Activities of Patrick BREYER related to 2020/2022(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed
Amendments (46)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5
Citation 5
— having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (‘General Data Protection Regulation’, GDPR)2 , _________________ 2 OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
— having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)1a in view of changing market realities; _________________ 1a OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69–92
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8
Citation 8
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the amount of user- generated content, including harmfuspread of legal and illegal content, shared via cloud services or online platforms, has increased exponentiallybeen facilitated by advanced technologies;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a small number of mostly non-European service providers have significant market power and exert influence on the rights and freedoms of individuals, our societies and democracies; whereas such service providers have to comply with the GDPR when offering services in the Union:
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the political approach to tackle harmful and illegal content online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far, but a growing number of Member States are adopting national legislation to address illegal content in a non- harmonised manner;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas some forms of harmful content may bare legal, yet detrimental tomay have negative effects on society or democracy, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms does not provide adequate transparency, accountability and oversight to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal and harmful contentcontent and how they curate content in general; whereas such an approach doeses may not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the lack of robust public data on notices and follow-up by competent authorities about, and data on the prevalence and removal of illegal and harmful content online creates a deficit of accountability;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Underlines that digital services and their underlying algorithms need to fully respect fundamental rights, especially the protection of privacy and personal data, non-discrimination and the freedom of speech and information, as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Emphasises that the rapid development of digital services requires strong legislation to protect privacy; stresses therefore in this regard that all digital services need to fully respect Union data protection and privacy law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) and Directive (EC) 2002/58 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ePrivacy) currently under revision, and the freedom of expression;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1b. Stresses that in line with the principle of data minimisation established by the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act shall require intermediaries to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them wherever it is technically possible, as anonymity effectively prevents unauthorized disclosure, identity theft and other forms of abuse of personal data collected online; only where existing legislation requires businesses to communicate their identity, providers of major market places could be obliged to verify their identity, while in other cases the right to use digital services anonymously shall be upheld;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1c. Notes that since the online activities of an individual allow for deep insights into their personality and make it possible to manipulate them, the general and indiscriminate collection of personal data concerning every use of a digital service interferes disproportionately with the right to privacy and the protection of personal data; confirms that users have a right not to be subject to pervasive tracking when using digital services; stresses that in the spirit of the jurisprudence on communications metadata, public authorities shall be given access to a user’s subscriber and metadata only to investigate suspects of serious crime with prior judicial authorisation;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)
Paragraph -1 d (new)
-1d. Is concerned that single sign-in services can be used to track users across platforms; therefore opposes the creation of a single Union sign-in system; recommends that providers which support a single sign-in service with a dominant market share should be required to also support at least one open and federated identity system based on a non-proprietary framework;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)
Paragraph -1 e (new)
-1e. Stresses that in order to overcome the lock-in effect of centralised networks and to ensure competition and consumer choice, users of dominant social media services and messaging services shall be given a right to cross-platform interaction via open interfaces (interconnectivity); highlights that these users shall be able to interact with users of alternative services, and that the users of alternative services shall be allowed to interact with them;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes in the clear economic benefits of a functioning digital single market for the EU and its Member States; stresses the important obligation to ensure a fair digital ecosystem in which fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, privacy and data protection, are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed swiftlthout undue delay and consistently where the hosting service provider has actual knowledge of it and its illegal nature in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violations; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issueand standard contractual terms of service are not appropriate for addressing illegal content in line with fundamental rights; stresses that the responsibility for enforcing the law, deciding on the legality of online activities and ordering hosting service providers to remove or disable access to illegal content as soon as possible shall rest with independent judicial authorities;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary where criminal acts are concerned ; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they have unresolved cases but rather unopened ones; calls for barriers to filing complaints with competent authorities to be removed; is convinced that, given the borderless nature of the internet and the fast dissemination of illegal content online, cooperation between service providers and national competent authorities should be improvedregulated based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that proportionate sanctions should be applied to violations of the law, which shall not encompass excluding individuals from digital services;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the fact that, while the illegal nature of certain types of content can be easily established, the decision is more difficult for other types of content as it requires contextualisation; warns that some automated tools are not sophisticated enough to take contextualisation into account and differentiate illegal content from content that is legal in a given context, which could leads to unnecessary restrictions being placed on the freedom of expression; and information; highlights that a review of automated reports by service providers, their staff or their contractors does not solve this problem as private staff lack the independence, qualification and accountability of public authorities; therefore stresses that the Digital Services Act shall explicitly prohibit any obligation on hosting service providers or other technical intermediaries to use automated tools for content moderation, and refrain from imposing notice-and-stay-down mechanisms; content moderation procedures used by providers shall not lead to any ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload- filtering of content;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that a specific piece of information may be deemed illegal in one Member State but is covered by the right to freedom of expression in another; highlights that in order to protect freedom of speech standards, to avoid conflicts of laws, to avert unjustified and ineffective geo-blocking and to aim for a harmonised digital single market hosting service providers shall not be required to remove or disable access to information that is legal in their country of origin;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines that illegal content should be removed where it is hosted, and