2018/2855(RSP) | [ParlTrack]

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Citation 10 a (new)

– having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 5 June 2018 in Case C-210/16 Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH1; 1 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do cument.jsf;jsessionid=5522B7F15AF3745 3910B44DDFCB98621?text=&docid=202 543&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode= lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=225147

Amendment 10 #

Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas Facebook revealed the mobile phone number of its users for commercial purposes, which was a clear breach of Facebook’s data-use policy that states: “We do not share information that personally identifies you … with advertising, measurement or analytics partners unless you give us permission”; whereas Facebook has also developed a "conversion pixel" — basically a type of tracking device — within ads displayed on Facebook, which allows advertisers to target users directly with ads and then measure exactly how they respond to them;

Amendment 100 #

Paragraph 33

33. Is of the opinion Eurojust should urgently initiate, in cooperation with Member States authorities a special investigation into the alleged misuse of the online political space by foreign forces; ~~calls on the Commission to swiftly come up with the necessary proposals to enlarge the competences of EPPO to include prosecution of crimes against electoral infrastructure;~~

Amendment 11 #

Recital C

C. whereas these personal data breaches occurred ~~before the application of the new General Data Protection Regulation and~~ for an extended period of time; whereas the companies concerned were ~~however~~ in breach of EU data protection law applicable at that time, particularly Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC;

Amendment 12 #

Recital C

C. whereas th~~ese~~is misuse of personal data ~~breaches~~ occurred before the application of the new General Data Protection Regulation and for an extended period of time; whereas the companies concerned were however in ~~breach of~~fringing EU data protection law applicable at that time, particularly Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC;

Amendment 13 #

Recital D

~~D. whereas the data misuse which was revealed in the context of the Cambridge Analytica scandal happened before the application of the GDPR;~~deleted

Amendment 14 #

Recital H

H. whereas the chairs of the political groups in the European Parliament held an in-camera first exchange of views with the CEO and founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg on 22 May 2018 and this meeting resulted in the request by the Conference of Presidents for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in association with the Committees on Constitutional Affairs, Legal Affairs and Industry, Research and Energy, to hold in-depth follow-up hearings;

Amendment 15 #

Recital J

J. whereas Facebook refused to delegate the staff members at the appropriate technical and responsibility level and having the necessary technical expertise and knowledge requested by the Committee Chairs concerned and sent public policy team members to all three hearings instead; whereas ~~information provided by~~the Facebook representatives ~~during the hearings lacked precision on~~provided examples regarding the concrete and specific measures taken to improve transparency and ensure full compliance with EU data protection law ~~and was rather of general nature~~; whereas these oral testimonies were supplemented by two sets of written replies in relation to the questions which were not addressed by the Facebook CEO during the CoP hearing;

Amendment 16 #

Recital M

M. whereas the Chair of the European Data Protection Board highlighted that the Facebook / Cambridge Analytica case occurred before the entering into force of the GDPR, and thus the ~~EDPB is not the leading authority in this case but rather~~system of Lead Supervisory Authority under the General Data Protection Regulation does not apply and the investigations were led by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office;

Amendment 17 #

Recital N

N. whereas Facebook ~~accepted and agre~~has admitted that it entered into a contract with an app developer ~~that openly announced they~~without having conducted a prior check of its terms and conditions, which reserved the right for the latter to disclose personal data to third parties; whereas this oversight had grave consequences and such practice was already illegal under the ~~old~~then applicable data protection law;

Amendment 18 #

Recital O

~~O. whereas negotiations are currently ongoing on the E-Privacy Regulation;~~deleted

Amendment 19 #

Recital P

P. whereas the EDPB indicated thast already ~~received over 3~~around 100 cross-border cases ~~which it vowed to investigate very carefully according to the rules of~~are being dealt with under the consistency mechanism under the GDPR; whereas it coordinates the actions of national data protection authorities in order to ensure a common approach of enforcement of EU data protection law;

Amendment 2 #

Citation 13

– having regard to the ~~Opinion~~Guidelines of the Article 29 Working Party of 3 October 2017 on ~~the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data~~Automated individual decision- making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/6791; 1 ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/docum ent.cfm?doc_id=49826

