Letter to Meps first reading Telecom Package : Différence entre versions

De La Quadrature du Net
Aller à la navigationAller à la recherche
(English version)
(English version)
Ligne 34 : Ligne 34 :
 
==English version==
 
==English version==
  
Dear Sir or Madam,
+
Dear MEP,  
On September 24th the European Parliament will be examining the first reading of the bill proposing the reform of the law on electronic communications,known as the Telecom package.At the beginning of this summer this bill aroused a great deal of controversy.Several amendments which were adopted during commissions were denounced by some NGOs,as they would lower the level of protection of people's  personal details throughout Europe,and also enable Member States to substitute an administrative authority for a judicial one.At the beginning of September the European Authority for the Protection of Information (CEPD),which is an independent European authority,published its opinion,which confirmed the analysis of the NGOs.The CEPD was partiularly concerned that some amendments might pave the way for a 'riposte graduée',that is,for an extension of disputes related to measures intended to be for the fight against terrorism or paedophilia.The CEPD recommended  that such dispositions be deleted.The reporters did not follow the advice of the CEPD,preferring to try to re-write those amendments criticised,so as to limit their effect.There was some progress,but it must be said that the re-writing of the amendments gave rise to a rather vague,loose text,which introduced concepts that were unknown to European law,and which were taken directly from the proposals of the French cinema lobby.The primary risk is that this rather vague text might be used by certain Member States to give permission to administrative authorities to restrict,without any previous judicial decision,the freedom of expression and information of net surfers accused of illegal copying.This risk is very real.In July the French government proposed a bill transferring repressive power to an administrative authority which would act at the request of producers of content.The United Kingdom also wishes to take the same steps.
+
On September 24th the European Parliament will be examining the first reading of the bill proposing the reform of the law on electronic communications,known as the Telecom package.
  
In our opinion it is vital that the European Parliament sould eliminate this risk,which could question both the principle of proportionality and the separation of power,but which could also weaken the acceptability of those measures which are necessary to fight crime.
+
At the beginning of this summer this bill aroused a great deal of controversy. Several amendments which were adopted during commissions were denounced by some NGOs, as they would lower the level of data protection in Europe,and also enable Member States to substitute an administrative authority for a judicial one in order to fight file sharing.
It must not be possible for the measures that national public authorities can implement to fight terrorism or paedophilia to be extended to disputes concerning the sharing of music and film on the Internet between individuals for no financial gain.Net surfers exchanging works without permission.should not be treated in the same way as criminals. This is why we ask you to vote for Amendment 138 to the Trautmann report,asked for by a very wide spectrum of MEPs (Guy Bono .... Jean-Luc B and many others.
 
  
Amendment 138 states that the regulation authorities,as European law
+
At the beginning of September the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS),which is an independent european authority,published its opinion,which confirmed the analysis of the NGOs.The EDPS was particularly concerned with some amendments which pave the way for the graduated response (or 3 strikes and you're out),which extend to disputes related to file sharing measures intended fight against terrorism or child pornography.
says,should see to it that there is no restriction concerning  the  
 
freedom of expression and information of a citizen,wthout there being a
 
decision beforehand by the judicial authority,except in cases of 'force majeure',threats to security or to public morals.Amendment 138 is a guarantee that,for example,the French bill on 'riposte graduée' will not be adopted in Europe. It follows the logic of the Bono resolution adopted in April by the European Parliament.
 
  
We also ask you to vote against Amendment 34 to the Harbour report which  
+
The EDPS recommended that such dispositions be deleted.The rapporteurs did not follow this primary advices of the EDPS,preferring to try to re-write those amendments criticised,so as to limit their effect.There was some progress,but it must be said that the re-writing of the amendments gave rise to a rather vague,loose text,which introduced concepts that were unknown to European law,and which were taken directly from the proposals of the French cinema lobby.
would allow Member States to take measures which are against individual
 
privacy.It is an amendment which puts national security,crime and the  
 
sharing of internet files on the same level.There are other zones which
 
are not at all clear.
 
  
As well as voting for Amendment 138 and against Amendment 34,we should
+
The primary risk is that this rather vague text might be used by certain Member States to give permission to administrative authorities to restrict,without any prior judicial decision,the freedom of expression and information of internet users accused of unauthorized copying. This risk is real. In July the French government proposed a bill transferring repressive power to an administrative authority which would act at the request of producers of content. It may be voted in November. The United Kingdom also wishes to take the same steps.  
also like to ask you to clarify the rest of the text.Please find in the  
 
attachment our recommendations concerning the vote on the Telecom Package.
 
