qui est revenu également
à plusieurs reprises dans vos débats, c'est bien sûr la question de
la protection des données personnelles et, de manière plus générale,
des questions liées au contenu, par rapport au contenant. Eric Besson
vous a en partie répondu sur ce sujet, je crois que l'objectif de la
présidence n'est pas d'opposer l'un à l'autre ou d'imposer un modèle,
mais j'ai été sensible à un certain nombre d'interventions qui se
sont manifestées cet après‑midi pour indiquer que si nous
construisons tout cela, cette économie du futur, source de croissance
pour demain, c'est bien sûr pour l'économie européenne, mais c'est
aussi pour permettre à notre culture, à nos acteurs dans ce domaine,
de se diffuser davantage sur le plan mondial. Donc, je crois qu'on ne
peut pas séparer les deux sujets, même si je sais que par ailleurs,
dans d'autres cénacles des débats importants sont en cours sur le
sujet. On doit avoir à l'esprit que cette modernisation des
contenants doit être aussi destinée à favoriser la diffusion de nos
contenus et la protection des droits d'auteurs de manière à préserver
la création dans l'Union européenne.

Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur

Je voudrais aussi dire, puisque j'ai été interpellée tout à l'heure par
M. Toubon, qu'on ne peut pas me reprocher ici une volonté de ne pas tenir
compte du soutien nécessaire à la création en Europe. Je crois qu'elle
correspond véritablement à un vecteur d'innovation, à une richesse et à une
plus-value intellectuelle qui est absolument indispensable dans le monde
d'aujourd'hui.

Mais nous devons aussi tenir compte de la liberté que nous devons garantir
avec nos textes – nous avons voté des textes extrêmement importants sur la
protection des données personnelles, et nous sommes les seuls à l'avoir fait
aujourd'hui dans le monde. Nous devons concilier ces deux aspects. Il n'y a
pas de contradiction. C'est la même ambition, consacrer en effet ce qui relève
de la liberté de création comme ce qui relève de la liberté de chaque
individu. C'est dans cet esprit que nous irons encore vers l'amélioration de
nos propositions.

Greek

Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης, Εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Πολιτισμού και Παιδείας

Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ως εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής
Πολιτισμού, θα ήθελα να επισημάνω ότι έχει πολύ μεγάλη σημασία η
αντιμετώπιση των πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων των δημιουργών ως ισάξιου
θεμελιώδους δικαιώματος.

Θα πρέπει όλοι, και κυρίως οι νομοθέτες, να έχουμε κατά νου ότι, αν
δεν προστατευθεί η πνευματική δημιουργία και αν, στο όνομα της
διαφύλαξης των προσωπικών δεδομένων, καταπατούνται τα νόμιμα
δικαιώματα των δημιουργών, τότε θα περιοριστεί και το καλλιτεχνικό
περιεχόμενο που διατίθεται στους χρήστες.

Η πειρατεία και η παράνομη διανομή μουσικής και ταινιών στο Διαδίκτυο
είναι μια πραγματικότητα που δεν μπορεί κανείς να αρνηθεί. Ωστόσο,
στην άλλη πορεία της τεχνολογίας οι ζημιωμένοι είναι οι δημιουργοί
που  είτε το θέλουμε είτε όχι  είναι η πηγή του υλικού που
προσφέρεται.

Επομένως, εκ μέρους της Επιτροπής Πολιτισμού, καλώ όλους τους
συναδέλφους όλων των επιτροπών και πολιτικών ομάδων να προστατεύσουμε
την ευρωπαϊκή δημιουργικότητα και, ως εκ τούτου, να διαφυλάξουμε το
καλλιτεχνικό περιεχόμενο που διατίθεται στα νέα μέσα επικοινωνίας.

Σταύρος Λαμπρινίδης (PSE)

Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ζούμε σε έναν κόσμο όπου όλοι,
κυβερνήσεις, ιδιωτικές εταιρείες αλλά και εγκληματίες επιδιώκουν να
έχουν τη μεγαλύτερη δυνατή και πιο ανεξέλεγκτη πρόσβαση στα
ηλεκτρονικά μας δεδομένα.