Amendment 20 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital Q

Q. whereas Facebook, a signatory to the Privacy Shield, has confirmed that the personal data of 2,up to 2.7 million EU citizens were among those improperly used by political consultancy Cambridge Analytica;

Amendment 21 #

Recital U

Q. whereas the investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom also covered the link between Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL Elections Limited and Aggregate IQ and involves allegations that personal data, obtained from Facebook, may have been misused by both sides in the UK referendum on membership of the EU and used to target voters during the 2016 American Presidential election process; whereas the investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom was mainly conducted under the Data Protection Act 1998 and under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) 2003, whilst also projecting forward to the General Data Protection Regulation where appropriate;deleted

Amendment 22 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital V

V. whereas the UK House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee heard evidence that showed alleged Russian interference in electoral processes in the EU and urged the responsible national authorities to investigate these allegations; whereas in the US, a Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017 to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 Presidential elections and related matters and whereas this investigation is ongoing;deleted

Amendment 23 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital X

X. whereas the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom has already issued 23 Information Notices to 17 different organisations and individuals, including Facebook on 23 February 2018, to request provision of information from the organisations in a structured way; ~~while Facebook confirmed on 18 May 2018 that Aggregate IQ created and, in some cases, placed advertisements on behalf of the DUP Vote to Leave campaign, Vote Leave, BeLeave and Veterans for Britain;~~

Amendment 24 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital X

X. whereas the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom has already issued 23 Information Notices to 17 different organisations and individuals, including Facebook on 2 3 February 2018, to request provision of information from the organisations in a structured way; ~~while Facebook confirmed on 18 May 2018 that Aggregate IQ created and, in some cases, placed advertisements on behalf of the DUP Vote to Leave campaign, Vote Leave, BeLeave and Veterans for Britain;~~

Amendment 25 #

Recital Z

Z. whereas figures from the Electoral Commission of the UK have shown that the political parties in the United Kingdom spent £3.2 million on direct Facebook advertising during the 2017 general election;deleted

Amendment 26 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital Z b a (new)

Z b a. whereas Facebook has been accused by political representatives, media outlets and a growing part of its employees of having a strong political liberal bias which Mark Zuckerberg did not deny during his audition in front of the US Senate;

Amendment 27 #

Recital Zc

Z. c whereas data analysis and algorithms increasingly impact on the information made accessible to citizens; whereas such techniques~~, if misused~~ have the potential to improve the online experience of users but , may endanger fundamental rights to information as well as media freedom and pluralism if they are misused;

Amendment 28 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Recital Zd

Zd whereas ~~algorithmic accountability and transparency is essential to ensure the~~it is important to provide individuals with possibilities to obtain proper information and to gain a clear understanding ~~of individuals~~ about the processing of their personal data; whereas itplatforms should ~~mean~~ implement~~ing~~ technical and operational measures that ensure ~~transparency, the~~ non- discrimination through automated decision- making and ban the calculating of probabilities of individual behaviour; whereas transparency should give individuals meaningful information about the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences; whereas this should include information about the data used for training big data analytics and allow individuals to understand and monitor the decisions affecting thems well as transparency concerning the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences thereof;

Amendment 29 #

Paragraph 1

1. Expects all online platforms to ensure full compliance with Union data protection law, namely the GDPR and Directive 2002/58/EC (e-Privacy) and to help users understand how their personal information is processed in the targeted advertising model of only users that opt in for providing this data, and that effective controls are available, which includes greater transparency in relation to the privacy settings, and the design and prominence of privacy notices;

Amendment 3 #

Citation 13 a (new)

– having regard to the two sets of written replies to questions that were left unanswered at the meeting between EP group leaders and Facebook CEO Zuckerberg published by Facebook on 23 May 20181 respectively 04 June 20182; 1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the- president/en/newsroom/answers-from- facebook-to-questions-asked-during- mark-zuckerberg-meeting 2 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources /library/media/20180604RES04911/20180 604RES04911.pdf

Amendment 30 #

Romeo FRANZ, Pascal DURAND

Paragraph 1

1. Expects all online platforms to ensure full compliance with Union data protection law, namely the GDPR and Directive 2002/58/EC (e-Privacy) and to help users understand how their personal information is processed in the targeted advertising model, and that effective controls are available, which includes ensuring that separate consents are used for different purposes of processing, and that greater transparency is in place in relation to the privacy settings, and the design and prominence of privacy notices;

