Directive Terrorisme/Amendements LIBE/en : Différence entre versions
(Page créée avec « The following versions of this compromise amendment, not only do not come back on this blocking measure, but add another one from MEP Rachida Dati report (3 November 2015)... ») |
(Page créée avec « In the latest version of the amendment, the notion of public authority disappears, leaving more open the possibility of abusive requests for withdrawal or blocking of onli... ») |
||
| Ligne 10 : | Ligne 10 : | ||
The following versions of this compromise amendment, not only do not come back on this blocking measure, but add another one from MEP Rachida Dati report (3 November 2015) on "preventing radicalization and recruitment of European Union citizens by terrorists organizations". This report recommends that Member States could be criminally sue Internet service companies and social networks that do not respond favourably to a request exercised by a "public authority" without the nature of the public authority being specified, which leaves the possibility of withdrawal requests without any procedural guarantees and no transparency. | The following versions of this compromise amendment, not only do not come back on this blocking measure, but add another one from MEP Rachida Dati report (3 November 2015) on "preventing radicalization and recruitment of European Union citizens by terrorists organizations". This report recommends that Member States could be criminally sue Internet service companies and social networks that do not respond favourably to a request exercised by a "public authority" without the nature of the public authority being specified, which leaves the possibility of withdrawal requests without any procedural guarantees and no transparency. | ||
| − | + | In the latest version of the amendment, the notion of public authority disappears, leaving more open the possibility of abusive requests for withdrawal or blocking of online content. The right to fair trial and to legal action is not clearly define for citizens. | |
<gallery> | <gallery> | ||
Version du 31 mai 2016 à 18:27
Extension of surveillance measures in comprimise amendements [COMP] in the Terrorism Directive
[COMP 6] Recital 7a: "Removing illegal content"
The recital 7a in the directive is originally about the definition of the public provocation to terrorist acts and writes it down in all the actions that have to be fought in the anti terror directive.
Since the Hohlmeier report, the ability to block access to websites or pages on the Internet advocating terrorism is introduced. This measure, inscribed in French law since 2014, has demonstrated its operational inefficiency and numerous human rights abuses including the rights to freedom of expression and information. However, it is in the directive without any sufficient guarantees from the rapporteur.
The following versions of this compromise amendment, not only do not come back on this blocking measure, but add another one from MEP Rachida Dati report (3 November 2015) on "preventing radicalization and recruitment of European Union citizens by terrorists organizations". This report recommends that Member States could be criminally sue Internet service companies and social networks that do not respond favourably to a request exercised by a "public authority" without the nature of the public authority being specified, which leaves the possibility of withdrawal requests without any procedural guarantees and no transparency.
In the latest version of the amendment, the notion of public authority disappears, leaving more open the possibility of abusive requests for withdrawal or blocking of online content. The right to fair trial and to legal action is not clearly define for citizens.
Version 1 : texte de la Commission européenne
Version 2 : rapport HOHLMEIER
Version 3 : Amendements de "compromis", 23 mai 2016
Version 4 : Amendements de "compromis", 31 mai 2016
[COMP 9] Considérant 15a : "Investigative tools"
Ce considérant ajouté par l'amendement de compromis 9 [COMP 9] s'attache aux moyens autorisés pour les investigations antiterroristes.
Inexistant dans le texte initial de la Commission européenne, il a été rajouté par la rapporteure Monika Holhmeier et n'a pas cessé d'être renforcé à chaque évolution du texte. Prévu au départ pour accorder à la lutte antiterroriste les mêmes moyens que contre le crime organisé, il a été aggravé pour autoriser les intrusions les plus larges en matière de surveillance électronique, interception de communications, captation audio ou vidéo, dans les lieux publics ou privés, ainsi que les recherches financières et bancaires.
Tel quel, il légitimerait les législations antiterroristes ou de surveillance les plus extrémistes de l'Union européenne.
Version 1 : rapport HOHLMEIER
Version 2 : amendements "de compromis", fin avril 2016
Version 3 : amendements "de compromis", 23 mai 2016
