Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 1 July 1998 - Brussels

11. Safe use of the Internet

  President . – The next item is the report (A4‐0234/98) by Mr Schmid, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs, on the Commission proposal for a Council Decision adopting a Multiannual Community Action Plan on promoting safe use of the Internet (COM(97)0582 – C4‐0042/98‐97/0377(CNS)).

  Schmid (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, until a few years ago, the Internet was the preserve of specialists. Today it is so much a part of everyday living that even we as Members have access to the Internet in our offices. This is clear proof that miracles can still happen! The Internet offers great potential – more than ever before in human history – to gain rapid access to a large volume of information. On the other hand, there is also a certain amount of material on the Internet which is harmful to minors or illegal. Also, like traditional forms of telecommunication such as the telephone or even the post, it can be used for criminal activities.

The advantages of the Internet largely outweigh its disadvantages. Nevertheless, action is needed on the problems I have touched upon and we need answers. But the answer cannot be a stricter yardstick than we apply to other media such as film or television. Just because there has been a heated debate, especially on the part of people who have never used the Net for a single second, it does not mean that we should treat it differently from other media. The response should, therefore, reflect the specific characteristics of the Net rather than stipulate stricter standards.

What is special about the Internet? First of all, it does not belong to anyone. No‐one is the overall owner of the Internet. I always say that it is really a fundamentally communist structure. Second, the Net is global and, therefore, accessible worldwide. Third, legal action against criminal content is in accordance with the criminal law of the country where computer on which the data is stored is located. Fourth, material can be transferred from one computer to another easily and quickly, in just a few seconds. Fifth, access to the Internet is anonymous. A computer cannot tell who is sitting on the other side of the screen and it is not limited to certain times.

This has implications for the protection of minors, because on the Internet there is no‐one behind the counter or in the ticket office as there is in a cinema or video shop, who can say to a six‐year‐old ‚you cannot come in here’ or ‚I am not letting you take out that video’. That is the real problem. The Action Plan that the Commission has now proposed to us claims to guarantee safe use of the Internet. I believe that it can perhaps help, but 100 % safety is not possible in this case. Furthermore, this idea promotes the misconception that parents no longer need to worry about bringing up their children, because they can leave the protection of minors to technical systems and filter software. We should not be encouraging this misconception. That is why I am in favour of changing the whole concept to ‚safer use of the Internet’. That would reflect the real world.

In any case, we need to be aware of the limitations of the measures proposed. Given that the number of commercial pornography providers is growing every day around the world, it would be rather naïve to expect much from self‐regulation. The fact that Members of the House yesterday received an advertisement for pornography in their e‐mail – not a very good one, incidentally, and the price was far too high – shows the direction we are heading in. The embargo on the Dutch XS−4‐All server because the journal Radikal was being disseminated on this server shows how far you get with that approach. Previously, Radikal was only available on that one server. After the embargo it became available on 53 servers on the Internet, because mirror sites were immediately set up around the globe. So the embargo approach has its limitations.

Because of the multiplicity of languages in the European Union, it is also doubtful whether the use of word recognition programmes for filtering would really help. Using image filter programmes also involves blocking all pictorial scientific material and all graphics. I am certainly in favour of this proposal, let there be no misunderstanding. I am simply pointing out that it has its limitations and that we have to be aware of these limitations.

Another of these limitations is that in the real world children generally understand more about computers than their parents do. As regards the idea of installing filter software on PCS, I have put it to journalists like this: filter software is a programme that a 12‐year‐old can use to prevent his dad accessing porn websites on the Internet, because he has been stopped from watching television. That is how it really is. Nevertheless, I am in favour of using filter software; we simply need to be aware of its limitations.

The proposed action plan is chiefly intended as a tool for combating undesirable content on the Internet, that is to say, pornography, politically extreme sites and so forth. Because the European Union lacks criminal law and law enforcement powers, the action plan addresses illegal content only in terms of encouraging the preparation of a study on national measures necessary.