Amendment 31 #

Paragraph 1

1. Expects all online platforms to ensure full compliance with Union data protection law, namely the GDPR and Directive 2002/58/EC (e-Privacy) and to help users understand how their personal information is processed in the targeted advertising model, and that effective controls are available, which includes greater transparency in relation to the privacy settings, and the design and prominence of privacy notices, and separate consent or other legal bases for different purposes of processing;

Amendment 32 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Emphasises that it is strictly forbidden for any online platforms to follow and process any non-user’s data;

Amendment 33 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Takes the view that in case the online platform is not able to guarantee a high level of security and protection of personal data, the platform should be banned;

Amendment 34 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 3

3. ~~Takes note of Facebook's statement that it~~Finds it unacceptable that Facebook exclusively uses data of non- Facebook users to create aggregated datasets from which it derives conclusions about how the service is used;

Amendment 35 #

Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need for ~~much greater algorithmic accountability and~~scientific and ethical standards for algorithms to help reap the benefits of this technology while ensuring trust in its functioning; stresses that transparency with regard to data processing and analytics by the private and public sectors and any other actors using data analytics~~, as an essential tool to guarantee that the individual is~~ should be enhanced, as individuals should be appropriately informed about the processing of their personal data;

Amendment 36 #

Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the digital age requires electoral laws to be adapted to this new digital reality and suggests Member States introduce an obligatory system of introduce an obligatory system of digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising. Any form of political advertising should include easily accessible and understandable information on the publishing organisation and who is legally responsible for spending so that it is clear who sponsored campaigns, similar to existing requirements for printed campaign materials currently in place in various Member Statesneeds appropriate electoral laws and suggests Member States to assess whether measures to enhance transparency such as digital imprints for electronic campaigning and political advertising are feasible;

Amendment 37 #

Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the digital age requires electoral laws to be adapted to this new digital reality and suggests ~~Member States introduce an obligat~~that conventional (“off-line”) electoral safeguards, such as rules applicable to political communications during election periods, transparency of and limits to electoral spending, respect fory s~~ystem of introduce an obligatory system of digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising~~ilence periods and equal treatment of candidates should also apply online. Member States should introduce an obligatory system of digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising and implement the Commission’s Recommendation aiming at enhancing the transparency of paid online political advertisements and communications. Any form of political advertising should include easily accessible and understandable information on the publishing organisation and who is legally responsible for spending so that it is clear who sponsored campaigns, similar to existing requirements for printed campaign materials currently in place in various Member States; Citizens of the Union should be able to easily recognise online paid political advertisements and communications and the party, foundation or organisation behind them;

Amendment 38 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the digital age requires electoral laws to be adapted to this new digital reality and suggests Member States introduce an obligatory system of ~~introduce an obligatory system of~~ digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising. Any form of political advertising should include easily accessible and understandable information on the publishing organisation and who is legally responsible for spending so that it is clear who sponsored campaigns, similar to existing requirements for printed campaign materials currently in place in various Member States; insists that transparency should also include complete information about the criteria for selecting the target group of the specific political advertising and the expected size of the target group;

Amendment 39 #

Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the digital age requires electoral laws to be adapted to this new digital reality ~~and suggests~~; it remains the sole decision of Member States whether to introduce an obligatory system of digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising. Any form of political advertising should include easily accessible and understandable information on the publishing organisation and who is legally responsible for spending so that it is clear who sponsored campaigns, similar to existing requirements for printed campaign materials currently in place in various Member States;

Amendment 4 #

Citation 13 b (new)

– having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/234 of 14 February 2018 on enhancing the European nature and efficient conduct of the 2019 elections to the European Parliament1 and Commission Recommendation of 12 September 2018 on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents and fighting disinformation campaigns in the context of elections to the European Parliament2; and the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Securing free and fair European elections3. 1 OJ L 45, 17.2.2018, p. 40–43 2 C(2018) 5949 final 3 COM(2018) 637 final

