Doslovno izvješće

Utorak, 23. listopada 2018. - Strasbourg

3. Upotreba podataka korisnika Facebooka od strane društva Cambridge Analytica i utjecaj na zaštitu podataka (rasprava)

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie Komisji: Wykorzystywanie danych użytkowników Facebooka przez Cambridge Analytica a ochrona danych (2018/2855(RSP)).

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Facebook Cambridge Analytica case was, in many ways, a wake—up call for all of us. We were reminded once again that in the digital world our personal data can be misused, abused and used against us. We were reminded again that cybersecurity and disinformation are a serious threat for free and democratic elections and that the digital arms race is not a thing of the future. It is happening right here and right now.

It was a clear warning sign that the election periods are particularly prone to disinformation and manipulation by private and foreign interests and that the European elections are not immune to this threat. We must strengthen our joint response to dangers to our democracy. The Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal was not an isolated case as, since then, we have learned of new data breaches. Every such new case confirms the importance and the urgency of acting. Every such case confirms that the new EU data protection rules are not a privilege. They are a necessity, as you point out in the draft resolution.

The Commission shares many of your concerns concerning data protection and misuse of the research argument, and calls for algorithmic accountability. We also support wholeheartedly the call for the prompt adoption of the European political parties regulation by the co—legislators. We also take note of some new ideas for future regulatory action and electoral safeguards. The Commission has already been working to ensure fair and resilient elections or to deal with disinformation, which covers some of Parliament’s ideas.

While we should not shy away from reinforcing our regulations where necessary, Europe is better equipped now than ever before with the powerful tools provided by the new data protection law, which were not in place at the time of the Cambridge Analytica breaches. It is important to enforce the existing rules at their full capacity.

I am in regular contact with the Chair of the European Data Protection Board and the Chair of the UK Data Protection Authority, who is leading the investigation into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. We fully support the coordinated response of the EU data protection authorities.

I have also raised the US investigation into the matter with the Chair of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Mr Simons, who was in Brussels last week for the second annual review of the Privacy Shield. He reassured me that this investigation is a key priority for the FTC and that it is ongoing. We have to wait for the final outcome of the investigation, but we will watch this very closely and stay in contact with the FTC.

But we also need to look beyond the case itself because it sent shock waves through the core of our democratic system. Our current election rules, practices and habits stem from our non—digital past. Campaign spending limits, strict rules on political advertising, including transparency on who is campaigning and who paid for it, the silence period, the role of the media in disinformation – all the offline rules – must be enforced online in the digital world. One thing is clear: the upcoming elections will not be business as usual and we cannot treat them as if they were. We cannot be naive and we have very little time to act.

The Commission therefore encourages Member States to establish and support a national elections network. The idea is that such a network would be able to quickly detect potential threats and swiftly enforce existing rules, including available financial sanctions. We have also stepped up our game against cyber—threats and to address disinformation. My colleague, Commissioner King, will tell you more about this in the concluding remarks, but I just want to stress that the Commission is not looking idly at those new developments.

We have brought in a package of measures to strengthen resilience against classical cybersecurity threats, like hacking in 2017. On disinformation, the Commission proposed a package of measures in the Communication on tackling online disinformation, based around transparency, traceability and accountability. We asked major IT platforms to commit to an EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation, which was presented last month. But we also have to recognise the fact that many companies, including Facebook, are trying to fix the mistakes they made and support us in the effort to make elections fairer and more transparent.

It goes without saying that the pressure you in this Chamber put on them brings positive results. I am counting on cross-party support for this package because it is ideologically neutral. The truth is that this is not, as such, about politicians. This is about the right of European people to make their choice as freely as possible, free from illegal manipulation, free from disinformation and free from foreign interference. Parliament’s support for this package is crucial and your resolution is a great opportunity to send a clear message to the EU governments, but also to other relevant stakeholders. The European elections take place very soon. If we want to be prepared, we have to act now and we have to act fast.

I am encouraged by last week’s European Council, which welcomed the Commission proposals, in the Communication called ‘Securing free and fair European elections’, on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents, unlawful data manipulation, fighting disinformation campaigns and tightening the rules on European political party funding. It also called for a rapid examination and operational follow-up by the competent authorities. I therefore hope that together we can advance rapidly and shield ourselves better against manipulation, disinformation and abuse, also in light of the upcoming elections.

  Paulo Rangel, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, não há hoje dúvida alguma de que a interferência através das redes sociais (estamos aqui a ver o caso do Facebook, mas também de outras), a manipulação do ponto de vista político e de um ponto de vista mais geral são um perigo, um risco, uma ameaça.

O caso Cambridge Analytica mostrou claramente que é possível interferir num processo eleitoral. A nós não nos preocupa apenas a questão eleitoral; claro, como câmara política, essa preocupa-nos, mas a utilização de dados de cidadãos em qualquer matéria que não apenas a matéria política é também condenável, é um risco e é um perigo.

E por isso, com base neste caso que conhecemos, com base nas suspeitas fortes que temos no caso dos Estados Unidos, com base, por exemplo, no que está precisamente a acontecer agora no Brasil, onde se multiplicam de parte a parte as suspeitas de fake news e de manipulação de algoritmos para fazer campanha eleitoral, é fundamental que tomemos medidas, medidas para as eleições europeias porque essas são uma urgência, mas medidas que sejam de médio e longo prazo para todos os processos eleitorais.

Como digo, para nós, não é apenas a questão eleitoral que está em causa, é uma questão de cidadania geral para todas as matérias. Isto significa que não será apenas com uma interferência ou com uma legislação neste caso, mas pela compreensão de como podemos olhar para a sociedade democrática do futuro, sabendo que as redes sociais têm de ter aí um papel e que nós, assim como fomos capazes de regular o papel da comunicação social na sociedade passada, seremos capazes de regular o papel do novo mundo das redes sociais numa sociedade democrática moderna.

O desafio que está perante nós é um desafio constitucional muito mais ambicioso do que apenas este de impedir para já uma interferência de momento.

  Udo Bullmann, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the Cambridge Analytica scandal is the biggest manipulation of the democratic process so far in the digital age. This is not an isolated incident, Cambridge Analytica is the latest in a long series. A wave of massive data breaches has been rolling across Europe – there’s been Yahoo, eBay, Uber and Facebook, to name just a few.

In the first half of 2018 alone, 2.2 billion people were affected by data breaches. A study from Oxford University, in cooperation with Lund University has shown that in Sweden, in the Swedish election, about 30% of online communication was fake news, and that a whole lot of all that fake news was imported from foreign countries.

That means, today, we are talking about trust in the election. We are talking about our free ability to vote. We are talking about political preferences being manipulated. We are talking about the selection of political leadership. We are talking about freedom and democracy.

According to the NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg,80% of disinformation comes from Russia.

Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das kann so nicht weitergehen! Unsere Demokratie ist eine Demokratie der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und nicht derjenigen, die Daten manipulieren oder Daten kaufen. Wenn Sie zehn Likes haben von jemandem, dann können Sie ihn so gut beschreiben wie ein Arbeitskollege. Mit 70 Likes wissen Sie mehr als der Mitbewohner, mit 150 Likes mehr als das Familienmitglied und mit 300 Likes soviel wie der jeweilige Ehepartner. Das bedeutet, wir laufen Gefahr, persönliche Souveränität zu verlieren, wir laufen Gefahr, mehr demokratische Souveränität zu verlieren. Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Volkes an der Wiege jeder demokratischen Bewegung ist in Gefahr. Und wir müssen sagen, dass die nächste Europawahl darüber entscheidet, ob wir dieses Gefecht für Freiheit und Demokratie gewinnen, oder ob wir es verlieren.

Wir haben mit der Datenschutzgrundverordnung angefangen. Das war ein richtiger Schritt. Aber wir müssen weitergehen – in der Gesetzgebung, in der Reform unserer nationalen Wahlgesetze und im Schutz der Privatsphäre im elektronischen Datensicherheitsbereich.

Ich danke der Frau Kommissarin, dass sie diese Diskussion mit uns führt. Es ist fünf Minuten vor zwölf. Und ich danke – ein ungewöhnlicher Schritt – unseren exzellenten Fotografinnen und Fotografen, dass sie uns heute Morgen begleiten. Wenn ich Sie bitten darf, einmal ein Bild von der Ratsbank zu machen heute Morgen, wäre das auch ein sehr eindrückliches Bild. Wo ist eigentlich der österreichische Ratsvorsitz in einer solchen Diskussion? Wenn Sie hinter den Kulissen ePrivacy blockieren, wenn Sie dafür sorgen, dass wir in der Gesetzgebung nicht weiterkommen und heute Morgen nicht einmal in diesem Plenum sind?