In my view, the real problem is not so much illegal content as undesirable content. It is truly amazing what you can find if you spend just a few hours on the Net and make a specific search; I was doing that just yesterday while preparing for a press conference. You can find instructions on making your own bombs, unlocking doors without keys, producing illegal drugs, other terrorist activities, forging credit cards, hacking into computers without permission, and so on; a whole range of things.

As things stand, combating illegal content is a matter for Member States. I have no intention of questioning that. In practice, it is made considerably more difficult by the fact that not even in the European Union are there identical or at least comparable legal standards governing important issues. Prosecution in the case of child pornography is difficult if the age at which ‚child’ stops and ‚adult’ begins is defined by differing age limits under different legal systems. In some Member States it is 14 years, in others it is 16 years. It is difficult if there is no definition of what illegal pornography is. It is also difficult if an illegal content is subject to prosecution but a pointer from another Internet site to that content, at the click of a mouse, is not itself subject to prosecution. It is quite a simple matter then. It is also difficult if – as is the case today – you can connect a computer to the Net without it being possible to establish who the operator is, and if – as is also possible today – an e‐mail can be sent without it being traceable to a particular person, in other words, if servers can be operated anonymously and electronic mail sent anonymously.

We therefore require at least preparatory studies to establish what kind of legislation we need. I know that there has been some resistance during deliberations in Council. Home affairs are now the preserve of the nation state, whereas they have lost military policy: NATO does that now. The only area where there the state has a monopoly on the use of arms is the police. This is the apple of their eye and is protected accordingly. I know that there is some resistance to the idea of embarking on such studies, but they are still needed. The fact is, we can ultimately only solve the problem of illegal content by global agreements. Global agreements on such things will face the same problems as we have with GATT: if the Community turns up with 15 different opinions, we will not get anywhere! If the USA, the European Union and Japan all have roughly the same ideas, it will happen relatively quickly. For that reason, we need to establish common standards, not only because of law enforcement within the European Union, but also because of the need for international agreements. Without such standards we will not make any further progress on this issue. I would like to ask the Commissioner to tell me in his summing up what amendments the Commission is willing to accept, because that would help me.

  Argyros (PPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. – (EL) Madam President, the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy on this issue, with the amendments it has tabled, aims to promote the development and the adoption of efficient technical systems, the main aim of which, of course, is the protection of minors and human dignity, but also the strengthening of business and financial activity.

It also attempts to improve global cooperation on this issue, in order to ensure the dynamic growth of the Internet industry. More specifically, regarding the field of implementation of the action plan, and taking account of the possibilities offered by the Internet for financial and business activity, and indirectly in the employment sector, it proposes the adoption of a broader approach. Beyond the issues that affect minors or human dignity, the possibilities offered by the action plan for the protection of financial and business activity will be examined.

The trust of users, both individuals and businesses, of the Internet will create a favourable environment for the growth of business activity in the information society sector. In this way, the Internet will be, in addition to a secure source of knowledge, a valuable tool for business activity.

The second important issue in the opinion concerns the principles which must govern the actions to get rid of the harmful and illegal material on the Internet. Briefly, these principles are as follows.

First, we must support industry in the development and adoption of desirable and effective systems to control the content of the Internet. In addition, cooperation between interested bodies, above all industry, is the determining factor in the successful institution of self‐regulatory systems and filtering and rating mechanisms.

The second important condition for the effective control of the content of the Internet is the clear separation of the roles and responsibilities of each element involved in the creation and distribution of that content.

The final point I would like to stress is the demand, due to the transborder nature of the Internet, for substantial cooperation and coordination of the actions of the programme at global level. Cooperation is the only way to ensure maximum efficiency of the actions undertaken at European level. For this reason, I think that the European Union must aspire to a leading and active role in the process of instituting principles and technical models that are acceptable at global level.

