Reding deals a split hand on citizens rights
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 07 November 2008
The European Commission is playing an odd kind of card game with the Telecoms Package amendments. It supports Amendment 138 to the Framework directive, but drops amendment 166 to the Universal Service directive, yet both amendments support the same principles. Either Mrs Reding genuinely wants to see the Internet remain open and users treated fairly, or she is playing some kind of political poker.
The European Commission's opinion on the amendments to the Telecoms Package was released late today - no doubt they were hoping to bury it over the week-end. Because in spite of the political wool which they continue to eke out of their creaking PR spindle, the controversial and inflamatory presence of content matters and copyright enforcement is still plain to be seen.
If Mrs Reding genuinely had realised the error of her ways, we would have expected to see the non-acceptance of amendments 112 and 61 - the linked co-operation and lawful content amendments. We would also have expected the scrapping of all the content-related amendments, including the requirements to place restrictions in users contracts and not anticipated that the Commission would reinsert the text to inform users about 'copyright infringements and their legal consequences'. Both of these being key requirements for graduated response measures.
And it goes without saying, that she would be able to support both Framework directive 138 and Universal Service 166.
But Mrs Reding has dropped one card on the table. This is the Commission's refusal to accept amendment 120. This amendment deleted the requirement for ISPs to enforce copyright and copyright enforcement law. It was one of the copyright hooks, inserted by the College of commissioners - rumoured by Mrs Reding herself - before the Telecoms Package began its journey through the Parliament.
If ever there was a giveaway, this is it. The Commission is making it clear that it wants copyright, and copyright enforcement to stay in the Telecoms Package. The question is, what will it do with card number 138?
- Article Views: 10252
IPtegrity politics
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- 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
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
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- 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?