Was ist das für eine Grundhaltung des Rates, wenn es um Demokratie und Freiheit geht? Das kann ich nicht akzeptieren, und so können wir nicht arbeiten. Ich glaube, Herr Präsident, wir sollten dem Ratsvorsitz eine entsprechende Mitteilung machen, wie ernst die Debatte mittlerweile in Europa ist.

  Przewodniczący. – Dziękuję bardzo Panu Przewodniczącemu Bullmannowi. Tak, stosownie zareagujemy.

  Daniel Dalton, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, trust is vital in the digital era. With more of our lives taking place online and increasing consumer choice, people can, and do, get up and leave when that trust is damaged. What happened with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica was an unacceptable abuse on a vast scale. Everyone can agree that this must not happen again, and I have been supportive of the ongoing investigations.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office, which currently handles 30% of all European data protection board cases, is doing a thorough job of investigating. It has already issued a fine to Facebook. Cambridge Analytica is no more. It is clear that Facebook does not walk away from this scandal unscathed. Facebook knows it will need to rebuild its reputation in the eyes of its users, and as politicians it’s not our role to dictate exactly how they do that. Nor is it our role to tell users how they should react. Most Europeans have not given up their Facebook account.

Clear legal limits and strict conditions on political profiling have been imposed by the new GDPR rules. Therefore, we should allow the GDPR time to bed in before we throw the baby out with the bathwater and start to chuck more legislation at the problem. And also let’s try not to fool ourselves that Facebook manipulation was responsible for Brexit or Trump. People would have voted for them regardless of Facebook. It was already prevalent in our society.

The GDPR is not perfect, but at the speed at which technology moves and innovation moves, any new laws in this area need to keep up with the modern world. We should focus on addressing this, rather than trying to point-score by taking dangerous steps to suspend the privacy shield which is proposed in the resolution we will vote on later. This would deny our citizens the protections that it offers.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, although I might not agree with everything Mr Dalton says, I agree with one thing: that we shouldn’t forget in this whole debate that the biggest threat to democracy is still offline and not online, in populist movements, governments, even in the European Union, who are trying to undermine democracy and the rule of law, and we should speak out.

On the GDPR, differently to Mr Dalton, I think that we should go faster. First of all, GDPR is the best privacy law in the world, but if it’s not being implemented properly then it’s useless. We should be looking at the means that the data protection authorities have in order to tackle the challenges on the table. For example, the Dutch Data Protection Authority has about 150 staff. They cannot fight Facebook. They don’t have the same means.

Secondly, you say that the investigations are advancing. But are they advancing fast enough? You say Facebook is trying to fix its mistakes. I don’t know, I’m not terribly convinced myself, to be honest, because they may have fixed some mistakes because they had to, but they’re making new ones in the meantime – they’re not mistakes, they’re actually deliberately trying to circumvent the law. I hear that now Whatsapp is being used increasingly to spread all sorts of nonsense online.

That also brings me to new legislation. Contrary to Mr Dalton, I do believe that we need further legislation in the form of e-privacy, which is indeed being blocked by the Council, but the right-wing parties in this House have also voted against it. I really don’t understand how you can stand here and say ‘I’m terribly worried about what’s happening to our democracy’ and at the same time try to water down e-privacy. How can you do that? It’s hypocrisy.

(Applause)

I think we also need to recognise that, in our very legitimate aim to strengthen security, we have very often very rapidly passed legislation that undermines the privacy and the legal protection of our citizens, and risks undermining the rule of law and democracy as well. We should have a proper evaluation before coming up with, yet again, new instruments for massive the collection and processing of personal data.

Finally, on a fake news and disinformation. I think we need a proper legal definition of fake news. What’s fake news? I mean I may think that one of my colleagues in this House is spreading fake news, and they probably think that I am. Where do you draw the line between a political view and fake news? We need a proper legal definition before we take any measures against fake news, because otherwise it becomes arbitrary and then we are undermining our democracy for real.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I hope that Mark Zuckerberg is actually listening to the debate today so that he will understand that we are not letting him off the hook and that we are not happy with just some minor tweaks to the privacy settings of Facebook.

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal is not simply a privacy scandal. It’s a political scandal. It is a threat to our democracies. Facebook is illegally allowing some people to use the data for manipulating voters with psychological profiling, with fake news and with advertising profiling that makes it totally impossible to understand who is actually seeing what – the so-called ‘dark ads’. The consequences are dramatic. This can even lead to voter manipulation, and there is a lot of evidence that shows that this is exactly what happened.

Facebook is a very powerful platform with huge influence on our private lives, but also on our political life. If we want to safeguard our democracy, we need clear and strict rules for such online platforms. Transparency is good, but it is just not enough.

We cannot leave it to companies like Facebook to decide who gets to see what political content just before the elections. We need to make sure that all voters have access to the same information, and we need to ban micro-targeting of political advertising. Member States need to do this very soon if we want to make sure that the European elections in May are undistorted by dubious dark ads and by political manipulation.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Ich denke, dass wir bislang als Parlament unseren Job gemacht haben. Wir haben den Fall Cambridge Analytica thematisiert, wir haben Anhörungen gehabt, zu denen Facebook erwartungsgemäß PR-Personal geschickt hat. Ja, und wir haben auch die autokratischen Gebaren des EP-Präsidenten Tajani ausgehalten, dessen sogenannte Anhörung uns weltweit gewissermaßen zum Gespött gemacht hat.

Aber gut – wir haben eine Entschließung, wir haben Positionierungen, und wir haben ein vernünftiges Statement auch der Kommissarin. Jetzt wollen wir Konsequenzen haben, denn es geht um die Geschäftsgebaren von Facebook, die es zulassen, im großen Stil Daten für sogenannte Forschungszwecke zu benutzen – tatsächlich aber für politische Zwecke auszunutzen, zu missbrauchen.

Mit Cambridge Analytica wurde ja nicht nur schlechthin gegen Datenschutzrecht verstoßen, sondern gewissermaßen stabsmäßig Datenmissbrauch betrieben. Alles, was von Facebook zu hören ist, ist eine verbale Entschuldigung mit Engelblick gewissermaßen, ohne Garantie, dass so etwas nicht noch mal passieren kann und dass sich im Geschäftsmodell etwas ändert. Eins will ich ganz klar sagen: Wenn Daten zu politischen Werbezwecken manipuliert werden, werden Wahlen manipuliert. Wenn Wahlen manipuliert werden, wirft uns das in eine vordemokratische Ära zurück und Wahlen werden zur Farce, und dann können wir auch – ehrlich gesagt – hier über sozialistische Einheitslisten abstimmen.

Deswegen muss gehandelt werden. Für Wahlwerbung muss es – wie im Offline-Bereich – Regulierungen geben. Wir brauchen Transparenz, wir brauchen Offenlegung der Finanzierungen; was wir nicht brauchen, ist targeted advertising. Das muss wenigstens in Wahlzeiten verboten sein und ansonsten strengen Vorschriften unterliegen.

Abgesehen davon, dass mich die Marktmacht von Facebook mittlerweile massiv stört, will ich noch eines sagen: Wenn wir im Fall Cambridge Analytica das Rennen verlieren, dann können wir die Freiheitsrechte der Bürgerinnen und Bürger auch zu Grabe tragen.

An die Adresse des Rates: Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, dass die ePrivacy so schnell wie möglich beschlossen werden muss.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, Christmas is still weeks away, nevertheless, I can bring you joyous tidings from St Nicholas, as Sir Nicholas Clegg is also known.

Facebook has just appointed St Nicholas Clegg as head of global affairs. Many of us, many colleagues, have despaired at Facebook’s predatory approach and worse, its blatant exploitation of the personal data of its users for commercial purposes. But, apparently, St Nicholas is going to put an end to all of this. St Nicholas is to be paid a pot of gold, worthy of ALDE Group leader, Guy Verhofstadt, on a slow day. Facebook has lost the confidence of millions of people, but St Nicholas Clegg understands this well because he went through exactly the same when he was leader of the Liberal Democrats. Also, St Nicholas Clegg is qualified. He speaks four languages fluently and can explain hypocrisy in all of them.

Nonetheless, Sir Nicholas will do well. He has written an entire book called ‘How to Stop Brexit’. He will always be beloved as a lobbyist by the EU Commission and, for sure, the Commission is going to let Facebook off the hook.

  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik heb bewust geen Facebookaccount. Toch volgt Facebook mij, en met mij dus miljoenen anderen. De Europese privacywet beschermt Facebook in dezen en mij niet. Facebook is een monopolist. Facebook heeft ook een politieke mening. In Duitsland bleek Facebook kritiek op de sociaaldemocratie te blokkeren, maar antisemitisme niet. De Europese Commissie vertelde mij op 4 augustus 2017 daarmee geen problemen te hebben. De Europese Commissie beschermt Facebook, maar niet de joodse gemeenschap.

Voorzitter, voor veel mensen ís Facebook het internet, voor sociale contacten, maar ook voor het nieuws. Dat nieuws wordt door Facebook gefilterd. Alleen keurige – linkse neem ik aan – meningen komen door. Facebook beschermt zijn uitgangspunt, niet de vrije pers.

Voorzitter, de Europese Commissie heeft afspraken gemaakt met Facebook met het oog op de komende verkiezingen. Verhalen over nepnieuws en beïnvloeding van kiezers rechtvaardigen volgens de Commissie dat meningen goedgekeurd of verwijderd moeten worden van internet. De Europese Commissie heeft echter van Moskou niets te leren over beïnvloeding. De Commissie beschermt de Europese Unie, niet het democratisch proces. De Europese Commissie heeft een probleem met kritiek op de euro, kritiek op de Europese Unie, kritiek op migratie, kritiek op de islam. Die kritiek wordt samen populisme genoemd en moet bestreden worden, maar laat die kritiek nou net mijn mening zijn.

Ik denk dat de Europese Unie als zodanig een bedreiging voor de vrede en het welzijn van de lidstaten is, en dat is een mening die op Facebook geen plek heeft. Mijn kritiek had ook geen plek in de resolutie waarover we gaan stemmen, want al mijn amendementen werden weggestemd. Dat is ook geen wonder. Net als Facebook en de Europese Commissie beschermt ook dit Europees Parlement zijn eigen positie, niet die van de burgers.

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, if the European Union is actually serious about users’ data and data protection, why not target Google and every other internet search engine whose algorithms ensure that anyone’s search on absolutely anything is tracked, evaluated and fed back to the big corporates to influence and manipulate consumer opinion, choice and decision?

The concern that has been voiced in the Chamber this morning is about data-mining for political purposes and, of course, it is a key European Union issue because it knows the threat that exists in terms of anti-European Union sentiment there across Europe for next year’s elections. But just let me remind you, both Twitter and Facebook have conducted the investigations. They have conducted those with the relevant political commissions, in relevant countries, and concluded, conducted, been approved, negligible impact.

Turning to Commissioner Jourová, I’m very pleased to see you this morning, Commissioner, and you stated ‘free from foreign interference’. Well, can I ask you, will you take steps to stop billionaire George Soros from funding an anti-Brexit campaign with multimillion pound donations?

(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question from Molly Scott Cato)

  Michał Boni (PPE). – W świecie cyfrowej rewolucji zaufanie jest jedną z najważniejszych wartości. Buduje zdrowe relacje między użytkownikami, twórcami i nadawcami treści oraz organizatorami komunikacji. Facebook to nie tylko kluczowa firma, ale i organizator komunikacji. Dlatego właśnie kwestia wiarygodności Facebooka jest tak ważna i symboliczna. Wyjaśnienie do końca wszystkich przyczyn i aspektów związków Facebooka i Cambridge Analytica i skandalicznego wycieku danych osobowych jest konieczne. Są przecież narzędzia prawne w postaci regulacji o ochronie danych osobowych już działającej od 25 maja tego roku, jest europejsko-amerykańska tarcza prywatności pilnująca spełniania wymogów ochrony prywatności, a Cambridge Analytica miał odpowiedni certyfikat. To, co prawnie wymagane, musi być respektowane bez żadnej taryfy ulgowej.

Od tamtego zdarzenia minęło już jednak trochę czasu. Są nowe wyzwania: reklama polityczna i niejasność źródeł jej finansowania – ważne w czasie wyborów, automatyzm algorytmów grożący zaburzeniem przejrzystości komunikacji, rozwój dezinformacji w każdej postaci, aż do deepfake. Ciemna strona internetu jest silniejsza niż korzyści, dlatego potrzebne są nowe strategie. Pracujemy nad nimi w Unii Europejskiej i dziękuję pani komisarz i panu komisarzowi za tę inicjatywę. Czego by nie powiedzieć o Facebooku, on też nad nimi pracuje – czy to opracowując flagowanie materiałów zakazanych, nienawistnych czy niepewnych co do prawdziwości, czy to eliminując boty i anonimowe konta służące walce w sieci, czy to ucząc nowego podejścia do prywatności, gdzie nasz realny wybór i zgoda będą kluczem do świadomego zachowywania się w internecie. Piętnując złe praktyki jak dziś, pokażmy też dobre przykłady. To oraz współpraca będzie bardziej użyteczne dla zdrowej przyszłości internetu.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). – Mr President, at least one colleague has already said that entire elections, Brexit or any other individual election, are not wholly affected either by the Cambridge Analytica scandal or any other Facebook issue. This is an ultimate misunderstanding of what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with is individual groups of vulnerable voters being shifted around by the lack of integrity of what is happening on Facebook. If colleagues are not aware now of what is happening on these platforms, the scale of Facebook in 109 countries, then they’re not paying attention.

We must take action now to restore trust, not just in online platforms, but in the integrity of our elections. That is now happening in the Commission and it is happening here in Parliament. This is absolutely critical, and we are defining the problem, but we must take action. In the hearings we said that there must now be an internal audit of Facebook. We urge Facebook now to work with the European Data Protection Board to carry out that full and independent audit, but we have to conform not just to GDPR but we said when the Council were absent here, to think about what the protections are within e-privacy. Not because e-privacy is some totemic, iconic thing that we are bandying around, but because we have a problem with the technology.

We have, colleagues, a whole issue now of further actions to protect our elections. In the United States, recent requirements have been introduced to verify the identity, location and sponsor of political ads that are a good response, and the same standards should be applied here. We have a whole range of issues that we have to fix here in the European Union: applying conventional offline electoral safeguards, such as rules and transparency and limits to spending, respect for silence periods, making it easy to recognise online political paid advertisements and banning profiling for electoral purposes. Social media platforms should label content shared by bots and speed up the process of removing fake accounts, and compulsory post-campaign audits should be conducted to ensure personal data are deleted. The Commission should look with us and updating competition rules and increasing algorithmic transparency.

We are here to deal with Facebook because Facebook is not a minor issue. This is a global issue dealing with elections all over the world and it has already affected our referenda and it has affected our elections. Colleagues, if anyone in this Chamber thinks that this is not a serious issue, they are not paying attention. This resolution sets out the path we need to protect our citizens’ privacy and restore trust and confidence in our democratic systems.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Voorzitter, beste collega's, ongeveer een half jaar geleden waren we allen verbaasd, boos of vol ongeloof over het enorme datalek bij Facebook. Dit was meteen de start van verschillende onderzoeken, ook in dit Parlement, die een duidelijk signaal gaven: zulke inbreuken op onze privacy zijn onaanvaardbaar. In september kwam er echter een nieuw datalek bij de techgigant aan het licht. Een softwareprobleem gaf hackers toegang tot miljoenen gebruikersaccounts, waaronder ook vijf miljoen Europese accounts.

Deze resolutie was een mooie kans om dit onrecht te veroordelen en op te roepen tot verdere actie. Helaas gaat de resolutie alle kanten uit. Zo roept zij op tot opschorting van het privacyschild tussen de EU en de VS zonder het bieden van een alternatief. Of men roept op tot aanpassing van de nationale kieswetten, wat duidelijk tot de bevoegdheden van de lidstaten behoort.

Het kernwoord dat deze resolutie in deze strijd nodig heeft is focus. Focus op het exacte probleem waarmee wij te maken hebben. Alleen zo kunnen we als wetgever het verschil maken.

  Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Mr President, the Facebook scandal has been a warning for all of us about what can happen when data is misused. Now, however, we have to focus on the lessons learned.

First, we need to be extremely cautious in protecting our data online. Internet literacy and staying safe on the internet must become a standard part of our education systems. Second, platforms need to better self—regulate. The days of community codes are over and now we need strict guidelines and rules. More importantly, platforms should act.

