Activities of Jean LAMBERT related to 2015/2129(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography PDF (484 KB) DOC (90 KB)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the word “child pornography” should be banned when it is used to refer to child sexual abuse, as pornography usually is about sexual acts between consenting adults, and there is nothing consensual in the acts of child sexual abuse; whereas Directive 2011/93/EU is a comprehensive legal instrument containing provisions on substantive criminal law and on criminal procedures, measures for assistance and protection of victims and for prevention, including administrative measures, and its implementation requires the close involvement of actors from different sectors such as the law- enforcement authorities, the judiciary, non- governmental organisations, internet service providers and others;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the Commission’s implementation report does not provide any statistics as regards takedown and blocking of websites containing or disseminating child sexual abuse, especially statistics regarding the speed of removal of content, the frequency with which reports are followed up by law enforcement authorities, the delays in takedowns due to the need to avoid interference with ongoing investigations, or the frequency with which any such stored data are actually used by judicial or law enforcement authorities;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas law enforcement authorities face new challenges posed by hidden peer-to-peer and Darknet networks exchanging child sexual abuse material; whereas there is a need to raise awareness at an early stage among girls and boys about the risks and the importance of respecting the dignity and privacy of others in the digital era;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas, to be compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, measures taken under recital 42 of Directive 2011/93/EU must respect the safeguards listed in Article 25 of the Directive;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets that, in its report, the Commission mentions that some Member States do not have functional “notice and take-down” procedures, sixteen years after the entry into force of Directive 2001/31/EC, but does not indicate that any action will be taken to require those Member States to comply with EU law;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Regrets that the Commission’s implementation report fails to mention whether it assessed the efficiency of the INHOPE system when it transfers reports to counterparts in third countries;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Regrets that the Commission has failed to collect data on the types of blocking that have been used; regrets that data has not been published on the number of websites on blocking lists in each country; regrets that there is no assessment of the use of security methods, such as encryption, to ensure that blocking lists do not leak and become seriously counterproductive; welcomes the fact that, having promoted mandatory blocking in 2011, the Commission has explicitly abandoned this position;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Regrets the fact that the Commission’s implementation report fails to provide any statistics as regards takedown and blocking of websites containing or disseminating child sexual abuse, especially statistics regarding the speed of removal of content, the frequency with which reports are followed up by law enforcement authorities, the delays in takedowns due to the need to avoid interference with ongoing investigations, or the frequency with which any such stored data are actually used by judicial or law enforcement authorities;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Regrets that, in relation to the one statistic that the Commission provided (takedowns within 72 hours), there is no data regarding the number of sites that were left online due to ongoing investigations;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the need to address new forms of crime online, such as revenge porn and sexual-extortion, that affect many youngsters, in particular teenage girls; calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to adopt concrete measures to combat this new form of crime and calls on all relevant bodies, governments, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, hotlines, NGOs and the internet industry to take itstheir share of responsibility for tackling these crimes, paying particular attention to the failures evident in the Commission’s implementation report;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the main challenges faced by the law enforcement and judicial authorities in the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse offences online stem from the dependence on electronic evidence and digital investigative techniques, which are made less effective by new technologies such as encryption, and also by the discrepancies in data retention rules between the Member Statee necessity in the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse offences online to find means to secure and obtain electronic evidence more rapidly and the importance of close cooperation between law enforcement authorities, including through the increased use of joint investigation teams, and service providers active on European territory, in accordance with the GDPR (2016/679/EU), the Police Directive (2016/680/EU)and existing MLA agreements;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Member States to step up their police and judicial cooperation to combat the trafficking and smuggling of migrant children, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse, trafficking and sexual exploitation, especially girls; calls for an enhanced exchange of information among authorities to trace missing children and for the interoperability of data bases;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Member States to incorporate into their legislation mandatory background checks for persons applying or volunteering for activities or jobs relating to children, including software and online content developers, travel agents and legal entities/persons, and to systematically exchange information on individuals posing a risk to children;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Member States to exchange information about child sex offenders in order twho have been convicted, who prevsent them from moving unnoticeda clear and concrete risk of recidivism and who are moving from one Member State to another, in order to work or volunteer with children or children’s institutions; encourages the Member States to enhance information sharing on criminal convictions and disqualifications, as well as to improve data collection in national registers of perpetrators;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Acknowledges that the Member States have put in place legislation and administrative measures to remove webpages containing child pornography hosted on their territory; regrets the fact that only half of the Member States have incorporated provisions into their legislation making it possible to block access to such webpages for users within their territory; calls on the Member States to fully implement Article 25, including blocking child sexual abuse material where possible, and withthe European Commission has not assessed the security of blocking lists, the technologies used for blocking in those countries that have implemented the measures, the implementation of security measures, such as encryption, for the storage and communication of blocking lists or meaningful analysis of the effectiveness of this measure; calls on the Member States to fully implement Article 25, and regrets that the Commission has not provided any analysis on whether or not the relevant safeguards in place;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that Directive 2011/92/EU does not require mandatory blocking; recognises that blocking is neither a single technology nor a reliable one; recommends removal of child abuse, child exploitation and child pornography material at source in the context of efficient judicial and law enforcement actions;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Member States to speed up cooperation between law enforcement authorities both within the EU and with third countries, to assess whether, in cooperation with the Internet industry, the notice and take-down procedures can be further improved and to establish partnerships with the online industry to prevent networks and systems from being hacked and misused to distribute child sexual abuse material, in particular through the use of security by design principles and effective use of encryption and other security technologies;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Recommends that, if blacklists of websites containing child pornography bare updated regularly by the relevant authorities and if these are communicated to internet service providers, to avoid, for instance, over-blocking and to ensure proportionalityhis should be done using maximum security measures, such as encryption of the data both in transit and at rest, to avoid, for instance, the leaking of the list; recommends the sharing of such blacklists of websites among the Member States, with Europol and its European Cybercrime Centre, and with Interpol; considers, in this regard, that newly developed hashing technology, such as PhotoDNA, should be appliedany technology implemented should be rigorously tested to eliminate, or at least minimise the possibility of hacking, abuse or counterproductive effects and that any detection technology should only be used if rigorous recordkeeping is used to ensure transparency and facilitate investigation and prosecution of offences by state authorities;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to continue keeping Parliament regularly informed on the state of play in relation to compliance with the Directive by the Member States; urges the Commission to provide the Parliament with a more rigorous report, containing additional information and statistics; instructs its relevant committee to hold a hearing on the state of play in relation to implementation and possibly consider adopting an additional report on the follow up given to the implementation of the Directive;