Γι' αυτό το λόγο, οι όποιες αλλαγές στην "e-privacy directive" θα
πρέπει να κάνουν αυτό ακριβώς που υπονοεί ο τίτλος της, δηλαδή τη
διασφάλιση της μεγαλύτερης δυνατής προστασίας των προσωπικών μας
δεδομένων και της ιδιωτικής μας ζωής. 

Για τον παραπάνω λόγο είμαι αντίθετος με κάθε προσπάθεια να
αποδυναμωθεί ο ορισμός του τι αποτελεί προσωπικό – και επομένως υπό
την προστασία του νόμου – δεδομένο των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Οι
επιδιωκόμενες εξαιρέσεις, ειδικά για τις διευθύνσεις IP,
καταστρατηγούν από την πίσω πόρτα την ισχύουσα ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία. 

Και δεν θεωρώ ότι οι πάροχοι υπηρεσιών Διαδικτύου επιτρέπεται να
κρίνουν οι ίδιοι ποιες παραβιάσεις της ασφάλειας των δικτύων τους
βλάπτουν τους χρήστες τους και ποιες όχι, και επομένως να αποφασίζουν
οι ίδιοι πότε θα ειδοποιήσουν τους χρήστες και τις αρχές για ακόμα
και κατάφωρες παραλείψεις τους.

Σέβομαι το ρόλο και την προσφορά των ιδιωτικών εταιρειών, αλλά τα
οικονομικά συμφέροντα των μεγάλων εταιρειών του Διαδικτύου δεν μπορεί
να υπαγορεύουν τους νόμους που υιοθετεί η Ευρώπη για την υπεράσπιση
των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων των πολιτών της.

Polish

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, autorka projektu opinii Komisji Prawnej

Pani Przewodnicząca! Unijne ramy prawne w dziedzinie telekomunikacji
powstały w latach 90, skutecznie uwalniając krajowe rynki od
państwowych monopoli. Efektem był znaczny spadek cen połączeń
oferowanych przez konkurujących operatorów. W ostatnich latach
byliśmy świadkami rewolucyjnych zmian technologicznych – telefonia
komórkowa, rozwój internetu i sieci bezprzewodowych zmieniły
diametralnie oblicze telekomunikacji. Prawo Unii Europejskiej musi
odzwierciedlać te przemiany, także w aspekcie społecznym.

Około 15% Europejczyków to ludzie niepełnosprawni, a w 2020 r. 25%
społeczeństwa stanowić będą osoby starsze. To właśnie ci ludzie
o specjalnych potrzebach powinni mieć zapewniony łatwiejszy dostęp do
usług telekomunikacyjnych. Konieczne jest umożliwienie na terenie
całej Unii bezpłatnego dostępu do wspólnego numeru alarmowego 112,
także użytkownikom telefonii internetowej, oraz do innych usług
elektronicznej komunikacji głosowej. Ponadto klienci muszą mieć prawo
do rzetelnej informacji nie tylko o obowiązkach prawnych wynikających
z korzystania z danej usługi, na przykład w odniesieniu do praw
autorskich, ale i o nałożonych prawnie ograniczeniach. Kluczem do
lepszej ochrony konsumenta będzie przede wszystkim precyzyjne
zdefiniowanie odpowiedzialności krajowych organów regulacyjnych w
zakresie codziennego egzekwowania praw konsumentów.

German

Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion

Nicht einverstanden ist meine Fraktion aber mit dem Versuch, in
diesem Bericht auch Urheberrechte zu regeln. Wir halten davon gar
nichts. Weder das französische Modell – das richtet sich auch an die
Ratspräsidentschaft – noch das „Three Strikes“-Modell  werden von uns
unterstützt. Im Gegenteil! Wir machen uns, wenn wir uns das ansehen,
sowohl weiter Sorgen um das Urheberrecht als auch um die Privatheit,
den Schutz der privacy im Internet.