Lastly, fake news is a direct threat to our democracy with a potentially significant impact on the election results. Important decisions, such as whether to stay part of the EU or not, should not be decided based on targeted fake news. We should bear this in mind in the run—up to the forthcoming European elections. We want to keep the internet an open and free forum of discussion, but we need to know how to spot the fake.

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I am able to take this time on behalf of Romeo Franz – I think there may have been a misunderstanding. Is that possible?

  President. – Ms Scott Cato, right now Mr Romeo Franz is listed to speak, and according to the rules you may only be granted the floor during catch-the-eye procedure. There is no direct replacement, just catch-the-eye.

Interjection from Ms Scott Cato: ‘I am on the screen now though, Mr President, I would just point out respectfully.’

Let us agree: ok, catch-the-eye, and you have one minute.

According to the rules, if I have a list of speakers – excuse me but I do believe that the person chairing the sitting is myself, not somebody behind, so a one-minute speech. It is a list. I asked Mr Romeo Franz to take the floor. We received information that Ms Scott Cato would like to replace Mr Franz, which is not possible. My proposal was that she be granted one minute in catch-the-eye, Ms Scott Cato accepted, so let us continue according to the list of speakers which has been prepared.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, το σκάνδαλο Cambridge Analytica του Facebook είναι πολιτικό σκάνδαλο και απέδειξε τους κινδύνους που υπάρχουν, όταν η εξουσία συγκεντρώνεται στα χέρια λίγων κερδοσκόπων που έχουν τα μέσα να φακελώνουν και να χειραγωγούν εκατομμύρια ανθρώπους. Πρόκειται για τη μαζική παραβίαση προσωπικών δεδομένων, η οποία έχει αποκαλυφθεί, είναι απειλή για τη δημοκρατία και είναι μόνο η κορυφή του παγόβουνου. Τα προσωπικά δεδομένα δεκάδων εκατομμυρίων Αμερικανών και 2,7 εκατομμυρίων Ευρωπαίων έχουν χρησιμοποιηθεί και, πριν λίγες μέρες, το Facebook ενημέρωσε πως χάκερ απέκτησε πρόσβαση σε σχεδόν 50 εκατομμύρια λογαριασμούς.

Οι ίδιοι οι εκπρόσωποι του Facebook, κατά τη διάρκεια των ακροάσεων στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο, παραδέχτηκαν πως είχαν συμφωνία με προγραμματιστή εφαρμογών, ο οποίος έδιδε τα προσωπικά δεδομένα σε τρίτους. Ωστόσο, δεν απάντησαν ποια μέτρα λαμβάνουν τώρα για να συμμορφωθούν πλήρως με τον νέο ευρωπαϊκό κανονισμό για την προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων. Έχουμε ευθύνη, εν όψει και των ευρωεκλογών, να διασφαλίσουμε την εφαρμογή της ευρωπαϊκής νομοθεσίας για τα προσωπικά δεδομένα από όλες τις πλατφόρμες κοινωνικής δικτύωσης, να υπάρξει έλεγχος μέσω νέων νομοθετικών ρυθμίσεων και απλοποίηση των διαδικασιών, ώστε οι χρήστες να διαχειρίζονται τα προσωπικά τους δεδομένα και να ρυθμίζουν ποιος θα έχει πρόσβαση σε αυτά. Όσοι δε έτυχαν εκμετάλλευσης πρέπει να αποζημιωθούν από το Facebook, όπως ορθά αξιώνουν οι τέσσερις οργανώσεις καταναλωτών του Βελγίου, της Ιταλίας, της Ισπανίας και της Πορτογαλίας, με την προσφυγή που έχουν καταθέσει στα δικαστήρια.

  Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor commissario, la sottrazione dei dati a Facebook, poi usati dalla società di consulenza politica Cambridge Analytica, fa emergere interrogativi importanti sui mezzi di cui disponiamo per contrastare fenomeni di questo tipo.

A questi interrogativi dobbiamo dare una risposta, ce lo chiedono 500 milioni di cittadini europei che rappresentiamo qui. Sappiamo bene che il modello di business delle grandi multinazionali del web si basa sulla raccolta dei dati degli utenti, divenuti il nuovo oro nero, e sulla successiva monetizzazione degli stessi.

Le alternative al cosiddetto capitalismo di sorveglianza esistono, ma occorre la volontà politica di intraprendere nuove strade.

Dobbiamo ripartire dall'istruzione dei cittadini affinché non siano meri consumatori ma membri consapevoli della società.

Dobbiamo dotare i cittadini degli strumenti necessari che consentano loro di usare i nuovi media e le nuove tecnologie, mettendoli in guardia su che cosa significa vivere in un mondo dove siamo costantemente connessi.

Dobbiamo rendere consapevoli le nuove generazioni di quanto siano importanti il diritto alla privacy e la protezione dei dati personali e quali siano le sue applicazioni concrete.

Siamo ancora in tempo per voltare pagina ed evitare che si ripetano scandali come questo.

  Dominique Bilde (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le mois dernier, une faille de sécurité laissait filtrer les données personnelles de quelque 50 millions d’utilisateurs de Facebook prouvant qu’en dépit des excuses contrites, exprimées dans la foulée du scandale Cambridge Analytica, il y a décidément quelque chose de pourri au royaume de Mark Zuckerberg.

Quelle est la véritable nature de Facebook? C’est celle beaucoup plus crue des pannes dans un mémorandum confidentiel d’un des vice-présidents.

Nous connectons des gens, point. Peut-être que cela coûtera une vie en exposant quelqu’un a des harceleurs, peut-être que quelqu’un mourra dans une attaque terroriste coordonnée via nos outils. Hé oui, mesdames et messieurs, c’est exactement leur propre définition.

Encore Facebook n’est-il pas neutre. Épaulé par ses légions de modérateurs, sa censure s’exerce avec zèle contre une myriade de comptes conservateurs pendant que sur l’autre rive de la Méditerranée, en Libye, des milices armées communiquent en toute impunité.

Par sa mainmise sur les informations et communications de millions d’individus, Facebook s’est donc fait le bras armé d’une censure totalitaire à géométrie variable.

Pour s’y être compromises, nos démocraties s’en trouveront à jamais bouleversées et la prochaine élection sera tronquée par des gens sans foi ni loi.

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, it is quite extraordinary that this Parliament should be indignant about Cambridge Analytica’s cack-handed attempt to impact democratic votes. After all, right now, just a few hundred yards from the Brussels Parliament, Herman Van Rompuy, the former President of the European Union, leads a think tank whose sole aim is undermining the UK’s democratic referendum to leave the European Union. Scandalously, he published a paper whose aim – and I quote – was to change the political dynamics in the UK by getting the Prime Minister to agree to an extension of the transition period.

This is foreign intervention in domestic politics. This is manipulation of voters from the outside. This is worse than Cambridge Analytica. This is the anti—democratic interference which is the very essence, the soul, of the European Union, and it has worked as Theresa May is now offering such an extension. Scandalous, scandalous, scandalous!

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

(Interjection from Mr Woolfe: ‘It is a pure joy to accept such blue cards from Mrs Scott Cato. Go ahead.’)

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Dr Cato – but I appreciate Mr Woolfe taking the blue card and having the courage to do so.

Steven Woolfe sounds extremely indignant about this debate, so I wonder if he’s critical about the theft of our citizens’ data? I wonder if he minds about the use of illegal ads? Does he believe that the EU wants to steal our cuppa or cause polar bears to starve? And does he approve of the micro-targeting of ads at a vulnerable group of people, as Mr Moraes said, which undermines the public debate?

  Steven Woolfe (NI), blue-card answer. – What I’m indignant about is the hypocrisy of this House. The hypocrisy that, on the one hand, says we do not like Cambridge Analytica yet we’re quite willing to accept the money of Soros as he funds organisations in the UK that have tried to attempt to have a third referendum in the United Kingdom. Those who attempt to suggest that outside interference in the EU is perfectly acceptable: if you want democracy, treat it fairly on both sides, but don’t accept the money from those who are trying to undermine our own Parliament.

  Przewodniczący. – Panie i Panowie, są jeszcze dalsze zgłoszenia typu blue card, ale przyjmijmy zasadę: jeden mówca, jeden blue card. Chodzi o to, że musimy zakończyć o godz. 10.30.

  Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Was macht Facebook, und was bringen parlamentarische Befragungen?

Machen wir uns nichts vor. Facebook hat die Untersuchung des Parlaments nicht ernst genommen. Facebook hat Vertrauen verspielt und EU-Recht gebrochen. Dagegen helfen keine schönen Worte oder freiwillige Verpflichtungen. Notwendig sind strenge Regeln, effektive Kontrollen und nötigenfalls Sanktionen.

Was bedeutet das? Erstens: Dank der Datenschutzgrundverordnung können wir Verstöße, wie im Falle Cambridge Analytica, mit bis zu 4 % des weltweiten Umsatzes bestrafen. Geben wir unseren Datenschutzbehörden die notwendigen Mittel zur effektiven Kontrolle!

Zweitens: Wir brauchen mehr Transparenz gerade bei politischer Werbung. Wer ist denn tatsächlich der Auftraggeber einer Botschaft und wer bezahlt?

Drittens: Wir brauchen die ePrivacy-Verordnung zum Schutz etwa vor targeting. ePrivacy sollte schon längst zusammen mit der Datenschutzverordnung wirken. Dass ePrivacy seit 1,5 Jahren von den Mitgliedstaaten blockiert wird, ist inakzeptabel!

Fazit: Wir sind den Praktiken der großen digitalen Unternehmen nicht hilflos ausgeliefert, aber wir müssen jetzt entschlossen und gemeinsam handeln, um unsere Bürger, um unsere Demokratie zu schützen.

  Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Mówimy tutaj o dwóch problemach, powiązanych, ale przecież różnych – używaniu danych osobowych w celach komercyjnych oraz używaniu ich w celach politycznych. O ile pierwszy jest już nam znany od co najmniej paru lat, waga tego drugiego problemu dopiero dociera do naszej świadomości.

Słuszny jest postulat rezolucji, żeby platformy internetowe odróżniały polityczne zastosowania swoich internetowych produktów reklamowych od ich zastosowań komercyjnych oraz żeby przetwarzanie danych osobowych do celów reklamy politycznej miało inną podstawę prawną niż ta, która ma zastosowanie do reklamy komercyjnej. Tylko, że – o ile mi wiadomo – taka odpowiednia podstawa prawna do tej pory nie powstała i wielkim zadaniem na przyszłość jest jej wypracowanie.

W projekcie rezolucji czytamy także, że państwa członkowskie powinny w trybie pilnym prowadzić dochodzenie w sprawie domniemanego nadużycia internetowej przestrzeni politycznej przez obce mocarstwa. Ale przecież nadużycia internetowej przestrzeni politycznej zdarzają się także wewnątrz Unii, między różnymi państwami członkowskimi. I to także wymaga analizy.

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, at the beginning of this year we saw the Facebook Cambridge Analytic scandal unfolding, an event of major proportions. We saw how our private data was harvested without our consent and subsequently used for political purposes – not a small one, but the biggest and most important one. The reaction was justifiably harsh. A common voice from all over this Parliament protested about the illegal use of private data. Mr Zuckerberg himself stood here and spoke about the change. He promised better security and assured us that something like this would never happen again. And why is it that, just a month ago, we saw another Facebook security breach aimed at our private data? How many more ‘sorrys’ are we going to have from Mr Zuckerberg? I don’t think there is any meaning in asking him anything anymore.

I therefore urge the Commission and this Parliament to respond appropriately and prevent this from happening again. We need stronger privacy rules and we need better enforcement of existing laws in order to have our personal data information secured.

  Eva Joly (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, il ne doit plus être possible que des données personnelles soient utilisées à l’insu des utilisateurs.

Le scandale Cambridge Analytica a montré le pouvoir immense que nous avons laissé s’accumuler entre les mains d’entreprises qui disposent à leur guise de nos données personnelles. Il est temps de reprendre le contrôle de nos données pour garder le contrôle de nos vies. Ouvrons les yeux. Accepter que nos données soient exploitées à des fins de profilage et de ciblage politique ne serait pas seulement une défaite individuelle, mais une abdication collective. Laisser à Facebook et à ses algorithmes le soin de déterminer les messages politiques que nous recevons, c’est accepter une forme de servitude volontaire.

À l’heure où la vérité elle-même est menacée par la multiplication des infox, notre liberté d’opinion est liée à la connaissance claire que nous avons de qui s’adresse à nous et dans quel but. Souhaitons-nous que l’homo numericus reste un citoyen libre?

Alors tout contenu politique doit pouvoir être identifié comme tel et nous devons savoir qui en est à l’origine. C’est vraiment le minimum et c’est urgent.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). –Senhor Presidente, em 2013, Snowden revelou-nos como as agências norte-americanas tinham colocado as maiores empresas do setor da Internet a vigiar os utilizadores. O mundo percebeu então quão frágil era a sua privacidade e a proteção dos seus dados. Cinco anos passaram e o escândalo da Cambridge Analytica veio mostrar-nos como à beira do precipício o que se decidiu fazer foi dar um passo em frente.

A privacidade e os nossos dados pessoais passaram a ser um dos mais valiosos ativos do capitalismo e hoje sabemos que os dados pessoais têm sido usados como armas de combate político. Se juntarmos a isto o crescimento das fake news, das mentiras e dos discursos de ódio, temos a receita perfeita para a manipulação em massa das eleições.

Plataformas como o Facebook e o WhatsApp não têm capacidade nem transparência para lidar com a informação que propõem e ainda menos para a proteger, como vemos aliás no Brasil.

Por isso, pergunto o que é preciso acontecer mais para continuarmos a defender as nossas democracias e para defender eleições democráticas.

  Jörg Meuthen (EFDD). – Herr Präsident! Meine Partei ist eine konservative Partei, moderat, rechts der Mitte. In meinem Land verorten sich viele Journalisten jedoch überwiegend links der Mitte, viele von ihnen sogar sehr weit links. Manche Erhebungen kommen zu dem Schluss, dass mehr als 40 % der Journalisten grün wählen. Objektive Berichterstattung ist keine Selbstverständlichkeit, in diesen Zeiten schon gar nicht mehr. Also bin ich sehr dankbar dafür, dass es Facebook gibt. Mit Facebook haben wir einen Kanal zu unseren Wählern, den grünlinks indoktrinierende Journalisten uns nicht vermauern können.

Wir beobachten sehr genau, wie die linke Mehrheit in diesem Haus und bei uns zu Hause uns diesen Zugang nehmen will. Wir sehen, wie sie Facebook unter Druck setzen, wie sie konservativ-freiheitliche Meinungsäußerung in der Reichweite drosseln und sogar zensieren wollen. So ist das eben mit den Linken: Erst fordern sie herrschaftsfreien Diskurs, und sind sie einmal an der Macht, dann interessiert sie nur noch diskursfreie Herrschaft.

Liebe Kollegen, wer nicht diskutieren will, der beweist nur eines: dass er keine Argumente hat. Und wer wie Sie keine Argumente hat, der hat die Debatte de facto bereits verloren. Das werden Sie noch merken.

  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, απέναντι στην ψευδαίσθηση της ελευθερίας στο Διαδίκτυο υπάρχει η σκληρή πραγματικότητα. Κουμάντο και εδώ, όπως και όταν κλείνει η οθόνη, κάνουν οι επιχειρηματικοί όμιλοι που έχουν την ιδιοκτησία. Για τους υπόλοιπους, η εργασία, η ενημέρωση, η διασκέδαση σημαίνει, άθελα ή εν αγνοία τους, αυτοφακέλωμα. Τα προσωπικά δεδομένα τους, η πολιτική τους στάση και τα ενδιαφέροντά τους καταγράφονται, συγκεντρώνονται, επεξεργάζονται, γίνονται εμπόρευμα, αντικείμενο σκληρού ανταγωνισμού για το ποιος όμιλος, ποια μυστική υπηρεσία και αστικό κράτος θα τα ελέγξει θησαυρίζοντας, εκτοπίζοντας τους ανταγωνιστές του.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και οι κυβερνήσεις της υποδύονται τις ευαίσθητες για τα προσωπικά δεδομένα, στήνουν μηχανισμούς τύπου GDPR και επιβάλλουν κυρώσεις, υπηρετώντας τους ευρωπαϊκούς ομίλους στον ανταγωνισμό τους με τους αντίστοιχους αμερικανικούς για τον έλεγχο της αγοράς. Όμορφος κόσμος, αγγελικά πλασμένος ο καπιταλισμός, η αμφισβήτηση αυτού του συστήματος, η οποία σήμερα λογοκρίνεται και φιλτράρεται, θα βρει τον δρόμο της και, με την ανατροπή του, η επιστήμη, η τεχνολογία και οι εφαρμογές τους θα τεθούν στην υπηρεσία των λαϊκών αναγκών.

