Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) Council Decision 2009/917/JHA10 on the use of information technology for customs purposes establishes the Customs Information System (CIS) to assist in preventing, investigating and prosecuting serious contraventions of national laws by making information available more rapidly and increase the effectiveness of the customs administrations. In order to ensure a consistent approach to the protection of personal data in the Union, that Decision should be amended to align it with Directive (EU) 2016/680. In particular, the personal data protection rules should respect the principle of purpose ~~specific~~limitation, be limited to specified categories of data subjects and categories of personal data, respect data security requirements, include additional protection for special categories of personal data and respect the conditions for subsequent processing. Moreover, provision should be made for the coordinated supervision model as introduced by Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2018/172511 . _________________ 10 Council Decision 2009/917/JHA on the use of information technology for customs purposes (OJ L 323, 10.12.2009, p. 20). 11 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).

2023/11/06
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) in respect of Regulation (EU) [API law enforcement], where the API data relates to other intra-EU flights than those included the lists referred to in Article 5(2) of that Regulation.~~deleted

2023/09/06
Committee: LIBE

(5) This Regulation ensures that users of a product or related service in the Union can access, in a timely manner, the data generated by the use of that product or related service and that those users can use the data, including by sharing them with third parties of their choice. It imposes the obligation on the data holder to make data available to users and third parties nominated by the users in certain circumstances. It also ensures that data holders make data available to data recipients in the Union under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and in a transparent manner. Private law rules are key in the overall framework of data sharing. Therefore, this Regulation adapts rules of contract law and prevents the exploitation of contractual imbalances that hinder fair data access and use for micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC. This Regulation also ensures that data holders make available to public sector bodies of the Member States and to Union institutions, agencies or bodies, where there is an exceptional need, the data that are necessary ~~for the performance of tasks carried out in the public interest~~to respond to, prevent, or assist in the recovery from a public emergency. In addition, this Regulation seeks to facilitate switching between data processing services and to enhance the interoperability of data and data sharing mechanisms and services in the Union. This Regulation should not be interpreted as recognising or creating any legal basis for the data holder to hold, have access to or process data, or as conferring any new right on the data holder to use data generated by the use of a product or related service. Instead, it takes as its starting point the control that the data holder effectively enjoys, de facto or de jure, over data generated by products or related services.

2022/11/17
Committee: LIBE

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Petar VITANOV, Matjaž NEMEC

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) Data generated by the use of a product or related service should only be made available to a third party at the request of the user. This Regulation accordingly complements the right provided under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. That Article provides for a right of data subjects to receive personal data concerning them in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format, and to port those data to other controllers, where those data are processed on the basis of Article 6(1), point (a), or Article 9(2), point (a), or of a contract pursuant to Article 6(1), point (b). Data subjects also have the right to have the personal data transmitted directly from one controller to another, but only where technically feasible. Article 20 specifies that it pertains to data provided by the data subject but does not specify whether this necessitates active behaviour on the side of the data subject or whether it also applies to situations where a product or related service by its design observes the behaviour of a data subject or other information in relation to a data subject in a passive manner. The right under this Regulation complements the right to receive and port personal data under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in several ways. It grants users the right to access and make available to a third party to any data generated by the use of a product or related service, irrespective of its nature as personal data, of the distinction between actively provided or passively observed data, and irrespective of the legal basis of processing. Unlike the technical obligations provided for in Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, this Regulation mandates and ensures the technical feasibility of third party access for all types of data coming within its scope, whether personal or non-personal. It also allows the data holder to set reasonable compensation to be met by third parties, but not by the user, ~~for~~which cannot exceed any cost incurred in providing direct access to the data generated by the user’s product. If a data holder and third party are unable to agree terms for such direct access, the data subject should be in no way prevented from exercising the rights contained in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, including the right to data portability, by seeking remedies in accordance with that Regulation. It is to be understood in this context that, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a contractual agreement does not allow for the processing of special categories of personal data by the data holder or the third party.

2022/11/17
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Paragraph 2, point (b), shall not apply in either of the following cases where non-personal data are concerned:

2022/11/17
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) The European Digital Identity Wallet should technically enable the selective disclosure of attributes to relying parties. This feature should become a basic design feature thereby reinforcing convenience and personal data protection including minimisation of processing of personal data. The data requested from the user via the European Digital Identity Wallet have to be strictly necessary and proportionate for the intended use case of the relying party and follow the principle of data minimisation.

