Telecoms-Package Compromise-Amendments ITRE-IMCO 7th-July

Amendment H1, Harbour

Trusted computing : restriction of running « lawful applications

A national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements, and, if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of services and slowing of traffic over networks, and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted. Those guidelines or measures shall take due account of any standards issued under article 17 of Directive 2002/121EC (Framework directive).

The Commission may having examined such guidelines or measures and consulted [XXX], adopt technical implementing measures in that regards if it considers that the guidelines or measures may create barrier to the internal market. Theses measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutinity referred to in article 37(2).

NB : 1) Treacherous computing is an expression used to avoid the use of Trusted Computing because so called technologies concerned by this amendment are designed to take off the right of users to control their computer (and by the way their personal data). One goal of this take off is producers can remote control the use of their content. For end­users such technologies must not be trusted. 2) Free Software is not compatible with standards used to try to restrict the run of a « lawful application » : Free Software can be studied and modified by the user himself to check the security of the software or to create a new lawful application as Free Soffware authors grant the right to do so to every user. So, beside pushing dangerous technologies for privacy this amendment tend to create by itself a barrier in the internal market even if an ISO standard of treacherous computing emerges like the following.

« ) Please study this amendment from a strategic point of view and follow the reference to article 37(2) ito unterstand how this is also a troyan horse from democratic point of view

Amendement K1, Kamal

Trusted computing, open the door to mandatory TPM, when linked with H1 and K2, attributed to BSA

Article 2 - point 5 a (new) Directive 2002/58/EC Article 14 - paragraph 1 Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (5a) In Article 14, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

1. In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting,intercepting or preventing infringement of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States.

For information paragraph 2 and 3 mentionned in this paragraph 1 :

2. Where provisions of this Directive can be implemented only by requiring specific technical features in electronic communications networks, Member States shall inform the Commission in accordance with the procedure provided for by Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on information society services(9).

3. Where required, measures may be adopted to ensure that terminal equipment is constructed in a way that is compatible with the right of users to protect and control the use of their personal data, in accordance with Directive 1999/5/EC and Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardisation in the field of information technology and communications(10).

NB : cet amendement donne via la référence au paragraphe 2 le pouvoir à la Commission d'autoriser les mesures techniques visant à détecter, intercepter et prévenir les atteintes à la propriété intellectuelle (ce qui couvre notamment les atteintes au droit d'auteur, aux marques et aux brevets). Or, pour détecter, intercepter et prévenir de telles infractions pénales, il faut surveiller les usages et les communications électroniques de l'utilisateur à l'aide de matériels et logiciels qui, en pratique, sont des mouchards se substituant au juge (qui normalement est le seul à pouvoir dire ce qui est licite ou non). La référence au paragraphe 3 censé protéger contre tout risque d'atteinte à la vie privée est rendu caduque par l'amendement suivant. Cet amendement ouvre la porte au déploiement de technologies intrusives.

Amendment K2, Kamal

allow compagnies to remote control electronic communications of the user without his consent, attributed to BSA

Article 2 - point 4 a (new) Directive 2002/58/EC Article 6 - paragraph 6a (new) Text proposed by the Commission Amendment (4a) In Article 6 the following paragraph 6a is added:

6a. Traffic data may be processed by any natural or legal person for the purpose of implementing technical measures to ensure the security of a public electronic communication service, a public or private electronic communications network, an information society service, or related terminal and electronic communication equipment. Such processing must be restricted to what is strictly necessary for the purposes of such security activity.

Amendment H2, Harbour

known part of flexible response, introduces the concept of cooperation between ISP and producers under the authority of national regulation authorities, written by the French cinema lobby, SACD

Article 33 (2a)New

Without prejudice to national rules in conformity with community law promoting cultural and media policy objectives, such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, national regulatory authorities and other relevant authorities shall also as far as appropriate promote cooperation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services and the sectors interested in the protection and promotion of lawful content in electronic communication networks and services. These co-operation mechanisms may also include coordination of the public interest information to be made available as set out in Article 21(4a) and Article 20(2).

Amendement H3, Harbour

known part of flexible response, permits intimidation by email and mandates that ISPs costs are paid for by the national regulator, (as is the case for the French draft law on flexible response).

Article 214a Members state shall ensure that national regulatory authorities oblige the undertakings referred in paragraph 4 to distribute public interest information to existing and new subscribers when appropriate. Such information shall be produced by the relevant public authorities in a standardised format and may inter alia cover the following topics :

  (a) illegal uses of electronic communications services, particularly where it may prejudice respect for the rights and freedoms of others, including infringement of copyright and related rights ;
    (b) the most common illegal uses of electronic communications services, including copyright infrigement, and their consequences; and
    (c) means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data in using electronic communications services.
 Significant additional costs incurred by an undertaking in complying with these obligations shall be reinbursed by the national regulatory authority.

NB : notez la différence entre le point (a) et le point (b) : le premier vise des usages particuliers (informations sur les infractions présumées interceptées ou détectées) alors que le second est générique (informations sur les cas les plus courant d'utilisation frauduleuse de l'accès). Le point (c) concerne les informations sur les dispositifs traitant des données de trafic sans autorisation à des fins de sécurité de l'accès et que la Commission peut autoriser à cause des amendements H1, K1 et K2. C'est l'exact description des informations que le gouvernement français souhaite envoyer aux utilisateurs pour les amener à installer des dispositifs de filtrage et de surveillance de leurs usages.

Amendement T1, Trautmann Article 8, paragraph 4, point c of the 2002/21/EC

This is an attempt to allow national regulation authorities to apply the principle of proportionnality in place of the judicial authority.

It modifies the :

CHAPTER III - TASKS OF NATIONAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Article 8 - Policy objectives and regulatory principles

4. The national regulatory authorities shall promote the interests of the citizens of the European Union by inter alia: (...)

(c) contributing to ensuring a high level of protection of personal data and privacy and against illegal and harmful content