We hope that you will feel concerned by our request and thank you for your time and attention.
 
  
Yours faithfully,
+
In our opinion, the European Parliament must eliminate this risk,which could question both the principle of proportionality and the separation of power, but which could also weaken the acceptability of those measures which are necessary to fight crime.
  
 +
It must not be possible to extend the measures that national public authorities can implement to fight terrorism or child pornography to disputes concerning no-profit sharing of music and film on the Internet between individuals. Internet users exchanging works without permission should not be treated in the same way as criminals.
 +
 +
This is why we ask you to vote for Amendment 138 to the Trautmann report, tabled by a wide spectrum of MEPs (Guy Bono .... Jean-Luc B and many others.
 +
 +
Amendment 138 states that the national regulation authorities will ensure that no restriction concerning freedom of expression and information of a citizen is taken wthout a prior decision of the judicial authority, except in cases of 'force majeure',threats to security or criminal law related to public policy, public security or public morality.
 +
 +
Amendment 138 is a guarantee that a bill like the french one about graduated response will not be adopted in Europe. This amendment is in the line with the Bono resolution adopted in April by the European Parliament.
 +
 +
We also ask you to vote against Amendment 34 to the Harbour report which would allow Member States to take measures which harm privacy.It is an amendment which puts national security,crime and file sharing on the same level !
 +
There are other zones which are not at all clear. As well as voting for Amendment 138 and against Amendment 34,we also invite you to clarify the rest of the text. Please find attached our recommendations concerning the vote on the Telecom Package.
 +
 +
We hope that you will feel concerned by our request and thank you for your time and attention.
 +
Yours faithfully,
 
XXX
 
XXX

Version du 22 septembre 2008 à 07:33

Version française

Madame le député, Monsieur le député,

Le 24 septembre, le Parlement européen examinera en première lecture le projet de réforme du droit des communications électroniques, dit Paquet Télécom.

Ce projet a suscité une vive polémique au début de l'été. Plusieurs amendements adoptés en commissions ont été dénoncés par des ONG comme abaissant la niveau de protection des données personnelles en Europe et permettant aux États membres d'évacuer l'autorité judiciaire au profit d'autorités administratives.

Début septembre, le Contrôleur Européen à la Protection des Données (CEPD), autorité européenne indépendante, a publié un avis confirmant l'analyse des ONG. Le CEPD s'inquiétait particulièrement que des amendements pavent la voie à la riposte graduée, c'est à dire à l'extension aux litiges relatifs au droit d'auteur de mesures prévues pour lutter contre le terrorisme ou la pédophilie. Le CEPD recommandait en premier choix la suppression de ces dispositions.

Les rapporteurs n'ont pas suivi ces recommandations premières du CEPD. Ils ont préféré tenter de réécrire les amendements critiqués pour limiter leurs effets. Si des progrès ont été réalisés, il n'en reste pas moins que cette réécriture à aboutit à un texte flou, introduisant des concepts inconnus en droit européen, repris directement de propositions du lobby du cinéma français.1

Le risque principal est que cette rédaction floue ne soit utilisée par certains États membres pour autoriser des autorités administratives à restreindre- sans décision judiciaire préalable - la liberté d'expression et d'information des internautes accusés de copie illicite. Ce risque n'est pas illusoire. Le gouvernement français a déposé en juillet un projet de loi transférant un pouvoir répressif à une autorité administrative agissant directement à la demande des producteurs de contenus. Le Royaume-Uni a également annoncé vouloir s'engager dans cette voie.

Selon nous, il est essentiel que le Parlement Européen élimine ce risque susceptible de remettre en cause tant le principe de proportionnalité que de séparation des pouvoirs, mais aussi d'affaiblir l'acceptabilité des mesures nécessaires pour lutter contre la criminalité.

Les mesures que les autorités publiques nationales peuvent mettre en oeuvre pour lutter contre le terrorisme ou la pédophilie ne doivent pas pouvoir être étendues aux litiges relatifs au partage de musique et de film sur internet par des particuliers agissant sans but lucratif. On ne traite pas un criminel comme on traite des internautes échangeant des oeuvres sans autorisation.

C'est pourquoi nous vous demandons de voter pour l'amendement 138 déposé sur le rapport Trautmann par des députés de tous horizons (Guy Bono, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Zuzana Roithova, Michel Rocard, Marielle de Sarnez, Christofer Fjellner, Rebecca Harms, Marco Cappato, Jean-Luc Benahmias et autres).