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014
Article 3 – point 5

"(5) ‘authentication’ means an electronic process that enables t~~he electronic identification of a natural or legal person, or the origin and integrity of data in electronic form to be confirmed;~~ o verify the data presented" Or. en (32014R0910)

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014
Article 6a – paragraph 4 – point a – point 2 a (new)

(2 a) for relying parties to be uniquely identified in order to be able to include their identification data, use cases and user data requests in a public register overseen by supervisory authorities established under Regulation (EU) 2016/679;

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014
Article 6a – paragraph 4 – point a – point 3

(3) for the presentation to relying parties of person identification data such as credentials, electronic attestation of attributes or other data ~~such as credentials~~, in local mode not requiring internet access for the wallet and for the user to make an informed decision about the sharing of personal information with relying parties. This includes identification of the relying party, complete or partial refusal of information requests from relying parties, a full transaction history, the possibility to withdraw previously given consent to information requests ~~for the walle~~and information about the exercise of rights as data subject;

2022/06/13
Committee: LIBE

2021/0136(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Paul TANG

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014

7 e. The user shall be entitled to request a backup function of the data they have in their European Digital Identity Wallet from the wallet issuer in situations of unavailability of the wallet, and in case of loss or theft of their device. This backup function shall be enabled only with the explicit prior consent of the user and it shall be complemented with reinforced identity checks.

Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Rovana PLUMB, Lina GÁLVEZ, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alessandra MORETTI, Pina PICIERNO, Marina KALJURAND, Heléne FRITZON, Robert HAJŠEL, Miroslav ČÍŽ, Irène TOLLERET, Evelyn REGNER, Maria NOICHL, Robert BIEDROŃ, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Pierrette HERZBERGER-FOFANA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7

— having regard to ~~CEDAW~~to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms od Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and its General Recommendations No. 21 (1994), No. 24 (1999), No. 28 (2010), No. 33 (2015) and No. 35 (2017),

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

- having regard to the report of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination of 18 October 2017 on promoting the human rights of and eliminating discrimination against intersex people,

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas SRHR challenges and obstacles include: a lack of access, denial of medical care based on personal beliefs, gender-based violence, gynaecological and obstetric violence, a lack of comprehensive sexuality education, denial of access to information/education, a lack of available contraception methods, limited access to medically assisted reproduction treatments, forced sterilisation, including in the context of legal gender recognition, high rates of STIs and HIV, disparities in maternal mortality, high adolescent pregnancy rates, harmful gender stereotypes and practices such as female and intersex genital mutilation, early, forced and child marriages ~~and honour killings;~~ , honour killings and so-called “conversion therapy” practices, which can take the form of sexual violence such as “corrective rape” on lesbian and bisexual women and girls, as well as transgender persons; whereas the enjoyment of SRHR for LGBTI persons may be severely hindered due to the omission in sexual education curricula of the diversity of sexual orientation, gender identity, expression and sex characteristics;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas the World Health Organisation defines infertility as “a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse”; whereas this definition fails to encompass the reality of lesbian and bisexual women as well as transgender persons in same- sex couples or single women interested in fertility options, worsening the socio-legal challenges in access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) they already face as a result of the focus on countering infertility; whereas lesbian and bisexual women may be unable to prove their “infertility” and therefore be denied access to ART;1a _________________ 1a https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/to pics/infertility/definitions/en/

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

F b. whereas in certain circumstances transgender men and non-binary persons may also undergo pregnancy and should, in such cases, benefit from measures for pregnancy and birth-related care without discrimination on the basis of their gender identity;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Marina KALJURAND, Heléne FRITZON, Robert HAJŠEL, Miroslav ČÍŽ, Irène TOLLERET, Evelyn REGNER, Maria NOICHL, Robert BIEDROŃ, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Rovana PLUMB, Lina GÁLVEZ, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alessandra MORETTI, Pina PICIERNO, Pierrette HERZBERGER-FOFANA