Amendment 40 #

Paragraph 5

5. Takes the view that the digital age requires electoral laws to be adapted to this new digital reality and suggests Member States introduce an obligatory system of ~~introduce an obligatory system of~~ digital imprints for electronic campaigning and advertising. Any form of political advertising should include easily accessible and understandable information on the publishing organisation, why the ad is displayed and who is legally responsible for spending so that it is clear who sponsored campaigns, similar to existing requirements for printed campaign materials currently in place in various Mmember Sstates;

Amendment 41 #

Paragraph 7

7. Rec~~ommends all online platforms d~~alls that the processing of personal data for political advertistingu is~~h political uses of their online advertising products~~ a different purpose and therefore requires a separate legal basis such as consent from thei one for commercial ~~uses~~advertising;

Amendment 42 #

Paragraph 7

7. Recommends all online platforms distinguish political uses of their online advertising products from their commercial uses; recalls that processing personal data for political advertising requires a separate legal basis from the one for commercial advertising;

Amendment 43 #

Paragraph 7

7. Recommends all online platforms to distinguish, to the extent possible, political uses of their online advertising products from their commercial uses;

Amendment 44 #

Paragraph 8

8. Believes that the requirement to verify the identity, location and sponsor of political advertisements recently introduced by Facebook in the US is a good initiative which will increase transparency and contribute to the fight against election meddling by foreign actors; urges Facebook to introduce the same requirements for political advertisements in Europe; calls on the Member States to adjust their electoral laws to this effect;

Amendment 45 #

Paragraph 9

9. ~~Believes that profiling for political and electoral purposes, as,~~Underlines that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 severely limits the conditions under which processing puers~~uant to EU data protection law, it refers to~~onal data revealing political opinions or philosophical ~~opinions, should be prohibited and is of the opinion that social media platforms should monitor and active~~beliefs is allowed; believes that public authorities in cooperation with social media platforms must strictly ienfor~~m authorities if such behaviour occurs~~ce this rule;

Amendment 46 #

Paragraph 9

9. Believes that profiling for political and electoral purposes and profiling based on online behaviour that may reveal political preferences, such as interaction with political content, insofar, as, pursuant to EU data protection law, it refers to political or philosophical opinions, should be prohibited and is of the opinion that social media platforms should monitor and actively inform authorities if such behaviour occurs; also believes that profiling based on other data, such as socio-economic or demographic factors, for political and electoral purposes, should be prohibited;

Amendment 47 #

Paragraph 9

9. ~~Believ~~Stresses that profiling for political and electoral purposes, as, pursuant to EU data protection law, it refers to political or philosophical opinions, should be prohibited and is of the opinion that social media platforms should monitor and actively inform authorities if such behaviour occur must take place in compliance EU data protection law, in particular the specific rules on processing of sensitive personal data such as political or philosophical opinions;

Amendment 48 #

Paragraph 9

9. Believes that profiling for political and electoral purposes, as, pursuant to EU data protection law, it refers to political or philosophical opinions, should be prohibited and is of the opinion that social media platforms should monitor and actively inform authorities if such behaviour occurs; Calls on political parties and other actors involved in elections to refrain from using profiling for political and electoral purposes; calls on political parties to be transparent as to their use of online platforms and data;

Amendment 49 #

Paragraph 10

10. ~~Urges social media platforms, political parties and the advertising industry to work closely with the European Commission to develop sector-wide Codes of Conduct that~~Recalls the measures proposed by the European Commission for securing free and fair European elections, in particular the legislative amendment to tighten the rules on European political party funding creating the possibility to impose financial sanctions for breaching data protection rules in order to deliberately incflu~~de at least guidelines for ethical campaigning in the digital age and cooperation methods with authorities in charge of verifying electoral processes in Member State~~ence the outcome of the European elections; recalls that the processing of personal data by political parties in the EU is subject to the GDPR and that the breach of principles, rights and obligations encompasses under this law would result in additional fines and sanctions;

Amendment 5 #

Citation 13 c (new)

– having regard to the proposal from the Commission for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 as regards a verification procedure related to infringements of rules on the protection of personal data in the context of elections to the European Parliament1. 1 COM(2018) 636 final/2