  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Voorzitter, onze boodschap hier een half jaar geleden was helder: het misbruik van gegevens van miljoenen Europese burgers is schandalig, Facebook moet veranderen en Mark Zuckerberg moet zich hier in dit Parlement komen verantwoorden.

Nou, die verantwoordingssessie kwam er, maar was – mede door de eisen van Zuckerberg zelf – een aanfluiting. Ook in de drie goede hoorzittingen die we in dit Parlement hebben georganiseerd, bleek Facebook op geen enkele wijze dit probleem serieus te nemen. In plaats van mensen met verstand van zaken of mensen die iets daadwerkelijk te vertellen hebben in het bedrijf, werd het public policy-team gestuurd, de lobbyisten van Facebook, dezelfde lobbyisten die hier eerder ingezet werden om hard te lobbyen tégen onze nieuwe privacyregels.

Dus hoewel we terecht met elkaar vaststellen dat Facebook verbeteringen doorgevoerd heeft, is het allesbehalve geruststellend. Anderhalf miljard gebruikers werd nog snel even buiten het bereik van de Europese regels gebracht. Andermaal een teken dat Facebook nog steeds niet gelooft in het belang van databescherming of de manier waarop we in Europa daarmee omgaan.

Dus het is onze taak om ze dat geloof bij te brengen. Goedschiks of kwaadschiks. Er moet een volledige audit komen van het bedrijf Facebook en de toezichthouders in heel Europa moeten aan de slag om echt te controleren of de huidige praktijken bij het bedrijf voldoen aan onze regels. Facebook plaatste in april nog paginagrote advertenties om de nieuwe Europese regels te verwelkomen. We doen Facebook dus waarschijnlijk een groot plezier om die regels ook vanaf dag één keihard te handhaven, allereerst bij Facebook zelf.

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io non ritorno sulla nostra risoluzione, che condivido; mi auguro che la Commissione in questo momento lavori per tutelare le elezioni europee da interferenze che, a seguito di queste audizioni, appaiono non solo possibili ma assolutamente prevedibili.

Volevo sollevare una questione che riguarda complessivamente il fatto che noi ci stiamo risvegliando da un mondo dove sembrava tutto gratuito e stiamo scoprendo che, in realtà, il prezzo che paghiamo a questo mondo di Internet tutto gratuito è l'utilizzo dei nostri dati a fini economici e a fini elettorali.

Credo quindi che il problema sia più complesso e vada affrontato: come in un futuro che userà sempre di più delle piattaforme di questo tipo si ricostruisce un rapporto corretto per cui si paga quello che si utilizza ma si è tutelati nella propria identità e nell'uso dei propri dati.

Credo ci sia un problema anche di piattaforme di tipo pubblico perché, come sempre, quando si creano i grandi monopoli può intervenire il pubblico sia a regolamentare i monopoli sia anche attraverso strumenti diversi di tipo pubblico.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Mr President, in my own country the relevant committee in my parliament is crying out for action to be taken. My colleague Damian Collins is not satisfied with the result, and the committee in question has carried out an inquiry and has directly said that there is manipulation and Russian interference in our election processes. That is at a nation-state level and look here today: the Council chairs are empty, that is the response that we are giving.

Governments are stalling, Facebook knows its power. But this weekend hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of London and among their demands is a demand that we must protect our much-cherished democratic processes. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook were instrumental in swaying the EU referendum in the United Kingdom; swaying it using techniques beyond the expectations of an unsuspecting electorate and out-of-date election regulations.

Nick Clegg may hold the most senior public policy role in Facebook today ; let’s hope he guides them well. But Cambridge Analytica has not gone, it lives on in other guises and will continue to show itself again.

  Светослав Христов Малинов (PPE). – Колеги, наистина става дума за скандал, за криза на доверието и аз се радвам, че Европейската комисия няма да пропусне тази криза и няма да я остави неизползвана. Искам обаче да погледна към проблема от друг ъгъл.

Ние сами създаваме своята дигитална личност. В началото нейният живот наистина зависи от нашата воля и ние наистина контролираме нещата. Никой обаче не ни казва и вероятно никой не би могъл да ни каже от какъв момент нататък данните на нашето дигитално „аз“ се използват от други хора и организации за свои цели.

Ние не си даваме сметка, че нашето дигитално „аз“ съдържа информация, която в съчетание със стотици хиляди, милиони други такива дигитални личности, на практика представлява ценност, може да се купува и продава и се използва в така наречените „big data analyses“ и изготвянето на инфографики, с които пък можем ние индивидуално да бъдем манипулирани и насочвани като потребители и избиратели.

Разбира се, ние ще направим всичко възможно да създадем подходяща регулация, но аз винаги изпитвам съмнение, че нашите законодателни дейности ще бъдат изостанали в момента, в който се създадат. Ние винаги ще изоставаме от новите технологии. Затова бих искал да се обърнем към другата, същинската защита – здравия разум, сдържаността, дигиталната компетентност. Това трябва да възпитаваме особено у нашите млади хора, защото дигиталното пространство не насърчава тези качества. Разбира се, няма по-надеждна преграда пред манипулациите от отговорната демократична личност, въоръжена с подходящите регулации, изработването на които е наше задължение.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, the phrase ‘if you are not paying for the product, you are the product’ predates the internet era. Still, both regulators and internet users seem unprepared for the new reality in which data is the new oil. Unaware to whom they give away their data or how they can stop sharing it, most people until recently found being offered ads to buy things as something uncontroversial.

However, the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed something more worrying: people’s data can be improperly collected and shared, and they can be microtargeted by various entities who want to influence and manipulate their political view or voting behaviour. This threatens the very idea of democracy, according to which voters can decide for themselves and are not mere subjects of propaganda machines.

Users and, most importantly, regulators need to catch up with this new reality. We took the first step with the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); now we should apply it and make sure third countries using our citizens’ data apply it too.

  Romeo Franz (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Haben wir dieser datenbasierten individuellen Manipulation wirklich den Brexit und Präsident Trump zu verdanken? Diese Frage ist extrem schwer zu beantworten, aber es ist die demokratische Kernfrage dieses Skandals.

Es gibt Erkenntnisse über die politische Wirkung von Facebook. Ein Team der Universität von Warwick hat sich die rechtsextremen Übergriffe in Deutschland in den letzten Jahren angesehen und nach möglichen Ursachen gesucht. Sie haben je nach Ortschaft geschaut, ob es einen Zusammenhang mit der Anzahl der dort lebenden Ausländer, mit der Arbeitslosigkeit, dem Bildungs- und Einkommensniveau und, und, und gibt. Die einzige Variable, wo sie einen signifikanten statistischen Zusammenhang zur Anzahl der Übergriffe feststellen konnten, war der Umfang der Nutzung von Facebook in der dortigen Bevölkerung.

Facebook ist ein Problem für unsere Demokratie – auch ohne Cambridge Analytica. Daher ist es gut, dass die Entschließung fordert, gezielte politische Werbung, die auf Profilen mit persönlichen Daten basiert, ganz zu verbieten. Der Verhaltenskodex, den die Kommission mit der Plattform erarbeitet hat, zielt leider nur auf Transparenz und Selbstregulierung ab. Wir brauchen aber klare Regeln, wenn uns unsere Demokratie wichtig ist.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, as rapporteur on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), I was very pleased with the overall outcome, and I think it will work well into the future. But, as Ms Sophia in 't Veld said, all the rules and laws in the world are no good unless theyʼre applied, and I think it’s quite obvious that there are problems in Facebook – we have seen that for some time.

The first one, I think, is the question that Manfred Weber, Leader of the European People’s Party, put to Mark Zuckerberg when he came to Parliament. He said: ‘Is Facebook just too big?’ We had the phrase during the recession from his book about banks being too big to fail, but is Facebook just too big to operate? That’s one question that has to be looked at.

I know Facebook does an awful lot of good work in terms of facilitating people to communicate, but the dark side has to be addressed, especially countries like Russia interfering in elections. That’s undermining all of society and it needs to be monitored and monitored independently, as opposed to what’s happening now.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'attacco a Facebook del 28 settembre ha messo in pericolo i dati personali di milioni di persone: dalle informazioni più semplici fino ai dati bancari collegati ai profili Facebook, tutto è stato oggetto dell'attacco.