In finishing, I wish to congratulate Mr Schmid and my coo‐draftsmen on their contribution to the issue of the safe use of the Internet, and to thank them for supporting the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy.

  Cederschiöld (PPE). ‐ (SV) Madam President, this is not the first time that we have discussed the Internet, nor will it be the last. Developments are going in the right direction. Not only here, but everywhere, there is growing awareness of the value of this revolutionary form of free information. It is the freedom we should safeguard, not the rules.

A year ago we discussed the Pradier report on harmful and illegal content on the Internet. The demands for regulation from various quarters then were extensive, including the registration of Internet users and a ban on digital encryption. Many were then unfamiliar with the new and thought that old world thinking should also apply to the new world.

Once upon a time, those who did not see the new age wanted to smash Gutenberg's printing press. The Reformation started because they did not succeed. Through the printing press, citizens were given entirely new ways of obtaining new and much more easily accessible information. That time it led to a decentralization of power.

Now we are facing the second reformation in that citizens are able to obtain knowledge and information and become more and more independent of authorities and states. In the long term, this will probably lead to less regulation of the day‐to‐day lives of individuals and entirely new opportunities for contacts and supply.

However, illegal material on the Internet must be dealt with, but without affecting the basic premise of freedom. The Commission wants to set up direct lines for the reporting of illegal material on the Internet, to support filtering and classification systems and education and information. The report complements the Commission's line by wanting to investigate the legal aspects of harmful and illegal material on the Internet. These are reasonable proposals, since they take into account the nature of the medium.

Before, there was a preoccupation with developing separate European systems. However, we should respect the fact that this is about global and international contacts. It is a global and international medium. The solutions must, therefore, be international and global. Internationally workable systems have already been developed and have won acceptance and popularity. In this context, I would like to thank the rapporteur for having been so accommodating with regard to my amendments in this area.

Finally, I would like to welcome the understanding which has been shown with regard to avoiding compulsory systems. The market has, of course, a direct interest in self‐regulation. In addition, quality marking could lead to a better market position for Internet service providers who want to make use of it. It is pleasing that the Commission does not regard it as the task of the authorities to regulate the content and use of the Internet. However, it is the authorities' task to combat and suppress criminality wherever it appears, whether it is with the help of the Internet or out on the streets.

  Lindholm (V). ‐ (SV) Madam President, the explosive development of the Internet is seen by most of us as positive. However, as we all know, it also has a very dark and unpleasant side. Through the Internet, everyone, including children and adolescents, can easily find detailed recipes and descriptions of drugs, as well as recipes for explosives, paedophiles can look at child pornography and women can be bought and sold, etcetera. It is quite clear that we all want to put a stop to this.

The problem with the Internet's dark side is that it is global and does not recognize any borders. A complete solution must, therefore, also be global and can only be brought about in cooperation with the industry. It is something which we all must work towards. Meanwhile, the Commission's draft action plan is a beginning which could also effectively contribute to a real international debate and hopefully a solution.

Among the most important points in the action plan are the proposal to work together with the industry for self‐regulation and codes of conduct, the development of systems for filtering and classification and a broad information campaign. Personally, however, I distance myself from all attempts to regulate the Internet problem through directives at EU level. It is something we have to resolve in a different way and more internationally. I am, therefore, going to vote against Amendment No 23. However, the Green group as a whole is going to support the Schmid report.

  Matikainen‐Kallström (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, when we talk of the safe use of the Internet, the notions of free expression and the dissemination of illegal material often travel along a collision course. By its nature, the Internet is free and unrestricted, and it must be kept so. The flip side to the coin is always the knowledge that someone is trying to abuse freedoms.

The grossest form of abuse is unarguably the spread of child pornography and paedophile material. The general availability of this material on the Internet is stunning. According to a study by Interpol, the result of just two months" monitoring of the network revealed over 70 000 sights containing images of child pornography. The number is so large that ethical selfregulation among those active on the Internet will not be enough in itself to restrict it.