Amendment 50 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 10

10. ~~Urges social media platforms,~~Recalls that the processing of personal data by political parties ~~and~~in the advertising industry to work closely with the European Commission to develop sector-wide Codes of Conduct that include at least guidelines for ethical campaigning in the digital age and cooperation methods with authorities in charge of verifying electoral processes in Member StateEU is subject to the General Data Protection Regulations and that the breach of principles, rights and obligations encompasses under this law would result in additional fines and sanctions;

Amendment 51 #

Paragraph 11

11. Considers election interference to be a great challenge for democracy which requires a joint effort involving service providers, regulators and political actors and parties; welcomes the intention of the Commission to provide recommendations in this regard;deleted

Amendment 52 #

Paragraph 11

11. Considers election interference to be a great challenge for democracy which requires a joint effort involving service providers, regulators and political actors and parties; ~~welcomes the intention of the Commission to provide recommendations in this regard;~~

Amendment 53 #

Paragraph 11

11. Considers election interference to be a ~~great challenge~~huge risk for democracy which requires a joint effort involving service providers, regulators and political actors and parties; welcomes the intention of the Commission to provide recommendations in this regard;

Amendment 54 #

Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Welcomes the package presented by the Commission on 12 September 2018 regarding preparations for the European elections;

Amendment 55 #

Paragraph 11 b (new)

11 b. Calls on the Member States to implement the Commission’s Recommendation on free and fair European elections, which highlights key steps to further enhance the efficient conduct of the 2019 European elections and apply the same principles in the conduct of other elections at national level;

Amendment 56 #

Paragraph 11 c (new)

11 c. Calls for the swift adoption of the proposal of the Commission amending Regulation 1141/2014/EU on European political parties and foundations, to strengthen the tools available to regulators to prevent misuse of data in the context of European Elections;

Amendment 57 #

Paragraph 11 d (new)

11 d. Encourages Member States to set up the national election cooperation networks of relevant authorities, as referred to in the Recommendation of the Commission, in order to quickly detect potential threats to elections, exchange information and best practices and ensure swift and well-coordinated responses;

Amendment 58 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 12

12. Is of the opinion that if companies fail to agree and implement such a Code of Conduct on ethical campaigning, the European Commission should introduce regulation to make such ethical rules compulsory;deleted

Amendment 59 #

Paragraph 12

Amendment 6 #

Citation 13 d (new)

– having regard to the Commission guidance on the application of Union data protection law in the electoral context1. 1 COM(2018) 638 final

Amendment 60 #

Paragraph 12

12. ~~Is of the opinion that if companies fail to agree and implement such a Code of Conduct on ethical campaigning,~~Welcomes, in this regard, the Code of Practice on Disinformation1 unveiled on 26 September 2018 by representatives of major online platforms and the advertising industry; believes that the wide range of self-regulatory standards and identified best practice contained therein will contribute to enhanced transparency in political advertising, increased closure of fake accounts and more effective demonetization of purveyors of disinformation; calls on the signatories of the Code to swiftly start implementing the agreed actions and to promote the Code across the industry with a view to encourage other companies to join, thereby increasing its impact; is of the opinion that if companies fail to implement the Code of Practice the European Commission should introduce regulation to make such ethical rules compulsory; 1 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/news/code-practice- disinformation

Amendment 61 #

Paragraph 14

14. Notes the actions undertaken by Facebook to counter data misuse, including the disabling or ban of applications suspected of misusing user data; expects Facebook to act swiftly on reports regarding suspicious or abusive applications and to prevent such applications from being allowed on the platform in the first place;

Amendment 62 #

Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that social media platforms are not merely passive platforms that only group user generated content but highlights that technological developments have widened the scope and role of such companies by introducing algorithm based advertising and content publication~~, concludes that this new role should be reflected in the regulatory field~~;

Amendment 63 #

Draft motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that social media platforms are not ~~mere~~only passive platforms that only group user generated content but highlights that technological developments have widened the scope and role of such companies by introducing algorithm based advertising and content publication, concludes that this new role should be reflected in the regulatory field;