Dopo Cambridge Analytica questo nuovo scandalo dimostra che Facebook non è ancora in grado di assicurare il pieno rispetto della normativa dell'Unione europea in materia di protezione dei dati, in particolare del regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati e della direttiva e-privacy.

Dopo lo scandalo Cambridge Analytica Facebook aveva promesso un audit interno completo: se ciò è avvenuto, il Parlamento europeo non ne è ancora stato informato. Facebook deve permettere all'ENISA e al Comitato europeo per la protezione dei dati di effettuare un audit indipendente sulla sua piattaforma.

Facebook deve apportare modifiche sostanziali alla sua piattaforma, non solo per garantire la conformità al diritto dell'Unione europea in materia di protezione dei dati, ma anche per migliorare la sua trasparenza, per arginare il rischio di ulteriori manipolazioni politiche dei profili Facebook e per evitare che fake news inficino le prossime elezioni.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, razvoj informacijskih tehnologija i brojnih digitalnih usluga učinio je ljude umreženijima nego ikad prije. Poslovanje je bez interneta danas teško zamisliti, a online smo preselili i dobar dio privatnog života – od slanja poruka i pohrane obiteljskih fotografija do kupovine odjeće i naručivanja hrane.

Proizvodi i usluge lako su dostupni, novi komunikacijski kanali učinili su nas produktivnijima, ali sve to dolazi uz cijenu narušene privatnosti i sigurnosti.

Slučaj Cambridge Analytica samo je potvrdio važnost zaštite podataka građana na internetu. No jako je važno izbjeći nepotrebnu histeriju i građane informirati što predstavlja opasnost po njihovu privatnost, a što je benigno. Panično uskraćivanje svih podataka znatno bi usporilo razvoj digitalnih usluga, otežalo poslovanje brojnim tvrtkama i ugrozilo radna mjesta. To, vjerujem, nikome nije u cilju.

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, those of us involved in politics have been horrified by the way Facebook has been used to share disinformation that distorts democracy and divides societies. From the UK Brexit campaign to the Trump election and now the presidential election in Brazil, Facebook has shown itself to be an anti-social network that threatens democracy. The disinfectant of publicity has not ended this problem. Cambridge Analytica is morphing into a new form under the auspices of Emerdata that reunites the money of the Mercer family with the manipulative skills of Alexander Nix, and itʼs disappointing to hear that Nick Clegg will be joining Facebook as global ambassador and spin master. The resolution notes that we need less PR and more detailed answers from technical experts and changes to Facebook governance.

I’m pleased that the resolution notes the excellent work done by the UK’s information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and that it seeks to prohibit political targeted advertising that undermines the public debate through microtargeting. We are witnessing democracy disrupted across the world. Protecting democracy against the psychological operations of the wealthy should be a priority for us all.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το σκάνδαλο της Cambridge Analytica απέδειξε ότι τα στοιχεία των προσωπικών δεδομένων 50 περίπου εκατομμυρίων χρηστών που είχε κατορθώσει να εξασφαλίσει, φέρεται ότι τα χρησιμοποίησε για να ενισχύσει την εκστρατεία του προέδρου Τραμπ. Βεβαίως, αυτή η πρακτική δεν είναι άγνωστη στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Σύμφωνα με το Bloomberg, το 2012 κάτι ανάλογο είχε κάνει και ο Πρόεδρος Ομπάμα. Το βαθύτερο, όμως, ζήτημα το οποίο προκύπτει από το σκάνδαλο αυτό είναι η ασφάλεια των προσωπικών δεδομένων.

Κάθε άνθρωπος, χωρίς δυστυχώς να λαμβάνει υπόψη το θέμα του απορρήτου, παραχωρεί τα προσωπικά του δεδομένα στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης, ελπίζοντας ότι αυτά δεν θα αναλυθούν. Δυστυχώς όμως, αυτό δεν συμβαίνει, διότι με τους αλγορίθμους που έχουν δημιουργήσει αυτά τα μέσα, αναλύουν τα προσωπικά δεδομένα για να εκτιμήσουν τις εμπορικές, κυρίως, προτιμήσεις αλλά και τις πολιτικές και να μπορούν να τις επηρεάσουν. Γι’ αυτό τα κράτη πρέπει να λάβουν μέτρα ούτως ώστε να πάψει να γίνεται αυτό, χωρίς όμως να παραβιάζεται και το δικαίωμα της ελεύθερης έκφρασης του χρήστη.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, o uso de dados pessoais cedidos, voluntária ou involuntariamente, pela rede social Facebook, ou por outras redes e plataformas, para manipular escolhas e opções políticas e comportamentos de massa, coloca uma questão civilizacional. Estão em causa valores como a privacidade, a transparência, a confiança e, em última análise, a liberdade de escolha dos cidadãos.

No momento em que nos preparamos para fazer o enorme investimento no programa digital da Europa, temos de definir um padrão ético e jurídico aplicável a todas as empresas que atuam no nosso território, ou que com ele interagem, e desenvolver ferramentas robustas de verificação e sanção de quem não o fizer.

Ao mesmo tempo, é importante desenvolver, de forma progressiva, um modelo de gestão das redes sociais mais próxima do modelo da Internet, mais multi-stakeholder e menos baseada nos grandes potentados empresariais hegemónicos.

É preciso devolver à sociedade o que é dela. É preciso colocar o desenvolvimento tecnológico ao serviço dos indivíduos e não de quem os quer manipular e distorcer a sua liberdade de escolha.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria de Justicia, cuando estalló el escándalo, Mark Zuckerberg fue llamado a comparecer ante el Senado de los Estados Unidos y fue la primera vez en que se puso corbata. Su posición física fue de subordinación ante el Senado de los Estados Unidos. Cuando compareció aquí, en el Parlamento Europeo, ni remotamente fue sometido a un interrogatorio de dureza pareja al que le sometió el Senado de los Estados Unidos.

Nos hallamos ante los gigantes de la red, que se consideran desvinculados por completo de cualquier ley y de cualquier jurisdicción y, sin embargo, ante ningún gigante la Unión Europea puede abdicar de su deber de proteger y asegurar los derechos fundamentales de los europeos; por tanto, es mucho lo que hay por hacer.

Para empezar, hay que exigir que se cumpla —también a los gigantes de la red— el Reglamento de protección de datos y, en su caso, poner en marcha la directiva que vincula a la policía, la judicatura y la fiscalía para investigar los delitos relacionados con las violaciones de derechos fundamentales en la red.

Pero también hay que invertir en educación de la privacidad, en ciberseguridad y en nuevas tecnologías, porque nuestra inversión en nuevas tecnologías nada tiene que ver con la de los Estados Unidos y, hasta que no tengamos una mejor inversión en seguridad y tecnologías, no tenemos nada que hacer ante los gigantes de la red.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnilor comisari, stimați colegi, astăzi dezbatem un lucru care ține de viitorul Europei, până la urmă, de viața cetățenilor și de democrație. Dar, iată, Consiliul nu este prezent, Comisia pare a fi mulțumită de pașii pe care i-a făcut, noi, Parlamentul, ne-am făcut treaba așa cum s-a spus și suntem în aceeași situație, domnilor comisari, pentru că, iată, în fiecare săptămână putem constata că apar conturi false, că ne sunt preluate datele.

Ce facem, de fapt? Doamna comisar spune că avem un instrument foarte puternic, dar cum îl folosim? Care sunt rezultatele? Să fim serioși, eu cred că Comisia trebuie să găsească mijloace comune pentru că Facebook ne-a ignorat. Eu am fost într-o delegație în iulie acolo. Nu a găsit nimic nou după ce a declarat că, atunci când a proiectat Facebook, nu s-a gândit la protecția datelor. Eu cred că nu avem nimic până acum și peste câteva luni intrăm în alegerile europene. Nu putem lăsa cetățenii, companiile să se apere cu mastodonți, să lupte cu mastodonți. Asta este datoria Comisiei și a Consiliului.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this debate on what is a key resolution. As my colleague, Commissioner Jourová, underlined, the Cambridge Analytica case has thrust into the spotlight an array of threats to our elections: hacks, leaks, fake news, as well as the misuse of personal data, classical cyber—attacks that target our voting systems and cyber—enabled manipulation of voting behaviour.