It would be wrong to charge Internet server providers with transmitting illegal material. Although their role as guardians of self‐regulation is a crucial one, we can only achieve the results we want through tight cooperation between the authorities responsible for the form and content of the computer technology industry and the Internet. Because the Internet is a worldwide phenomenon, mere action on the part of Europe will not be sufficient in the struggle against child pornography. What are needed are global publicity and information systems and standards, by means of which those purposely transmitting porn can be caught. A good example of official initiative in the fight against child pornography is the tip‐off phone and web page set up by the Finnish police, which you can contact to give information on paedophile activity you have found on the network. When international material has been found, the police propose to tip off, in turn, the authorities in the countries concerned.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr Schmid for some excellent work in tackling this difficult subject on such a large scale.

  Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE). ‐ (ES) Madam President, may I begin by congratulating the rapporteur not only on his excellent report but also on his absolutely brilliant speech. This is a very important subject, which is fundamental to our future as a society that protects both the rights of the individual and industrial development. But all this should not cause us to forget the fundamental issue that justifies our existence: our decisions must be rooted in the Treaty, the legal basis of our political acts.

My speech, therefore, will concentrate on the proposal put to us by the Committee on Legal Affairs, that the legal basis of the proposal for a decision be changed and that we use Article 129a relating to consumer protection, instead of Article 130 relating to the competitiveness of industry.

Madam President, there is no doubt that Article 130 tells us that measures will be taken to encourage an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of undertakings, and it is true that a better and safer environment will encourage industry. But it is no less true, Madam President, that it is very difficult to apply the objectives of Article 130, for example, that of establishing the necessary conditions to make Community industry competitive, to actions intended to warn consumers about the content, be it sex or violence, on the Internet by creating self‐regulation systems and setting up filter mechanisms.

Having examined this proposal for a decision, therefore, the Committee on Legal Affairs has decided that the appropriate legal basis is Article 129a, which allows us to take this kind of action to encourage and protect a safe environment for consumers in general terms.

Madam President, I would also mention that this change of legal basis gives this Parliament more of a leading role in the whole of this action, because Article 129a provides for the codecision procedure, whereas Article 130(2) merely provides for consultation. And I think it is essential that on such a socially relevant and indeed burning issue this House should have a loud and strong voice, and not merely a consultative role.

Therefore, Madam President, I believe this is a subject that concerns all of us. The Treaty gives us a clear basis to participate with the Council on an equal footing, and we should try to see that this change of legal basis is reflected in the proposal.

  Malerba (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I would first like to speak as the rapporteur for the document ‚Initiative for international coordination of the Internet’ in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. I agree with the European Commission's communication on the action plan for the safe use of the Internet, but I am not convinced that all the amendments which the rapporteur suggested making to the Commission's text are appropriate. Just this Monday, at the invitation of the European Commission, I participated in a panel discussion with the leaders of this world industry and a consensus was reached on three points Firstly, we must avoid setting up complicated rules that create conflicts between states and that are difficult to enforce, but we must also take a political initiative so that the courts do not have to issue rulings and set legal precedents. Secondly, we must promote a legislative framework which allows the Internet to develop, imposing self‐discipline within the industry, together with involvement by the political authorities and the competent international organizations in a form of structured dialogue similar to the successful Transatlantic business dialogue. And finally, we must try to achieve an international consensus on a multilateral basis that includes, therefore, not only the United States and Europe but many other countries, in as global a context as possible.

While it might be obvious that there are areas where new codes must be written, for example, electronic signature specifically for use on the Internet, it is not obvious that new crimes will be committed on the Internet that have not already been invented and provided for in law. Rather, the Internet is an extraordinary means of communication that enables each individual to become a publisher, gives companies an instrument for the globalization of electronic trade and – I emphasize – makes it possible, if necessary, to trace all too well the origin and destination of transactions. I personally believe that we are faced with a young child that is taking its first steps and that we must help it grow in a favourable legislative context.