Amendment 64 #

Birgit SIPPEL

Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Finds that Facebook did not only breach the trust of EU citizens, but indeed EU law and recalls that during the hearings, a Facebook representative confirmed that Facebook was aware that the terms and conditions of the “This is your digital life” app stated that the data the app collected could be sent to third parties; concludes that Facebook knowingly went into a contract with an app developer that openly announced that they reserve the right to disclose personal data to third parties; concludes furthermore that Facebook is the controller of the personal data and is therefore legally responsible when entering into a contract with a processor that breaches EU data protection law;

Amendment 65 #

Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the privacy improvements that Facebook has undertaken after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal, but ~~recalls that Facebook promised to hold a full internal audit of which the European Parliament has not yet been informed and~~is still waiting to be informed about the results of the full internal audit promised by Facebook during the hearings; recommends ~~that~~ Facebook ~~make substantial modifications that would also affect the core business model and~~to take the audit seriously and to act on its results, including by modifying aspects related to the structure of ~~its~~the platform;

Amendment 66 #

Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the privacy improvements that Facebook has undertaken after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal, but recalls that Facebook promised to hold a full internal audit of which the European Parliament has not yet been informed and recommends that Facebook make substantial modifications t~~hat would also affect the core business model and the structure of its platform~~o its platform to ensure its compliance with EU data protection law;

Amendment 67 #

Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the privacy improvements that Facebook has undertaken after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal, but recalls that Facebook promised to hold a full internal audit of which the European Parliament has not yet been informed and recommends that Facebook make substantial modifications ~~that would also affect the core business model and the structure of its platform~~regarding the structure of its platform in order to fully comply with relevant EU legislation;

Amendment 68 #

Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the privacy improvements that Facebook has undertaken after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal, but recalls that Facebook promised to hold a full internal audit of which the European Parliament has not yet been informed and recommends that Facebook make substantial modifications ~~that w~~in order to become fully compliant with the GDPR and to prevent any impact of targeted political advertising on elections; takes note that this could also affect the core business model and the structure of its platform;

Amendment 69 #

Birgit SIPPEL

Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the privacy ~~improvement~~changes that Facebook has undertaken after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal, but recalls that Facebook promised to hold a full internal audit of which the European Parliament has not yet been informed and recommends that Facebook make substantial modifications ~~that would also affect the core business model and the structure of its platform~~in order to ensure full compliance with EU data protection law;

Amendment 7 #

Citation 13 e (new)

– having regard to Commission Recommendation of 12.9.2018 on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents and fighting disinformation campaigns in the context of elections to the European Parliament;

Amendment 70 #

Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the privacy improvements that Facebook has undertaken after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal, but recalls that Facebook promised to hold a full internal audit of which the European Parliament has not yet been informed and ~~recommend~~urges that Facebook make substantial modifications to its platform to ensure its compliance with EU data protection law, that would also affect the core business model and the structure of its platform;

Amendment 71 #

Paragraph 18

18. Urges Facebook to allow and enable ~~ENISA~~national data protection authorities and the EDPB to carry out a full and independent audit of its platform investigating data protection and security of user personal data and to present the findings of such an audit to the EC, EP and national parliaments; such an exercise should also be carried for other major platforms;

Amendment 72 #

Paragraph 18

18. Urges Facebook to allow and enable ENISA and the EDPB, within the limits of their respective mandates, to carry out a full and independent audit of its platform ~~investigating data protection and security of user personal data~~ and to present the findings of ~~such an~~this audit to the E~~C, EP and national parliaments; such an exercise~~uropean Commission, the European Parliament and national parliaments; believes that such an audit should also be carried for other major platforms;

Amendment 73 #

Paragraph 19

19. Urges social media platforms - in accordance with the Code of Practice on Disinformation - to label content shared by bots and to ~~follow in this regards~~apply transparent rules for this purpose, to speed up the process of removing fake accounts and to comply with court orders to provide details of those creating fake or defamatory content;

Amendment 74 #

Romeo FRANZ, Pascal DURAND

Paragraph 20

20. Calls on all online platforms providing advertising services to political parties and campaigns to include expertise within the sales support team who can provide political parties and campaigns with specific advice on transparency and accountability in relation to how to prevent that personal data is used to target users; calls on all online platforms that allow buyers of advertising to make certain selections to provide legal advice on the responsibilities of those buyers as joint controllers of the data, following the judgment of the CJEU in case C-210/16;

