Another amendment sneaked in to Telecoms Package
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 11 August 2008
Key amendment switched at the last minute before the 7 July vote. What kind of law-making is this?
Annexe 1, Point 19 amendment to the Authorisation Directive has been deleted and replaced with an alternative text, that paves the way for ISP filtering at the framework level of EU law.
Annexe 1, Point 19 of the Authorisation Directive was an amendment which meant that EU governments could place copyright enforcement as a term of doing business for ISPs. In principle, it's a good thing that it has been deleted. What I am concerned about, is the possible interpretation of the text that has replaced it.
The deletion was voted through by the Industry, Research and Energy committee (ITRE) on July 7th. In its place, there is a new text, which refers to another amendment - Article 8 - point 4 - g. This amendment refers (via another linked amendment) to co-operation between ISPs and rights-holders. I have now been able to analyse it, and as I suspected, it means
more or less the same thing as the original amendment. It just says it in a roundabout way, instead of saying it directly, as the original one did.
Annexe 1, Point 19 of the Authorisation Directive was inserted by the College of Commissioners, with no scrutiny by the Commission Directorate responsible for this legislation, and was largely overlooked in the discussion before the ITRE vote. This amendment - Point 19a -was not, to my knowledge, discussed as a compromise amendment. It has therefore had no scrutiny whatsoever, by any Parliamentarian. I found it as Amendment 821 out of 830 amendments in the ITRE committee report, so it's fair to ask whether it really got the scrutiny it deserved.
This is an appalling way to make laws. Amendments, hidden within a long text on a different piece of policy, suddenly switched at the last minute before a vote, in such a fashion that no-one even knows they are there.
It would be comical, if it wasn't so serious and if it didn't mean the difference between a free or a restricted Internet.
I have amended my paper of 21 July to include this change - click here to download the pdf.
- Article Views: 10495
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill