E-Privacy/LIBE CAS : Différence entre versions

De La Quadrature du Net
Aller à la navigationAller à la recherche
(Compromise amendment 04.10.)
(Compromise amendment 04.10.)
Ligne 22 : Ligne 22 :
 
* '''(+)''' EPP&ECR were haltered in their attempt to allow further processing of metadata for "legitimate interest". However, this raised their bargaining power enabling them to come up with a new exception from consent : scientific or historical research purposes for statistical counting
 
* '''(+)''' EPP&ECR were haltered in their attempt to allow further processing of metadata for "legitimate interest". However, this raised their bargaining power enabling them to come up with a new exception from consent : scientific or historical research purposes for statistical counting
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
{|
 +
|'''Article 6 - paragraph 3 - point a''':
 +
''Providers of the electronic communications services may process electronic communications content only: for the sole purpose of the provision of a specific service requested by the user <s>to an end-user</s>, if the user <s>end user or end user</s> concerned has<s>ve</s> given his or her<s>their</s> consent to the processing of his or her electronic communications content [...]".''
 +
(based on AM 69 (Rapporteur), AM 485 (Gue), AM 486 (Greens) and AM 489 (EPP)
 +
|
 +
*'''(-)''' Further processing of content of communications without the consent of all users concerned would be allowed ('their consent' replaced 'his or her' --> only single consent required, users not using the service are not required to consent, p.e. users sending emails to Gmail users). Also a bargaining move, try to make the 'single consent' look like an acceptable compromise.
 +
 +
 +
<br>
  
 
<br>
 
<br>

Version du 6 décembre 2017 à 17:50

This page intends to rate the main points of the compromise amendments discussed in LIBE Committee just before the vote of it's final report on the ePrivacy Regulation on 19 October.

The debate in LIBE was dominated by rapporteur Lauristins (S&D) strong willingness to reach a compromise with the conservative groups represented by shadow rapporteur Michal Boni (PEE). Being in line with the position of La Quadrature du Net at the outset, the shadow rapporteurs Jan Albrecht (Greens) et Sophia in't Veld (ALDE) did follow Lauristin on this approach. Their submission to the compromise-dogma lead to several alarmingly dangerous proposals, especially with regard to (1) further processing of our communications data without our consent, to (2) geolocalisation of our devices and to (3) online tracking for commercial purposes in form of cookies. The reason for this devastating objective lays down in the Parliaments internal [rules of procedure http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20170116+RULE-069-3+DOC+XML+V0//EN]. As the right-wing groups did not want to accept the text - even though it was voted in LIBE on 19 October - they opposed the mandate of Lauristin in order to submit the text to new amendments, this time in plenary. This situation is what Lauristin wanted to avoid at all costs of the compromises with the right-wing. Therefore, it was necessary that the regressive groups lead by Boni left the negotiations table that the so called 'pro-privacy' coalition (S&D, ALDE, Greens and GUE) was given a second chance to get back on track.

It should be noted that these compromise amendments have not been published officially, which is why we assorted them according to their importance. Here are the main points of negotiation :

Further processing communications data without consent

Compromise amendment 04.10.
Article 6 - paragraph 2 - point c:

Providers of electronic communications services and networks may process electronic communications metadata only if: [...] the end-user concerned has given his or her consent to the processing of his or her communications metadata for one or more specified purposes [...]. (based on AM 67 (Rapporteur)

  • (-) Further processing of metadata without the consent of all users concerned would be allowed (only single consent).
  • (+) EPP&ECR were haltered in their attempt to allow further processing of metadata for "legitimate interest". However, this raised their bargaining power enabling them to come up with a new exception from consent : scientific or historical research purposes for statistical counting


Article 6 - paragraph 3 - point a:

Providers of the electronic communications services may process electronic communications content only: for the sole purpose of the provision of a specific service requested by the user to an end-user, if the user end user or end user concerned hasve given his or hertheir consent to the processing of his or her electronic communications content [...]". (based on AM 69 (Rapporteur), AM 485 (Gue), AM 486 (Greens) and AM 489 (EPP)

  • (-) Further processing of content of communications without the consent of all users concerned would be allowed ('their consent' replaced 'his or her' --> only single consent required, users not using the service are not required to consent, p.e. users sending emails to Gmail users). Also a bargaining move, try to make the 'single consent' look like an acceptable compromise.




Compromise amendment 09.10.


Compromise amendment 12.10.


Compromise amendment 17.10.



Geolocalisation

Compromise amendment 04.10.


Compromise amendment 09.10.


Compromise amendment 12.10.


Compromise amendment 17.10.



Online tracking

Compromise amendment 04.10.


Compromise amendment 09.10.


Compromise amendment 12.10.


Compromise amendment 17.10.