I have problems with certain amendments, Amendments Nos 6 and 12, on the authorities responsible for the content of the Internet, and Amendment No 7, on the responsibility of the distributors, but I am sure that we will come back to this debate with other thoughts and experiences.

  Pinheiro, Member of the Commission. – The Commission wishes to thank the rapporteur Mr Schmid and the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs for a very positive report. The Internet is growing at a rapid pace and is no longer just used by scientists and researchers. Now it is part of everyday life in offices, homes and schools. It has proven to be extremely useful and important for business, education and culture. The vast majority of content poses absolutely no problem.

However, the Internet can be used for illegal activities and distribution of illegal contents. Parents and teachers are concerned at the availability of content which could be harmful for children. If the consumers and industry of Europe are to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the information society, these issues must be addressed. Over the last year the Commission has worked hard with the Council, the European Parliament, Member States, industry and users to propose solutions. The action plan is the result of the response received when the Commission first addressed the problem and it has been developed in coordination with the Council recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity.

The present action plan takes a non‐regulatory approach, involves industry and proposes concrete measures to deal with the problems. It implements a political consensus and ensures the follow‐up of actions already undertaken at EU level and in Member States. This approach has received strong support from the Bonn Conference, the Internet working party and the Council and European Parliament. The action plan has four action lines: first, creating a safe environment, including the creation of a European network of hotlines and support for self‐regulation; second, developing, filtering and rating systems taking account of Europe's cultural and linguistic diversity; third, encouraging awareness actions; fourth, support measures.

Each of the action lines aims at reaching certain main objectives: to empower the user to protect himself and his family from undesirable harmful material; to strengthen reporting mechanisms for illegal material to be dealt with by existing legislation; to ensure that the specific multicultural and multilingual needs of Europe are addressed adequately; and to build trust in the new environment so that the consumer can benefit from the new services and so that industry can use the opportunities of electronic media.

The action plan is not the only means for achieving these objectives. It is a financial instrument that stimulates initiatives that must be addressed by Member States, the industry and users. It is not a legal instrument for solving the various legal issues connected with the Internet. However, many of the problems in the new environment do not call for new legislation. They calls for approaches where existing legislation can be applied to the Internet and how to provide sufficient solutions without legislation. Therefore, care has been taken to focus on the non‐regulatory measures in this action plan.

Concerning the amendments, the Commission is able to support most amendments tabled by Parliament. In fact, 20 of 24 amendments tabled are wholly acceptable to the Commission. Regarding Amendment No 14 on comitology, I must point out that the Commission intends to use the exact wording of the 1987 Council decision on type 1 committees. There are, however, three amendments – Nos 7, 12 and 17 – which cannot be accepted. Two of them deal with legal issues and, in particular, liability. These certainly need to be addressed but the action plan, being a financial instrument, is not the place to do it. The Commission is, however, working on a legal instrument, a proposal for a directive, to deal with this subject.

The third amendment proposes the inclusion of labelling systems in industrial codes of conduct. The need to adopt labelling systems is already stated in the recommendations on protection of minors and human dignity. We can expect codes of conduct to be developed along the lines suggested in this report. I can assure you that if a separate European labelling system is needed, the action plan will certainly promote such a system. Nevertheless, if flexible international systems can be adapted and this proves to be convenient, there will be no need for a separate European system which could be a waste of money. However, there is no reason to believe that the concerns reflected in the suggested amendment are not already covered by the proposal.

I again thank Parliament for its work and its response so far. In line with this, now is the time to follow up on the initiatives of the European Union institutions. Parliament has already recognized the importance of dealing with these issues and I hope its decision will confirm the need for action by giving the action plan the full support needed to have a substantial effect.

  President . – Thank you very much, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00 a.m.