Zum Bericht Alvaro ein letzter Satz: Herr Kollege Alvaro, Sie haben
jetzt wieder sehr engagiert über Datenschutz geredet. Ich finde im
Moment so, wie Sie das in Ihren Reden suggerieren, noch keine
konsequente Linie zum Beispiel zum Schutz der IP-Adressen. Die
Erfahrungen mit dem Telekom-Skandal und dem Handel mit Adressen über
Callcenter zeigen, dass IP-Adressen höchsten Schutz genießen müssen,
und hoffe, dass wir uns in den nächsten 14 Tagen darauf verständigen.

Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE)

Es gibt allerdings Teile, die müssen nachbearbeitet werden. Das ist
ganz richtig. Frau Reding,  Sie haben in Ihren Einführungssätzen
gesagt, Sie wundern sich, dass das Europäische Parlament den
Datenschutz vermindern will. Ich möchte Ihnen dazu sagen: Das gilt
nicht für das Parlament – denn das Parlament wird erst in zwei Wochen
abstimmen, und erst dann werden wir sehen, welche Position das
Parlament in diesen Fragen hat. Bis dahin werden wir all die Dinge,
die noch im Argen liegen, nachbearbeiten. Ich verspreche Ihnen, dass
es mit unserer Fraktion keine Verminderung des Datenschutzes geben
wird. Wenn in den Bereichen Datenschutz, Zugang zum Netz und
Netzneutralität im Parlament keine zufrieden stellende Einigung
zustande kommt, wird meine Fraktion auch nicht zustimmen können, und
dann werden wir sehen, wie wir weiterkommen.

Swedish

Eva-Britt Svensson, för GUE/NGL-gruppen

Fru talman! Jag hoppas att många av våra medborgare följer den här
debatten och engagerar sig före omröstningen eftersom det rör så
stora förändringar, bland annat när det gäller Internettjänster.

[...]

För det tredje reagerar vänstergruppen mot det stora inflytande olika
industrilobbygrupper har haft. Telekomförslagen ska inte påverka
upphovsrätten, men det har speciellt lobbyindustrin ändå fått gehör
för i förslaget. Lobbygruppernas förslag vilka accepterats av alla
grupper utom Europeiska enade vänstern - vilken som enda grupp
röstade emot i utskottet för den inre marknaden och konsumentskydd -
öppnar möjligheter till kontroll av nedladdning och fri tillgång till
exempelvis webbplatserna myspace och youtube. 

Ändringsförslagen kom in sent bakvägen och utan att det har varit
någon större debatt bland medborgarna om de här stora förändringarna.
I t.ex. Sverige har vi haft en omfattande debatt om fildelning. Jag
arbetar mot beslut om att förbjuda fildelning på nationell nivå och
jag gör det också på EU-nivå. Risken att man nu tar beslut på EU-nivå
är större än när det gäller nationella beslut eftersom lobbygrupperna
har haft stort inflytande och påverkan i EU-systemet och eftersom
många medborgare saknar tillräcklig information när vi diskuterar
frågorna på EU-nivå. Jag hoppas på en stark medborgerlig opinion för
att garantera yttranderätten och tillgången på Internettjänster!

Bulgarian

Десислав Чуколов (NI)

Уважаеми г-н председател, уважаеми колеги, учудвам се колко неща се
казаха днес, в тази зала, а никой не наблегна на запазване на
поверителността на кореспонденцията. Призовавам ви когато се обсъжда
нещо толкова важно, по никакъв начин да не вземаме пример от САЩ.

Знаете, че използвайки претекста, наречен „борба с тероризма и
пиратството“ наднационалната олигархия се опитва да постави колкото
се може повече граждани под тотален, безусловен и неотчитаем пред
гражданското общество контрол. Поверителността на личната ни
кореспонденция трябва да се съхрани на всяка цена. Повтарям ви пак:
на всяка цена!