To tackle the classic cybersecurity threats, the Commission brought forward a package of measures in September last year to build greater cyber-resilience, to protect systems and data and to strengthen deterrence against those who would seek to attack us. To tackle the challenge of cyber-manipulation, in April this year, the Commission proposed a package of measures in our communication on tackling online disinformation, based around transparency, traceability and accountability.

This set out our clear definition of disinformation. It sent a clear and strong message to all of the internet platforms – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others – who we strongly believe have a real responsibility to take action. We asked them to commit to an EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation, presented in fact last month. We set out clear objectives for this code and called for measurable results in a number of areas, not asking the platforms, or indeed public authorities, to judge whether something is true or false, right or wrong, but to shine a light on the provenance of the information that we are seeing.

I am encouraged that your resolution, as Claude Moraes underlined, identifies the need for urgent action in a number of these areas. We ask the platforms to restrict targeting options for political advertising, to ensure greater transparency around sponsored content, to step up their efforts to identify and delete fake accounts, and to establish clear rules around bots. There should also be greater clarity around algorithms and information on how they prioritise the content that is on display. This should be combined with tools enabling users more easily to discover content and access new sources representing alternative points of view, as well as to be able to report disinformation.

We want to see the code implemented effectively. We’ve said we’ll analyse first results by the end of this year. We hope we can see sufficient progress by working on a voluntary basis, but we’ve been clear: we reserve the right to consider our options again if we do not make the progress that we need to see.

As mentioned by Commissioner Jourová earlier, last month President Juncker presented a set of measures specifically on election security, asking Member States to set up a national election cooperation network of all of the relevant authorities and to appoint a contact point to participate in a European-level election cooperation network. As part of this, the Commission will work closely with, and support, data protection authorities to make sure that all data breaches are effectively investigated.

Last week, we convened a high-level meeting which brought together, for the first time, public and private actors from the Member States in order to take stock of progress and to identify and share best practices for countering the threats to our democratic processes and our democratic values. This event highlighted again the key importance of engagement, both by the public authorities, but also by the key private-sector actors. With the European elections and numerous national elections on the horizon, it is imperative that we see sufficient commitment from the big online platforms.

The Commission very much welcomes your strong engagement on this urgent range of issues. Awareness is the first line of defence, but, as you set out in your resolution, we need to go further. We have a strong shared interest in protecting our democratic institutions, our democratic processes and our elections. The Commission is committed to working with you, with Member States and with the private sector to secure the foundations of our democracy.

  Przewodniczący. – Pozwolą Państwo na taką drobną obserwację osobistą. Dobrze się złożyło, iż przypadło mi przewodniczenie temu akurat punktowi naszej debaty, ponieważ w Parlamencie Europejskim jestem odpowiedzialny za bezpieczeństwo, w tym także to, o którym tutaj rozmawialiśmy.

Otrzymałem jeden projekt rezolucji zamykającej debatę.

Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 25 października 2018 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Ева Майдел (PPE), в писмена форма. – Злоупотребата с истината, фактите и доверието на хората и избирателите не е патент на цифровите платформи. Тя за съжаление съществуваше и ще продължава да съществува в аналоговия, цифровия и хартиения свят. Единственото, което се промени с новите платформи, е улесненият достъп до тях. Това, което трябва да направим, е да сложим ясни правила, така че платформите да поемат своята отговорност, като контролират средата за комуникация, която създадоха, и да следят много по-добре за вредното съдържание и злоупотребата с лични данни.

Ние обаче имаме и още една задача и тя е да наложим правила и санкции на тези, които искат да се възползват от липсата на ясни правила в дигиталните платформи. А това на първо място са политически партии и кандидати и присъдружните им организации. Нито Фейсбук, нито Гугъл или някой от останалите платформи могат да избягат от своята отговорност, но ние не трябва да забравяме, че основният интерес от тази злоупотреба е именно в политическите организации и кандидати. И те трябва да получат най-голямата строгост, на която сме способни за това, че искат да манипулират избора на гражданите, като подменят честното политическо състезание за доверието им със състезание от лъжи и манипулации.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – Az Európai Parlament szocialista frakciója ismerte fel elsőként, hogy az EP és az egész Unió legsajátabb és egyre sürgetőbb feladata, hogy élen járjon az állampolgárainkat, egész demokratikus politikai rendünket veszélyeztető olyan alattomos praktikákkal szembeni védekezésben, mint amelyet a Cambridge Analytica „lebukása” – több tízmillió Facebook-használó polgár személyes adataival való visszaélése – leleplezett.

A mostani határozatunkkal azonban még csak a – mégoly fontos – felismerésnél és az első védekező lépésnél tartunk, jól tudva, hogy a Cambridge Analytica esete csak a jéghegy csúcsa, hiszen számos más üzleti vállalkozás működik a világon a személyes adatkezelő algoritmusok révén információk manipulálása, árusítása körében.

Az EU és tagállamainak demokratikus működése szempontjából különösen veszélyesnek tartom az egyes politikai erők, sőt államok által szervezett „fake news” terjesztést, a politikai uszító kampányokat, valamint a választási eredmények befolyásolására irányuló manipulációt.

Tekintettel az Európa több országában küszöbön álló fontos választásokra, különösen a májusi EP-választásra, fontosnak tartom, hogy mostani állásfoglalásunknak legyen konkrét utóélete, és a tagállamok kormányai is határozott intézkedésekkel, célzott jogszabályokkal vessenek gátat ennek a modern támadásnak. Különösen elvárnám ezt az olyan tagállami politikai vezetéstől, mint saját hazámé, ahol sajnos az Orbán-kormány politikai céljai érdekében maga is használja a hamis hírek és a félelemkeltés ilyen eszközeit.

  Claudia Țapardel (S&D), în scris. – În contextul scandalului izbucnit în jurul companiilor Facebook - Cambridge Analytica, prin care datele a milioane de utilizatori Facebook au fost accesate ilegal de o companie de consultanță britanică în scop electoral, asistăm astăzi la o serie de discuții ample privind protejarea datelor personale pe care fiecare utilizator de internet le pune la dispoziția giganților rețelelor sociale. Consider că fenomenul este cu atât mai important cu cât poate duce la manipularea cetățenilor, mai ales în timpul procesului electoral, sau poate influența consumatorii în așa fel încât să se ajungă la distorsionarea pieței și a concurenței loiale. Scandalul Facebook-Cambridge Analytica ne-a arătat foarte clar că trebuie să depunem eforturi semnificative pentru a restabili încrederea cetățenilor noștri în procesul democratic și să asigurăm un nivel adecvat de transparență. În 2019, în România vom avea două rânduri de alegeri. În acest context, colectarea ilegală a datelor personale ale utilizatorilor reprezintă una dintre cele mai mari provocări cu care ne confruntăm în era tehnologiei digitale la nivel mondial. Așadar, este important ca statele membre să implementeze cât mai eficient Regulamentul General de Protecția Datelor, iar Comisia să ia măsurile necesare pentru a monitoriza implementarea și aplicarea legislației cu scopul de a asigura protecția tuturor cetățenilor europeni.

  Maria Gabriela Zoană (S&D), în scris. – Facebook este o platformă mondială de socializare care găzduiește, între altele, conturile a peste 370 de milioane de cetățeni europeni de toate vârstele, cetățeni pe care noi avem obligația să-i apărăm în fața abuzurilor de orice fel. În acest context, orice încălcare a Regulamentului european pentru protecția datelor cu caracter personal de către reprezentanții acestei platforme sau de către terții care au acces la exploatarea ei reprezintă de fapt o încălcare a intimității a 370 de milioane de cetățeni europeni. Este limpede pentru oricine că deținerea datelor a sute de milioane de persoane - aici incluzând nu numai datele de identificare personală, ci și datele privind preferințele politice, preferințele pentru anumite produse și servicii sau alte date sensibile, dar și accesul la discuțiile private - reprezintă o oportunitate uriașă pentru marile companii care operează aceste platforme de socializare. Este cazul și Whatsapp-ului sau a altor aplicații. Tocmai de aceea, pe cât de mare este oportunitatea, pe atât de mare trebuie să fie și răspunderea acestor operatori, iar eu susțin aplicarea unor sancțiuni drastice de către autoritățile europene sau naționale ori de câte ori se încalcă regulamentul european privind GDPR. Altfel, este afectată însăși democrația.

(Posiedzenie zostało chwilowo zawieszone)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Presidente