Amendment 75 #

Paragraph 21

21. Calls on all online platforms to urgently roll out planned transparency features in relation to political advertising, which should include consultation and evaluation of these tools by national authorities in charge of electoral observation and control; insists that such political and electoral advertising should not be done on the basis of individual user profiles; regrets that the Commission in its Recommendation from 12 September 2018 only focuses on transparency and not on a clear ban on individually targeted political advertising;

Amendment 76 #

Romeo FRANZ, Max ANDERSSON

Paragraph 21 a (new)

21 a. Calls on Member States to adapt the electoral rules to online campaigning including transparency on funding, silence periods and the role of the media and disinformation;

Amendment 77 #

Paragraph 23

~~23. Calls on Facebook to improve its transparency to enable users to understand how and why a political party or campaign might target them;~~deleted

Amendment 78 #

Paragraph 23 a (new)

23 a. Calls on the European Parliament to encourage the British Government to legislate as soon as possible to review the new rules under ‘The Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2018’ applying to the North of Ireland, recognising that the new rules do not apply to retroactive donations, and still incur legislative loopholes as per the work undertaken via campaigning journalism by OpenDemocracy;

Amendment 79 #

Paragraph 23 b (new)

23 b. Recognises the work of legal representatives within the non-profit organisation ‘Good Law Project’ in their successful Court case against the Electoral Commission and VoteLeave, which challenged the adequacy of the Electoral Commission’s investigation into spending by VoteLeave alongside their reading of the law around donations;

Amendment 8 #

Recital A

A. whereas investigative journalism uncovered and made public major data leaks of Facebook user data in relation to the access that was granted by Facebook to third party applications and the subsequent abuse of this data for electoral campaigning efforts and other ~~personal data breaches of~~infringements of personal data rules regarding personal data held and gathered by major social media companies that came to light afterwards;

Amendment 80 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 23 c (new)

23 c. Recognises that the non-profit ‘Good Law Project’ are continuing their efforts to uphold transparent, open and accountable politics, fundraising for a continued legal challenge, that the same logic must apply to the Constitutional Research Council, the body that gave the £435,000 donation to the Democratic Unionist Party;

Amendment 81 #

Paragraph 24

24. Takes the view that data protection authorities should have the same, if not more technical expert knowledge as those organisations under scrutiny. Suggests this objective could be reached by introducing funding by a levy on the sector concerned;deleted

Amendment 82 #

Paragraph 24

Amendment 83 #

Paragraph 24

24. Takes the view that data protection authorities should have the same, if not more technical expert knowledge as those organisations under scrutiny~~. Suggests this objective could be reached by introducing funding by a levy on the sector concerned~~; Calls on the Member States to ensure that the data protection authorities are provided with the human, technical and financial resources necessary for the effective performance of their tasks and exercise of their powers, as required under Article 52 of the GDPR. Urges the Commission to closely scrutinise the Member States on their obligation to make these resources available, and if necessary, to start infringement procedures;

Amendment 84 #

Paragraph 24

24. Takes the view that data protection authorities should ~~have the same, if not mor~~be provided with adequate funding to build up the same technical expert knowledge as those organisations under their scrutiny~~. Suggests this objective could be reached by introducing funding by a levy on the sector concerned~~;

Amendment 85 #

Paragraph 24

Amendment 86 #

Paragraph 26

26. Recalls its Resolution of 5 July 2018 on the Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-US Privacy Shield and, in view of the acknowledgement by Facebook that major privacy breaches occurred; calls on the US authorities responsible for enforcing the Privacy Shield to act upon such revelations without delay in full compliance with the assurances and commitments given to uphold the current Privacy Shield arrangement and, if needed, to remove such companies from the Privacy Shield list; ~~welcomes, in this regard, the removal of Cambridge Analytica from the Privacy Shield in June 2018;~~ calls also on the competent EU data protection authorities to investigate such revelations and, if appropriate, suspend or prohibit data transfers under the Privacy Shield; expects the FTC, as the responsible US authority to provide the Commission with a detailed summary of its findings once it has concluded its investigation into the data breach involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica and to take appropriate enforcement action against the companies involved to provide an effective deterrent;

Amendment 87 #

Paragraph 26 a (new)