Cet amendement 138 précise que les autorités de régulation nationale veillent, comme le droit européen le prévoit jusqu'à maintenant, à ce qu'aucune restriction à la liberté d'expression et d'information d'un citoyen ne soit prise sans décision préalable de l'autorité judiciaire, sauf cas de force majeure, menace majeure pour la sécurité des réseaux ou législation pénale nationale motivée par des raisons d'ordre public de sécurité publique ou de moralité publique.

L'amendement 138 garantit donc qu'un projet comme le projet de loi français sur la riposte graduée ne pourra pas voir le jour en Europe. Il s'inscrit dans la droite ligne de la résolution sur les industries culturelles (résolution Bono) adoptée en avril dernier par le Parlement européen.

Nous vous demandons par ailleurs de voter contre l'amendement 34 déposé sur le rapport Harbour qui autoriserait les États membres à prendre des mesures attentoires à la vie privée afin de lutter contre des atteintes à la propriété intellectuelle ne relevant pas du droit pénal. Il s'agit d'un amendement mettant sur un même plan sécurité nationale, criminalité et partage de fichiers !

Il y a beaucoup d'autres zones d'ombre dans ce projet, dont certaines pourraient conduire à des dérives aussi importantes lors des transpositions, affaiblissant tant la protection des citoyens que la libre concurrence.

En plus de voter pour l'amendement 138 et contre l'amendement 34, nous ne pouvons donc que vous inviter à tout faire pour clarifier le reste du texte. Vous trouverez en pièce jointe l'ensemble de nos recommandations de vote sur le Paquet Télécom.

En espérant que vous saurez vous saisir de ce dossier, veuillez agréer, Madame le député, Monsieur le député, l'expression de notre respectueuse considération,


English version

Dear MEP, On September 24th the European Parliament will be examining the first reading of the bill proposing the reform of the law on electronic communications,known as the Telecom package.

At the beginning of this summer this bill aroused a great deal of controversy. Several amendments which were adopted during commissions were denounced by some NGOs, as they would lower the level of data protection in Europe,and also enable Member States to substitute an administrative authority for a judicial one in order to fight file sharing.

At the beginning of September the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS),which is an independent european authority,published its opinion,which confirmed the analysis of the NGOs.The EDPS was particularly concerned with some amendments which pave the way for the graduated response (or 3 strikes and you're out),which extend to disputes related to file sharing measures intended fight against terrorism or child pornography.

The EDPS recommended that such dispositions be deleted.The rapporteurs did not follow this primary advices of the EDPS,preferring to try to re-write those amendments criticised,so as to limit their effect.There was some progress,but it must be said that the re-writing of the amendments gave rise to a rather vague,loose text,which introduced concepts that were unknown to European law,and which were taken directly from the proposals of the French cinema lobby.

The primary risk is that this rather vague text might be used by certain Member States to give permission to administrative authorities to restrict,without any prior judicial decision,the freedom of expression and information of internet users accused of unauthorized copying. This risk is real. In July the French government proposed a bill transferring repressive power to an administrative authority which would act at the request of producers of content. It may be voted in November. The United Kingdom also wishes to take the same steps.

In our opinion, the European Parliament must eliminate this risk,which could question both the principle of proportionality and the separation of power, but which could also weaken the acceptability of those measures which are necessary to fight crime.

It must not be possible to extend the measures that national public authorities can implement to fight terrorism or child pornography to disputes concerning no-profit sharing of music and film on the Internet between individuals. Internet users exchanging works without permission should not be treated in the same way as criminals.

This is why we ask you to vote for Amendment 138 to the Trautmann report, tabled by a wide spectrum of MEPs (Guy Bono .... Jean-Luc B and many others.

Amendment 138 states that the national regulation authorities will ensure that no restriction concerning freedom of expression and information of a citizen is taken wthout a prior decision of the judicial authority, except in cases of 'force majeure',threats to security or criminal law related to public policy, public security or public morality.

Amendment 138 is a guarantee that a bill like the french one about graduated response will not be adopted in Europe. This amendment is in the line with the Bono resolution adopted in April by the European Parliament.

We also ask you to vote against Amendment 34 to the Harbour report which would allow Member States to take measures which harm privacy.It is an amendment which puts national security,crime and file sharing on the same level ! There are other zones which are not at all clear. As well as voting for Amendment 138 and against Amendment 34,we also invite you to clarify the rest of the text. Please find attached our recommendations concerning the vote on the Telecom Package.

We hope that you will feel concerned by our request and thank you for your time and attention. Yours faithfully, XXX