23 Amendments of Moritz KÖRNER related to 2020/2018(INL)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Stresses that the reform ofthe current liability regime for digital service providers must be proportionate, must not disadvantage small and medium sized companies, and must not limit innovation, access to information, and freedom of expression;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Is convinced that digital service providers must not retain data for law enforcement purposes unless a targeted retention of an individual user’s data is directly ordered by a democratically accountable competent public authority in line with Union law.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Requests that digital services should to the maximum extent possible be accessible without the need for users to reveal their identity;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Reiterates that digital service providers must respect and enable their users’ right to data portability as laid down in Union law;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. RIs against any kind of general Internet sign-in system; recommends Commission to work on harmonising the national personal identification sign-ins with a view to creating a single Union sign-in system in order to ensure the protection of personal data and age verification, especially for children, for digital services, which require personal identification or age verification;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Favours an opt-in over an opt-out system for targeted advertising;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes the potential negative impact of micro-targeted advertising and of assessment of individuals without their consent, especially on minors and other vulnerable groups, by interfering in the private life of individuals, posing questions as to the collection and use of the data used to target said advertising, offering products or services or setting prices; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce a limitation on micro-targeted advertisements without consent, especially on vulnerable groups, and a prohibition on the use of discriminatory practices for the provision of services or products.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to set up, similarly to the European system of financial supervision (ESFS), a European system of digital services' supervision and to task existing EU agencies and competent national supervisory authorities to audit digital service providers’ internal policies and algorithms with due regard to Union law and in all circumstances to the fundamental rights of the services’ users, taking into account the fundamental importance of non-discrimination and the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society, and without publishing commercially sensitive data; requests that this European system of digital services' supervision ensures that the rules applicable to digital service providers are adequately implemented and enforced across Member States in order to provide protection for the services’ users and to facilitate a European digital single market.
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Is convinced that it is solely the task of democratically accountable competent public authorities to decide on the legality of content online.
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Stresses that digital service providers must only be mandated to take their users’ content offline based on sufficiently substantiated orders by democratically accountable competent public authorities.
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5 d. Calls on digital service providers to take content offline in a diligent, proportionate and non-discriminatory manner, and with due regard in all circumstances to the fundamental rights of the users and to take into account the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society with a view to avoiding the removal of content, which is not illegal; requests digital service providers, which on their own initiative want to restrict certain legal content of their users, to explore the possibility of labelling rather than taking offline that content, giving users the chance to self- responsibly choose to access that content.
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5 e. Expects digital service providers to establish fair and transparent notice mechanisms, which empower users to notify the relevant democratically accountable competent public authorities of potentially illegal content.
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)
Paragraph 5 f (new)
5 f. Requires digital service providers that become aware of alleged illegal content of their users to notify the competent public authorities without undue delay.
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 g (new)
Paragraph 5 g (new)
5 g. Requests Member States and digital service providers to put in place transparent, effective, fair, and expeditious complaint and redress mechanisms to allow users to challenge the taking offline of their content.
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 h (new)
Paragraph 5 h (new)
5 h. Requests Member States to improve access to and the efficiency of their justice and law enforcement systems in relation to determining the illegality of online content and in relation to dispute resolution concerning the taking offline of content, and to consider to this end the establishment of specialised courts and law enforcement units within their national judicial and law enforcement systems.
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 i (new)
Paragraph 5 i (new)
5 i. Believes that neither infrastructure service providers, payment providers, and other companies offering services to digital service providers, nor digital service providers with a direct relationship with the user must be held liable for the content a user on his own initiative uploads or downloads; believes at the same time that digital service providers, which have a direct relationship with the user who uploaded the illegal content and which have the ability to take distinct pieces of the user’s content offline, must be held liable for failing to expeditiously respond to sufficiently substantiated orders by democratically accountable competent public authorities to take the illegal content offline.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 j (new)
Paragraph 5 j (new)
5 j. Stresses that public authorities must not impose any obligation on digital service providers, neither de jure nor de facto, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation to seek, moderate or filter content indicating illegal activity.
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 k (new)
Paragraph 5 k (new)
5 k. Is convinced that digital service providers must not be required to prevent the upload of illegal content; believes at the same time, where technologically feasible, based on sufficiently substantiated orders by democratically accountable competent public authorities, and taking full account of the specific context of the content, that digital service providers may be required to execute periodic searches for distinct pieces of content, which, in line with the ECJ Judgment in Case C-18/18, are identical or equivalent to content that a court had already declared unlawful, and to take that content offline.
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 l (new)
Paragraph 5 l (new)
5 l. Believes that all decisions to take users’ content offline must be subject to human oversight and verification.
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 m (new)
Paragraph 5 m (new)
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 n (new)
Paragraph 5 n (new)
5 n. Calls on digital service providers to take the necessary measures to identify and label content uploaded by social bots.
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 o (new)
Paragraph 5 o (new)
5 o. Requests that digital services providers to the maximum extent possible give their users the possibility to choose which content they want to be presented and in which order.
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 p (new)
Paragraph 5 p (new)
5 p. Requests, based on the principles above, that the Digital Services Act harmonises and replaces the liability measures laid down in the Digital Single Market Copyright Directive, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Terrorist Content Online Regulation.