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the unavailability of scientifically accurate ~~inform~~and evidence-based information and education violates the rights of individuals to make informed choices about their own SRHR; and undermines healthy approaches to sexuality, family planning and gender equality;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Alessandra MORETTI, Pina PICIERNO, Marina KALJURAND, Robert HAJŠEL, Miroslav ČÍŽ, Irène TOLLERET, Evelyn REGNER, Maria NOICHL, Robert BIEDROŃ, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Rovana PLUMB, Lina GÁLVEZ, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Vera TAX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Stresses the negative effects of the so-called “tampon tax” on gender equality; Calls upon the Member States to eliminate the so-called “tampon tax” by applying a 0% VAT rate on menstrual hygiene products and ensuring that this tax cut is effectively benefitting the consumers;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls that all medical interventions related to SRHR must be undertaken with prior, personal and fully informed consent;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Reaffirms its call on Member States to adopt legislation ensuring that intersex persons are not subjected to non- vital medical or surgical treatment during infancy or childhood, and that their right to bodily integrity, autonomy, self- determination and informed consent is fully respected;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Recalls the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in A.P. Gaçon and Nicot v. France, where it recognised that a Member State’s requirement of sterilisation ahead of allowing legal gender recognition procedures amounted to a failure to secure the right to respect for the private life of the applicant; recalls the UN’s acknowledgement that forced sterilisation is a violation of the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;1a deplores that sterilisation remains a sine qua non condition for access to legal gender recognitions in some EU Member States; calls upon the Member States to abolish the sterilisation requirement and to protect transgender persons' right to self-determination;1b _________________ 1a https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBo dies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session2 2/A.HRC.22.53_English.pdf 1bEuropean Court of Human Rights, Case of A.P., Garçon and Nicot v.France (application nos. 79885/12, 52471/13 and 52596/13).

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Lina GÁLVEZ, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alessandra MORETTI, Pina PICIERNO, Marina KALJURAND, Heléne FRITZON, Robert HAJŠEL, Miroslav ČÍŽ, Irène TOLLERET, Evelyn REGNER, Maria NOICHL, Robert BIEDROŃ, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Rovana PLUMB

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Member States to ensure universal access to scientifically accurate, evidence-based, age-appropriate, non- judgemental and comprehensive sexuality education and information for all primary and secondary school children ~~in line with WHO standard~~, as well as children out of school, in line with WHO standards for Sexuality Education and its Action Plan on Sexual and Reproductive Health; without discrimination on any ground; Urges the Member States to ensure comprehensive education about menstruation and its links to sexuality and fertility; Calls upon the Member States to establish well-developed, well- funded and free of charge youth-friendly services;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

Motion for a resolution
Subheading d

Maternity, pregnancy and birth-related care for all

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

2020/2215(INI)

Predrag Fred MATIĆ, Marina KALJURAND, Heléne FRITZON, Robert HAJŠEL, Miroslav ČÍŽ, Irène TOLLERET, Evelyn REGNER, Maria NOICHL, Robert BIEDROŃ, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Rovana PLUMB, Lina GÁLVEZ, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alessandra MORETTI, Pina PICIERNO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls upon the Member States to adopt measures to ensure ~~that all women have access to affordable, evidence-based maternity care~~access without discrimination to high-quality, affordable, evidence-based and respectful maternity care for all; including midwifery, antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care, and maternal mental health support in accordance with current WHO standards and evidence; and consequently, reform laws, policies and practices that exclude certain groups of women from access to maternity care, including by removing legal and policy restrictions that apply on grounds of nationality, ethnicity or migration status;

2020/12/14
Committee: FEMM

Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandals revealed how user data had been used to micro-target certain voters with political advertising, and at times, even with targeted disinformation, therefore showing the danger of opaque data processing operations of online platforms;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Ce. whereas the widespread use of algorithms for content filtering and content removal processes also raises rule of law concerns, questions of legality, legitimacy and proportionality;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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~~is based on court order mandated takedowns, but a growing number of Member States are adopting further national legislation to address illegal content;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas some ~~forms of~~ harmful content may be ~~legal, yet~~ detrimental to society or democracy, yet be legal, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms does not provide legitimacy or adequate transparency and proper information to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal ~~and harmful content~~content and content that is deleted against violations of terms and conditions; whereas such an approach does not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights; and creates a risk of excessive interference with the right of freedom of expression and creates a problematic situation where law enforcement responsibilities are handed over to private parties;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas regulatory oversight and supervision ~~of platforms lacks horizontal~~is sector-specific in the EU; whereas further and more comprehensive coordination between the different oversight bodies across the EU would be beneficial;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the absence of uniform and transparent rules for procedural safeguards across the EU is a key obstacle for persons affected by illegal content online and content providers seeking to exercise their rights;deleted

