BETA

13 Amendments of Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA related to 2020/2018(INL)

Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that wherever it is technically possible and reasonable, intermediaries should be required to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them, since anonymity effectively prevents unauthorised data disclosure and identity theft; notes that where the Directive on Consumer Rights requires commercial traders 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 should be upheld;deleted
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The upcoming legislative proposal on the Digital Services Act should fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Union rules protecting consumers and their safety, privacy and personal data, as well as other fundamental rights;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls the importance of the key principles of the e-Commerce Directive, namely the country of origin principle, the limited liability clause and the ban on general monitoring obligation, to remain valid in the legislative proposal on the Digital Services Act;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses the need for a definition of ‘dominant platforms’ and lay down their characteristics;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Emphasises that there should be no ex-ante content control; stresses the need for more transparency in content review and management by content hosting platforms, therefore suggests there to be a review mechanism for dominant content hosting platforms to allow for a new or existing European Agency or European body to evaluate the risks of their content management policies; stresses the importance to be aware whether the decision was made by a human or an algorithm and in the latter case, whether a human review has taken place;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Stresses that wherever it is technically possible and reasonable, intermediaries should be required to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them, since anonymity effectively prevents unauthorised data disclosure and identity theft; notes that where the Directive on Consumer Rights requires commercial traders 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 should be upheld;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. NStresses the enforcement of existing Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regards to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and notes that since the online activities of individuals allow for deep insights into their personality and make it possible to manipulate them, the collection and use of personal data concerning the use of digital services should be subjected to a specific privacy framework and limited to the extent necessary to provide and bill the use of the servicethis framework;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that automated tools are unable to differentiate illegal content from content that is legal in a given context; highlights that human review of automated reports by service providers does not solve this problem as private staff lack the independence, qualification and accountability of public authorities; stresses, therefore, that the Digital Services Act should explicitly prohibitregulate 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; insists that content moderation procedures used by providers should not lead to any ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload-filtering of content;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises the importance of entrusting an existing or new European Agency or European body to coordinate the cooperation among Member States in cross-border issues and the network of independent national enforcement bodies;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that the spread 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 should 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 should provide users with an API to have content curated by software or services of their choice;deleted
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 62 #
5a. Stresses the need of the enforcement of existing measures to limit the data collected by content hosting platforms, based on inter alia interactions of users with content hosted on content hosting platforms, for the purpose of completing targeted advertising profiles, in particular by imposing strict conditions for the use of targeted personal advertisements;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Insists that the regulation must prohibit content moderation practices that are discriminatory;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls for content hosting platforms to use targeted advertisement based on the user’s prior interaction with content on the same content hosting platform or on third party websites, only after having obtained prior consent by the user, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
2020/06/24
Committee: JURI