В България сега се контролират всички телефонни разговори. От
следващата година управляващите у нас искат да има пълен и безусловен
достъп до всички log файлове и разменени електронни съобщения от
всеки един компютър. Това не се прави от безпомощност. В България,
както и в Европа, има достатъчно грамотни и обучени специалисти,
които могат да се борят срещу всякакъв вид компютърна престъпност.
Това се прави, пак повтарям, с цел да се поставят под тотален контрол
гражданите.

Правото на свобода гарантира и правото ни на човешко достойнство.
Всеки, който се опитва да отнеме достойнството ни трябва да бъде
порицан и изобличен, а да не му се дава медиен комфорт да прокарва
своите намерения по този начин.

Преди време в България се проведе вяла дискусия по въпроса за правата
на гражданите в електронния свят. Единственият извод, който се
направи тогава е, че каквото и да искат гражданите, случва им се
това, което им се налага. С абсолютна твърдост гарантирам на всички
граждани в България, че партия „Атака“ още в началото на управлението
си през следващата година ще отмени всички посегателства над
кореспонденцията и следенето в интернет.

В заключение искам да ви кажа, че ако един път ни се ограничи правото
на частна кореспонденция, това винаги ще си остане така. Дори
терористите да започнат да използват и гълъби за кореспонденция.
Този, който заменя свободата си за сигурност, не заслужава нито
свободата си, нито сигурността си. Благодаря ви за вниманието.

Romanian

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE)

Stimaţi colegi, stimate colege, dezvoltarea societăţii informaţionale
se bazează pe reţelele şi serviciile de comunicaţii electronice. 

Trecerea de la televiziunea analogică la cea digitală până în 2012 va
elibera la nivel european o gamă semnificativă de frecvenţe,
permiţând astfel dezvoltarea de noi tehnologii şi soluţii inovatoare,
care să impulsioneze competitivitatea europeană în acest sector.
Pentru a beneficia pe deplin de dividendul digital în Europa,
Parlamentul European sprijină o abordare comună, flexibilă şi
echilibrată a utilizării acestuia, permiţând, pe de o parte,
difuzorilor să continue să ofere şi să îşi extindă serviciile şi, pe
de altă parte, operatorilor de comunicaţii electronice să folosească
această resursă pentru a oferi servicii noi care privesc utilizări
sociale şi economice importante şi subliniază că dividendul digital
ar trebui alocat respectând principiul neutralităţii tehnologice.

[...]

Încrederea consumatorilor în serviciile societăţii informaţionale
depinde de calitatea serviciilor de comunicaţii electronice, de
securitatea acestora şi de protecţia datelor cu caracter personal.
Este esenţial ca autorităţile naţionale de reglementare să asigure
consultarea tuturor furnizorilor de servicii de comunicaţii
electronice înainte de adoptarea unor măsuri specifice în domeniul
securităţii şi integrităţii reţelelor de comunicaţii electronice. De
asemenea, consider că statele membre ar trebui să instituie măsuri
pentru a promova crearea unei pieţe pentru produse şi servicii
accesibile pe scară largă, care să integreze facilităţi destinate
utilizatorilor cu handicap.

Danish

Hanne Dahl (IND/DEM)

Men pakken indeholder dog også nogle meget uheldige
elementer, som den foregående taler var inde på. Spørgsmålet om at
definere, hvad der er lovligt og ulovligt indhold på hjemmesider,
åbner døren for overvågning, registrering og kontrol med al vores
kommunikation og handel over internettet. Og det i en grad, der er
lande, vi normalt ikke anser for demokratiske, værdig!

Vi kan ikke tillade registrering, ligesom vi ikke kan tillade
serviceudbyderne vilkårligt at lukke for trafik, som nogen anser for
skadelig. Det svarer til, at vi ansatte en hær af kontrollanter på
Europas postkontorer til at pille breve ud, som man anså for at være
skadelig læsning for modtageren. Hvem er det lige, der skal have lov
til at læse mine kærestebreve? Vi må sikre, at fremtidens lovgivning
ikke bliver en elektronisk spændetrøje, men i stedet en ramme, hvori
fremtidens kultur, samfundsdebat og interaktive liv kan udfolde sig.