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the lack of comparable, robust public data on the prevalence and both court mandated and self-regulatory removal of illegal and harmful content online creates a deficit of transparency and accountability;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas child sexual exploitation online is one of the forms of illegal content shaped by technological developments; whereas the vast amount of child sexual abuse material circulating online poses serious challenges for detection, investigation and, most of all, victim identification efforts;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas according to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), jurisprudence host providers may have recourse to automated search tools and technologies to assess if content is equivalent to content previously declared unlawful, a~~nd should thus~~s long as it does not result in monitoring generally the information which it stores, or in actively seeking facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity, as provided for in Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31; whereas such content should be removed following an court order from a Member State;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas a trusted electronic identification is elementary to ensure secure access to digital services and to carry out electronic transactions in a safer way; whereas currently only 15 Member States have notified an electronic identity scheme for cross-border recognition in the framework of the Regulation (EU) 910/2014;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that illegal content online ~~should be tackled with the same rigour as illegal content offline~~is the same as illegal content offline; takes therefore the position that any legally mandated content moderation measure in the Digital Services Act should concern only illegal content, as it is defined in European or national law, and the legislative text should not include any legally vague and undefined terms, such as “harmful content”, as targeting such content would put fundamental rights and freedom of speech at serious risk and put the service providers in a legally unclear position;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Paragraph -1. Underlines that the modernisation of current e-Commerce rules can inevitably affect fundamental rights, including the protection of privacy and personal data, the freedom of expression and information, equality and non-discrimination, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the arts and sciences, and the right to an effective remedy; therefore urges the Commission to be extremely vigilant in its approach and also integrate international human rights standards into its revision;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Paragraph -1a. Notes how the current digital ecosystem encourages also problematic behaviour, such as hate speech and disinformation; is concerned how promoting controversial content has become the key to the targeted advertisement-based business models, where sensational and polarising content maximises the screen time of users, generating more profiling data, more advertising hours, and therefore more profits; underlines how this type of a business model can have very intrusive and negative effects, not only on individuals and their fundamental rights, but societies as a whole;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes in the clear economic benefits of a functioning digital single market for the EU and its Member States; stresses the important obligation to ensure a fair digital ecosystem in which fundamental rights ~~and~~, especially data protection ~~are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality~~, privacy and non- discrimination are at its core;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently ~~in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violation~~, through a clear and harmonised notice-and-action procedure with the necessary safeguards in place, such as transparency of the process, the right to appeal and access to effective judicial redress; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issue;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal content online should not ~~only be~~be just removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and, where needed, the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they just 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 improvedalso unopened ones;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)

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;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 the freedom of expression~~reminds in this regard of the incapacity of current automated tools in grasping the importance of context for specific pieces of content, underlines that algorithms are not currently capable of critical analysis, and takes therefore the view that the Digital Services Act should not contain any obligation for compulsory use of automated tools in content moderation; believes that any voluntary automated measures put in place by the content hosting platforms should be subject to extensive human oversight and to full transparency of design and performance;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 new technologies such as the prevalence of all- encompassing profiling and algorithmic decision-making that permeates all areas of life, and ensuring legal clarity and respect for fundamental rights; 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;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Highlights that the practical capacity of individuals to understand and navigate the complexity of the data ecosystems in which they are embedded is extremely limited, as is their ability to identify whether the information they receive and services they use are made available to them on the same terms as to other users; Calls on the Commission therefore to place transparency and non- discrimination at the heart of the Digital Services Act;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Deems it indispensable to have ~~the widest-possible~~full harmonisation of rules on liability exemptions and content moderation at EU level to guarantee the respect of fundamental rights and the freedoms of users across the EU; expresses its concern that recent national laws to tackle hate speech and disinformation lead to a fragmentation of rules;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, ~~for legislative proposals that keep~~that the digital single market is kept open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures ~~and~~with robust procedural safeguards to remove illegal content ~~in line with European values; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market~~via a harmonised notice-and-action procedure in line with European legislation;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes, in this regard, that online platforms that are actively hosting or moderating content should bear more, yet proportionate, responsibility for the infrastructure they provide and the content on it; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting toit is crucial for online platforms to have clarity provided for by setting clear rules, requirements and safeguards for a harmonised notice-and-action procedure; emphasises that any measure put in place for the removal of illegal content cannot constitute or imply a general monitoring requirements;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU

Motion for a resolution
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 address the appearance of illegal content on their services; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach andSupports 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;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses the need for appropriate safeguards and due process obligations, including human oversight and verification, in addition to counter notice procedures, to ensure that removal or blocking decisions are ~~accurate~~legal, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; recalls that ~~the possibility of judicial r~~while counter-notice procedures~~s should be mad~~, complaint mechanisms and out-of-court dispute settlements can be availuable to ~~satisfy the right to effective~~ols in protecting fundamental rights of the users of digital services, they cannot preclude access to effective judicial redress and remedy;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Supports limited liability ~~for content~~exemption for all types of intermediaries and the country of origin principle, ~~but~~and 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; stresses that sanctions should apply only to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that the terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair; ~~deplores the fact that some terms of serv~~recalls that any take- down-notices 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~~an authority has to always be based on law, not on the terms of service of the service providers;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 political advertising policy to ensure that removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessarye need to regulate content curation and tracking-based targeted advertisement through giving more choice and control to users; emphasises that users should be able to choose to opt out completely of any content curation, decide whether to opt in to tracking, and have more options on the way content is ranked to them, including a ranking outside their ordinary content consumption habits; strongly believes that the design and performance of such recommendation systems should be subject to full transparency, presented in a user-friendly manner;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Highlights how the personalisation of informational environments that data- driven profiling makes possible brings with it new capacities to manipulate individuals in subtle, yet highly effective ways; underlines that when the profiling is deployed at scale for political micro targeting to manipulate voting behaviour, it can seriously undermine the foundations of democracy; therefore expects the Commission to provide guidelines on the use of such persuasive digital technologies in electoral campaigns and political advertising policy;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Is concerned of platforms and services that deliberately lock in their users onto that specific platform, thus amplifying their dominant market power and their ability to profile their users even more thoroughly, creating extremely invasive and revealing profiles of their users; calls therefore on the Commission to guarantee the interoperability of digital services; considers in this regard the application programming interfaces (APIs), enabling a user to interconnect between platforms and to import content moderation rules on the content they view on a platform, to be useful tools in bringing true interoperability to users and thus increasing their options to choose between different kinds of recommendation systems and services;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15c. Notes that policies for monetisation of content affect what kind of content is seen by users and therefore finally also what kind of content will be uploaded by users; calls therefore for online content hosting platforms to be required to have transparent, non- discriminatory content demonetisation policies in order to guarantee fully the right to freedom of expression online;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Deems that accountability- and~~Underlines the wedge between the speed and capacity of machines relative to the capacity of humans to monitor these machines; therefore deems that accountability always lies with the human overseers - and calls for evidence-based policy making, requiresing robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online, in order to ensure a transparent system that can be trusted by all;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls~~, in this regard, for a regular public reporting~~ for large commercial obnli~~gation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities~~ne platforms to make their procedures and decisions to remove content publicly available;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities on their requests for deletion of illegal content from digital platforms;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Expresses its concern regarding the ~~fragmentation of public oversight and supervision of platforms and the frequent~~documented lack of financial and human resources for the supervision and oversight bodies needed to properly fulfil their tasks; ~~calls for increased cooperation with regard to regulatory oversight of digital services;~~

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Considers that in order to guarantee proper enforcement of the Digital Services Act, the oversight of compliance with this Act should be entrusted in an independent authority, while any decisions relating to content should always remain with the judiciary; emphasises in this regard that sanctioning for non-compliance with the Digital Services Act should be based on an assessment of a clearly defined set of factors, such as proportionality, technical and organisational measures and negligence, and the resulting sanctions should be based on a percentage of the annual global turnover of a company;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Supports the creation of an independent EU body to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believes that it should enforce procedural safeguards and transparency and provide quick and reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful;deleted

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to this EU body, which should be tasked with drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU level;deleted

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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; 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;deleted

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Emphasises the indispensability of agreed standards of essential security in cyberspace in order for digital services to provide their full benefits to citizens; notes therefore the urgent need for Member States to take coordinated action to ensure basic cyber hygiene and to prevent avoidable dangers in cyberspace, including through legislative measures;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2022(INI)