26 a. Regrets that the deadline for the US to be fully compliant with the Privacy Shield of 1 September 2018 has not been met; considers therefore that the Commission has failed to act in accordance with Article 45(5) GDPR; urges therefore, in line with its Resolution of 5 July 2018 on the Adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-US Privacy Shield, the Commission to suspend the Privacy Shield until the US authorities comply with its terms;

Amendment 88 #

Paragraph 27

27. Notes that the misuse of personal data affects the fundamental rights of billions of people around the globe; considers that the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive provide for the highest standards of protection; regrets that Facebook decided to move 1.5 billion non-EU users out of the reach of the protection of the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive;urges all online platforms to apply the GDPR standards (and the e-privacy) to all their services, regardless of where they are offered, as high standard of protection of personal data is increasingly seen as a major competitive advantage;

Amendment 89 #

Paragraph 27

27. Notes that the misuse of personal data affects the fundamental rights of billions of people around the globe; considers that the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive provide for the highest standards of protection; regrets that Facebook decided to move 1.5 billion non-EU users out of the reach of the protection of the GDPR and the e-Privacy Directive; questions the legality of such a move; urges all online platforms to apply the GDPR standards (and the e-privacy) to all their services, regardless of where they are offered, as high standard of protection of personal data is increasingly seen as a major competitive advantage;

Amendment 9 #

Recital B

B. whereas th~~ese~~is misuse of personal data ~~breaches~~ impacted citizens across the globe, including European citizens and non- European citizens residing on European Union territory, whereas various national parliaments conducted hearings, inquiries and published findings on the matter;

Amendment 90 #

Paragraph 28

Amendment 91 #

Paragraph 28

28. Calls on the European Commission to upgrade the competition rules to reflect the digital reality and to look into the business model of social media platforms and their possible monopoly situation, taking into due account the fact that such a monopoly could be present rather due to the specificity of the brand and the amount of personal data that is held rather than an traditional monopoly situation and to take the necessary measures to remedy this; calls on the Commission to propose amendments to the European Electronic Communications Code that also require over-the-top communications providers to interconnect with others, in order to overcome the lock-in effect for their users;

Amendment 92 #

Paragraph 29

Amendment 93 #

Paragraph 29

29. Requests the European Parliament, the Commission, the Council and all other European Union institutions, agencies and bodies to verify that the social media pages and the analytical and marketing tools used on their respective websites should not by any means put to risk the personal data of citizens; suggests them to evaluate their current communication policies in that perspective which may result in considering closing their Facebook accounts as a necessary condition to protect the personal data of every individual contacting them; instructs its own communications department to strictly adhere to the EDPS Guidelines on the protection of personal data processed through web services provided by EU institutions1; 1 https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publ ication/16-11- 07_guidelines_web_services_en.pdf

Amendment 94 #

Draft motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Urges Council to continue negotiations on the E-Privacy Regulation and to strike an agreement with the European Parliament so as to ensure that the rights of citizens especially regarding the protection of users against targeting are protecdeleted;

Amendment 95 #

Birgit SIPPEL

Paragraph 30

30. Urges Council to ~~continue negotiations~~end the deadlock on the E-Privacy Regulation, and to finally strike an agreement with the European Parliament without lowering the level of protection currently afforded by the ePrivacy directive so as to ensure that the rights of citizens especially regarding the protection of users against targeting are protected;

Amendment 96 #

Paragraph 32 a (new)

32 a. Calls on the Member States to take measures to address the risks posed to the security of network and information systems used for the organisation of elections.

Amendment 97 #

Auke ZIJLSTRA, Nicolas BAY, Gilles LEBRETON, Giancarlo SCOTTÀ

Paragraph 32 b (new)

32 b. Member States should engage with third parties, including media, online platforms and information technology providers, in awareness raising activities aimed at increasing the transparency of elections and building trust in the electoral processes.

Amendment 98 #

Paragraph 33

33. Is of the opinion Eurojust should urgently initiate, in cooperation with Member States authorities a special investigation into the alleged misuse of the online political space by foreign forces; calls on the Commission to swiftly come up with the necessary proposals to enlarge the competences of EPPO to include prosecution of crimes against electoral infrastructure;deleted

Amendment 99 #