that mere conduit intermediaries shall not be required to block access to content;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deems it indispensable to have the widest-possible harmonisation and clarification of rules on liability exemptions and content moderation at EU level to guarantee the respect of fundamental rights and the freedoms of users across the EU; believes that such rules should maintain liability exemptions for intermediaries not having actual knowledge of the illegal activity or information on their platforms; expresses its concern that recent national laws to tackle hate speech and disinformation lead to a fragmentation of rules and to a lower level of fundamental rights protection in the EU;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to removtackle illegal content in line with the law and European values; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes, in this regard, that online platforms that are actively hosting or moderahosting content should bear more, yet proportionate, responsi liability for the infrastructure they provide and the content on it; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting to general monitoring requirementird-party content they host only where they have actual knowledge of illegal content and its illegal nature; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting to general monitoring requirements and ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload-filtering of content; highlights that the legal regime for digital providers liability should not depend on uncertain notions such as the ‘active’ or ‘passive’ role of providers;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that thise new legislative framework should include rules on the notice-and-action mechanisms and requirements for platforms to take proactive measures that are proportionate to their scale of reain order to address the appearance of illegal content online while refraining from imposing notice-and-stay-down mech and operational capacities in order to address the appearance of illegal content on their services; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and a clear chain of responsibilityisms; applicable legislation shall exhaustively and explicitly spell out the obligations of digital service providers rather than imposing a general duty of care to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression, access to information and the right to privacy;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for appropriate safeguards and due process obligations, including a requirement for human oversight and verification, in addition to counter notice procedures, to ensure that removal or blocking decisions are accurate, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; highlights that persons who systematically and repeatedly submit wrongful or abusive notices shall be sanctioned; recalls that the possibility of judicial redress should be maderemain available to satisfy the right to effective remedy;
Amendment 175 #
13. Supports the preservation of the current framework on the limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but considers improved coordination for removal requests between national competent authorities to be essential; emphasises that such orders should be issued by a judicial authority of the Member State in which a hosting service provider is located and subject to legal safeguards in order to prevent abuse and ensure full respect of fundamental rights; stresses that sanctionenforcement mechanisms should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair; deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal acunderlines that the fairness and compliance with fundamental rights standards of standard contractual terms imposed by intermediaries to the users of their services shall be subject to judicial review; considers that standard counts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safetyractual terms unduly restricting users’ fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and to freedom of expression, shall not be binding;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines that certain types of legal, yet harmful, content should also be addressed to ensure a fair digital ecosystem; expects guidelines to include increased transparency rules on content moderation or political advertising policy to ensure that removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessExpects the Digital Services Act to include rules on content moderation or political advertising policy to ensure that removals of content are in line with human rights standards and limited to content which is illegal beyond doubt or has been found illegal by the judiciary;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Points out that the Digital Services Act shall not use the legally undefined concept of “harmful content”, but shall address the publication of content that is unlawful; emphasizes that the spreading of false and racist information on social media should be contained by giving users control over content proposed to them; stresses that curating content on the basis of tracking user actions shall require the user’s consent; proposes that users of social networks should have a right to see their timeline in chronological order; suggests that dominant platforms shall provide users with an interface to have content curated by software or services of their choice;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Notes the potential negative impact of micro-targeted advertising, micro- targeted content curation and of assessment of individuals, especially on minors and other vulnerable groups, by interfering in the private life of individuals, posing questions as to the collection and use of the data used to target said advertising, offering products or services or setting prices; reconfirms that the ePrivacy Directive makes targeted content curation subject to an opt-in decision and is otherwise prohibited;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular, comprehensive and consistent public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities, including inter alia information on the number of removal orders, on the number of identified illegal content or activities which led to investigation and prosecution, and the number of cases of content or activities wrongly identified as illegal;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Expresses its concern regarding the fragmentation of public oversight and supervision of online platforms and other digital service providers and the frequent lack of financial and human resources forthat the oversight bodies needed to properly fulfil their tasks; calls for increased cooperation with regard to regulatory oversight of digital services;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Supports the creation of an independent EU body to exercise of effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believes that it should enforce procedural safeguards and transparency and provide quick and reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmfulhow illegal content is addressed;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to this EU body, which should be tasked withpublicly available, including drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU levelcontent removal at EU level; considers that cases which did not result in the removal or disabling access to content shall also be reported;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that this EU body should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content; calls for this regulatorCalls for the competent authority to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Welcomes the Commission initiative to create a European Digital Media Observatory to support independent fact-checking services, increase public knowledge on online disinformation and support public authorities in charge of monitoring digital media;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22b. Is concerned that the increased use of automated decision making and machine learning for purposes such as identification, prediction of behaviour or targeted advertising may lead to exacerbated direct and indirect discrimination based on grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when using digital services; insists that the Digital Services Act must aim to ensure a high level of transparency as regards the functioning of online services and a digital environment free of discrimination;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Underlines the importance of empowering users to enforce their own fundamental rights online, including by means of easily accessible, impartial, efficient and free complaint procedures, legal remedies, educational measures and awareness-raising on data protection issues;