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Stresses that the only way for digital services to achieve their full potential is to enable users to be identified unambiguously in an equivalent manner to offline services; notes that online identification can be improved by enforcing eIDAS Regulation’s cross- border interoperability of electronic identifications across the European Union; reminds that Member States and European institutions have to guarantee that the electronic identifications are secure, enable data minimisation and comply with all other aspects of GDPR;

2020/06/24
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Eva KAILI, Klára DOBREV, Marina KALJURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes that transparency in an algorithm used for digital products and services is a significant characteristic; upon request of the competent authorities, digital service providers should be obliged to make their proprietary algorithms available, explain the intended goal and compare this goal with the actual outcome; digital service providers should amend and adapt their algorithms immediately when the intended outcome is deemed unlawful or unethical; open- source algorithm libraries should be encouraged as an instrument that increases transparency and accelerates both the technology adoption and the quality of the architecture;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Eva KAILI, Klára DOBREV, Marina KALJURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Underlines that in cases of denial of access to a digital product or service, consumers should always be able to inquire about the logic of the decision and the decision-making process; further notes that consumers should always be explicitly informed whether their engagement is with a human or with a machine; emphasises that humans should always have the final responsibility; calls on the Commission to determine the significant role of human operators in the material execution of a decision made by an artificial intelligence (AI) system;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Marina KALJURAND, Eva KAILI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission to provide a clearly defined notice-and- action framework for the content hosting platforms to use in the fight against illegal content; stresses that such a framework has to guarantee fundamental rights of users through access to judicial redress and the right to appeal;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Marina KALJURAND, Eva KAILI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Reminds of the incompetence of current automated tools in grasping the importance of context for specific pieces of content; takes therefore the view that the Digital Services Act should not contain any obligation for the use of automated tools in content moderation; believes that any voluntary automated measures put in place by the content hosting platforms should be subject to human oversight and to full transparency of design and performance;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Marina KALJURAND, Eva KAILI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Takes the position that any content moderation measure in the Digital Services Act should concern illegal content only as it is defined in national jurisdictions and should not include legally vague and undefined terms, such as “harmful content”, as targeting such content would put fundamental rights and freedom of speech at serious risk;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Marina KALJURAND, Eva KAILI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Emphasises the need to regulate content curation through giving more control to users on the way content is ranked to them, including options to a ranking outside their ordinary content consumption habits and to opt out completely of any content curation; strongly believes that the design and performance of such recommendation systems should be subject to transparency;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Marina KALJURAND, Eva KAILI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2 e. Considers that content hosting platforms should be obliged to report any illegal content constituting a serious crime to the relevant law enforcement authorities upon becoming aware of it;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2018(INL)

Marina KALJURAND, Eva KAILI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Underlines that the only way for users of digital services to be identified in an equivalent manner compared to offline services is the recognition of a pan- European digital identification; reminds in this regard that Member States and European institutions have to guarantee the security of the European digital identification;

2020/05/27
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas digital technologies in general and artificial intelligence (AI) in particular bring with them extraordinary promise; whereas AI iscould be one of the strategic technologies of the 21st century, that may generat~~ing~~e substantial benefits in efficiency, accuracy, and convenience, and thus bringing positive change to the European economy; whereas AI should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a tool for serving people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas AI can be seen as the ability of a system to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation; Whereas the key components of development in AI are the availability of vast quantities of: data, computing power, and human capital and talent;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas, despite continuing advances in computer processing speed and memory capacity, there are as yet no programs that can match human flexibility over wider domains or in tasks requiring understanding of context or critical analysis; whereas, some AI applications have attained the performance levels of human experts and professionals in performing certain specific tasks, and can provide results in a completely different speed and scale;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

A c. whereas several Member States use the application of embedded artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the field of law enforcement;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Birgit SIPPEL, Marina KALJURAND, Katarina BARLEY

