Activities of Kris PEETERS related to 2020/2022(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (debate)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (continuation of debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed
Amendments (33)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 c (new)
Citation 7 c (new)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed onfor online intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market while guaranteeing users fundamental rights; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be carefully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal market, and calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose the most efficient and effective solutions for the internal market as a whole without creating new administrative burdens and keeping the digital single market open and competitive;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 d (new)
Citation 7 d (new)
— having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission recommendation of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online (C(2018) 1177 final);
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
— having regard to the Europol Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) of 18 September 2018;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthenwhere needed, updated in the Digital Services Act to better protect users and consumers, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEscompanies, SMEs and microbusinesses in particular; _________________ 1 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to introduce provisions protecting consumers from harmful microtargeting; in this respect, believes that specific limitations, i.e. of microtargeting based on characteristics exposing physical or psychological vulnerabilities, transparency obligations in regard to algorithms used by platforms and adequate tools empowering users to enforce fundamental rights online, are necessary in order to protect consumer rights effectively;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the amount of user- generated content, including harmful and illegal content, shared via cloud services or online platformsonline platforms, including cloud services, has increased exponentially;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that online intermediaries, including microcompanies, SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content; warns that overburdening businesses with disproportionate new obligations could further hinder the growth of SMEs and require recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes theat there are often significant differences between digital services and; therefore calls for the avoidance of a one-size-fits-all approach, where differentiation of instruments is needed;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the political approach to tackle harmful and illegal content online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far, but a growing number of Member States are adopting national legislation to address illegal content and provisions to address certain types of content were included in recent sectoral legislation at EU level;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the fact that mdisinformativeon and harmful content is not always illegal in every Member State; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice- and-takedown process; supports an intensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders with the aim of deepening the soft law approach based on good practices such as the EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation,action mechanism; Believes that such a process adding requirements for platforms to take any measures regarding the content they host must take note of the significant differences between digital services and be proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities so as to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and any restrictions of fundamental rights as a result, such as any restriction on the freedom of expression; Supports greater cooperation between Member States, competent authorities and platforms with the aim of developing and improving soft law approaches in order to further tackle mdisinformation;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the introduction of appropriate safeguards, due process obligations and counter- notice toolprocedures to allow content owners to defend their rights adequately and in a timely manner when notified of any takedown; underlines its view that delegating the responsibility to set boundaries on freedom of speech to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizens and businesses, neither of which are qualified to take such decisions.; Believes that the removal of content should be followed up by law enforcement where needed;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the lack of robust public data on the prevalence and removal of illegal and harmful content online creates a deficit of accountability, both in the private and public sector; this includes the use and underlying source codes of algorithmic processes and how platforms address the erroneous removal of content;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas child sexual exploitation online is shaped by technological developments, such as the increased use of end-to-end encryption and the dark web; whereas the vast amount of child sexual abuse material circulating online poses serious challenges for detection, investigation and, most of all, victim identification efforts;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes in the clear societal and economic benefits of a functioning digital single market for the EU and its Member States; welcomes these benefits, in particular improved access to information and the strengthening of the freedom of expression; stresses the important obligation to ensure a fair digital ecosystem in which fundamental rights and data protection are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they have unresolved cases but rather unopened ones; calls for barriers to filing complaints with competent authorities to be removed; is convinced that, given the borderless nature of the internet and the fast dissemination of illegal content online, cooperation between service providers and national competent authorities should be improved; calls, to this end, on Member States to equip their law enforcement and judicial authorities with the necessary expertise, resources and tools to allow them to effectively deal with the increasing number of cases involving illegal content online;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the fact that, while the illegal nature of certain types of content can be easily established, the decision is more difficult for other types of content as it requires contextualisation; warns that some automated tools are not sophisticated enough to take contextualisation into account, which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on thtakedowns and harm the freedom of expression; highlights that illegal content online can easily be multiplied which greatly amplifies the negative impact within a very short period of time; therefore believes that digital service providers should be allowed to have freedom of expresscourse to automated tools with human oversight to detect, remove or block access to content whose illegality has either been established by a court or can be easily determined without contextualisation;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
considers, in this regard, that other stakeholders in the online ecosystem, such as users, right holders and media, can also play an important role in establishing whether content is illegal based on the specific context; invites these stakeholders to cooperate closely and exchange information with platforms to help them to effectively identify and address illegal content;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that a specific piece of information may be deemed illegal in one Member State but is covered by the right to freedom of expression in another; calls for a structured dialogue between Member States in order to assess the risk of specific types of content;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly believes that the current EU legal framework governing digital services should be updated with a view to addressing the challenges posed by the fragmentation between the Member States and new technologies, ands well as ensuring legal clarity and respect for fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of expression; considers that the reform should build on the solid foundation of and full compliance with existing EU law, especially the General Data Protection Regulation and the Directive on privacy and electronic communications;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to remove illegal content in line with European values, while also establishing a procedure for collaboration with law enforcement and judicial authorities; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that this should include rules on the notice-and-action mechanisms and requirements for platforms to take proactive measures that are proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities in order to effectively address the appearance of illegal content on their services, while leaving the choice of the concrete measures to the platforms; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and a clear chain of responsibility to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Supports limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but considers improved coordination for removal requests between national competent authorities to be essential; emphasises that such orders should be subject to legal safeguards in order to prevent abuse and ensure full respect of fundamental rights; highlights that removal requests from competent authorities should be specific and clearly state the legal basis for removal; stresses that sanctions should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair, fair and be made available in an easy and accessible manner to users; deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal accounts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safety;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines that certain types of legal, yet harmful, content should also be addressed to ensure a fair digital ecosystem; expects guidelines to include increased transparency rules on content moderation or politicaland advertising policy to ensure that the removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessary; calls on the commission to consider this in a specific instrument accompanying the Digital Services Act;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Maintains that these forms of harmful content include micro targeting based on characteristics exposing physical or psychological vulnerabilities, health related content such as disinformation on COVID-19 causes or remedies and emerging issues such as the organised abuse of multiple platforms, artificial intelligence applications creating fake profiles or manipulating online content; points out that special attention should be paid to harmful content in the context of minors using the internet, especially in regard to their exposure to cyberbullying, sexual harassment, pornography, violence or self-harm;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – indent 1 (new)
Paragraph 15 – indent 1 (new)
- Considers that, as a general principle, targeted advertising can have a positive economic and societal impact and points to the fact that GDPR needs to be fully and properly enforced to ensure the respect of users' privacy;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deems that accountability-, both in the private and public sector, and evidence-based policy making requires robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities, more specifically on their content moderation procedures, including standardised data about the amount of content removed and the underlying reasons, the type and justification of removal requests received, the number of requests whose execution was refused and the reasons therefore;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities, including standardised data on the number of removal requests and their legal bases, on the number of removal requests which were subject to administrative or judicial remedies, on the outcome of these proceedings, and on the total number of decisions imposing penalties, including a description of the type of penalty imposed;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Supports the creation of an independent EU body to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believstresses that it should guarantee a harmonised implementation of these rules across the Union and enforce procedural safeguards and transparency and provide quick and; believes that it should provide reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that this EU body should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content, for example recommendation engines and optimisation features such as autocomplete and trending; calls for this regulator to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;