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the use of AI technology should be developed in such a way as to put people at its center and therefore to be worth of public trust;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Petar VITANOV, Franco ROBERTI, Birgit SIPPEL, Marina KALJURAND, Katarina BARLEY, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas AI systems always have to be in the service of humans and have the ultimate safety valve of being designed so that they can always be shut down by a human operator;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas AI applications may offer ~~great~~ opportunities in the field of law enforcement, in particular in improving the working methods of law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities, and combating certain types of crime more efficiently, in particular financial crime, money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as certain types of cybercrime; while at the same time entailing significant risks for the fundamental rights of people;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas AI applications in use by law enforcement include applications such as facial recognition technologies, automated number plate recognition, speaker identification, speech identification, lip-reading technologies, aural surveillance (i.e. gunshot detection algorithms), autonomous research and analysis of identified databases, forecasting (predictive policing and crime hotspot analytics), behaviour detection tools, autonomous tools to identify financial fraud and terrorist financing, social media monitoring (scraping and data harvesting for mining connections), international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers, and automated surveillance systems incorporating different detection capabilities (such as heartbeat detection and thermal cameras); whereas the aforementioned applications have vastly varying degrees of reliability and accuracy as well as potentially significant effects on the protection of fundamental rights;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas use of AI in law enforcement entails a number of phigh risks for the protencti~~al risk~~on of fundamental rights of individuals, such as opaque decision- making, different types of discrimination, and risks to the protection of privacy and personal data, the protection of freedom of expression and information, and the presumption of innocence;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers, in this regard, that any AI tool either developed or used by law enforcement or judiciary should, as a minimum, be safe, secure and fit for purpose, respect the principles of data minimisation, fairness, accountability, transparency and explainability, with their de~~ployment~~velopment, deployment and use subject to a strict necessity and proportionality test;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Sees with great concern the potential of mass surveillance by means of AI technologies in the law enforcement sector; Highlights the imp~~ortance~~erative need of preventing such mass surveillance by means of AI technologies, and of banning any applications that would result in it;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Highlights how individuals have become overly trusting in the seemingly objective and scientific nature of AI tools and thus fail to consider the possibility of their results being incorrect, incomplete or irrelevant, with potentially grave adverse consequences specifically in the area of law enforcement and justice; Emphasises the over-reliance on the results provided for by AI systems, and notes with concern the lack of confidence and knowledge, by authorities, to question or override an algorithmic recommendation;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines that in judicial and law enforcement contexts, the final decision always needs to be taken by a human, who can be held accountable for the decisions made, and include the possibility of a recourse for a remedy; reminds that under EU law, automated individual decision making shall not be based on special categories of personal data (personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation), unless suitable measures to safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are in place; highlights that EU law prohibits profiling that results in discrimination against natural persons on the basis of special categories of personal data;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Calls for, in order to guarantee the algorithmic explainability and transparency of law enforcement AI systems, only such tools to be allowed to be purchased by the law enforcement in the Union, which algorithms and logic are open, to at least the police forces themselves, that can be audited, evaluated and vetted by them, and not closed and labelled proprietary by the vendors;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. calls for clear and appropriate time limits to be established for the erasure of personal data or for a periodic review of the need for the storage of personal data processed or generated by AI technologies for law enforcement purposes;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Calls~~Reminds that EU law (Directive (EU) 2016/680) already foresees a mandatory data protection impact assessment for any type of processing, in particular, using new technologies, that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons and is of the opinion that this is the case for all AI technologies in the area of law enforcement; Calls in addition for a compulsory fundamental rights impact assessment to be conducted prior to the implementation or deployment of any AI systems for law enforcement or judiciary, in order to assess any potential risks to fundamental rights;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Birgit SIPPEL, Marina KALJURAND, Katarina BARLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls for a moratorium on the deployment of facial recognition systems for specific law enforcement operations, until the technical standards can be considered fully fundamental rights compliant, results derived are non- discriminatory, and there is public trust in the necessity and proportionality for the deployment of such technologies; calls for a ban of the use of facial recognition in the public sphere where not used in specific law enforcement operations;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2016(INI)

Tudor CIUHODARU, Franco ROBERTI, Petar VITANOV, Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls for the Fundamental Rights Agency, in collaboration with the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor to draft comprehensive guidelines for the development, use and deployment of AI applications and solutions for the use by law enforcement and judicial authorities;

2020/07/20
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Birgit SIPPEL, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that ~~any ethical framework should~~there is a difference between ethics and law and the role they play in our societies; any framework of ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics and related technologies should complement the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and thereby seek to respect human dignity and autonomy, prevent harm, promote fairness, and transparency, respect the principle of explicability of technologies; and guarantee that the technologies are there to serve people, with the ultimate aim of increasing human well-being for everybody;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Birgit SIPPEL, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. SHighlights the power asymmetry between those who employ AI technologies and those who interact and are subject to them; in this context stresses the importance of developing an “ethics-by-default and by design” framework which fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Union law and the Treaties;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Birgit SIPPEL, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the current Union legalislative framework ~~will need to be upda~~on protection of privacy and personal data fully applies to AI, robotics and related technologies, however could benefit from being supplemented with ~~guiding~~robust ethical ~~principl~~guidelines; points out that, where it would be premature to adopt legal acts, a soft law framework should be used;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Promotes Corporate Digital Responsibility on a voluntary basis; the EU should support corporations, who by choice use digital technologies and AI ethically within their companies; the EU should encourage corporations to become proactive by establishing a platform for companies to share their experiences with ethical digitalization, as well as coordinating the actions and strategies of participating companies;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Miriam DALLI, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the protection of networks of interconnected AI and robotics ~~must~~is important, and strong measures must be taken to prevent security breaches, cyber- attacks and the misuse of personal data;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Birgit SIPPEL, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for a comprehensive risk assessment of AI, robotics and related technologies in addition to the impact assessment provided by Article 35 GDPR (Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725); the more impact an algorithm has, the more transparency, auditability, accountability and regulation is needed; where an algorithmic decision leads to a limitation of fundamental rights, there needs to be a very robust assessment in place; in highly critical fields - when health, freedom or human autonomy are directly endangered - the implementation of AI should be prohibited;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Miriam DALLI, Elena YONCHEVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that AI and robotic technology are used more and more in the area of law enforcement and border control ~~could enhance public safety and security; stresses that its use must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity;~~ , often with adverse effects on individuals when it comes to their rights to privacy, data protection and non- discrimination; stresses that the deployment and use of these technologies must respect the principles of proportionality and necessity, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular the rights to data protection, privacy and non- discrimination, as well as the relevant secondary Union law such as EU data protection rules;

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/2012(INL)

Katarina BARLEY, Marina KALJURAND, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Tudor CIUHODARU, Paul TANG, Petar VITANOV, Miriam DALLI, Elena YONCHEVA, Birgit SIPPEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Stresses that AI and robotics are not immune from making mistakes and can easily have inherent bias; notes that biases can be inherent in the underlying datasets, especially when historical data is being used, introduced by the developers of the algorithms, or generated when the systems are implemented in the real world setting; considers the need for legislators to reflect upon the complex issue of liability in the context of criminal justice.

2020/06/15
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of “illegal content” should be defined ~~broad~~appropriately and also covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities where such information is itself illegal. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non- consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is consistent with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) The concept of ‘dissemination to the public’, as used in this Regulation, should entail the making available of information to a potentially unlimited number of persons, that is, making the information easily accessible to users in general without further action by the recipient of the service providing the information being required, irrespective of whether those persons actually access the information in question. ~~The mere possibility to create groups of users of a given service should not, in itself, be understood to mean~~Accordingly, where access to information requires registration or admittance to a group of users, that ~~the~~ information disseminated in that manner is not disseminated to the public. However, the concept should exclude dissemination of information within closed groups consisting of a finite number of pre- determined personshould be considered to be disseminated to the public only where users seeking to access the information are automatically registered or admitted without a human decision or selection of whom to grant access. Interpersonal communication services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council,39 such as emails or private messaging services, ~~fall outside the scope of this Regulation~~are not considered disseminated to the public. Information should be considered disseminated to the public within the meaning of this Regulation only where that occurs upon the direct request by the recipient of the service that provided the information. _________________ 39Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast), OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not apply where, instead of confining itself to providing the services neutrally, by a merely technical and automatic processing of the information provided by the recipient of the service, the provider of intermediary services plays an active role of such a kind as to give it the provider of intermediary services has knowledge of, or control over, ~~that~~ information. Those exemptions should accordingly not be available in respect of liability relating to information provided not by the recipient of the service but by the provider of intermediary service itself, including where the information has been developed under the editorial responsibility of that provider. The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not depend on uncertain notions such as an ‘active’, ‘neutral’ or ‘passive’ role of providers.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, ~~upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal~~after having become aware of the unlawful nature of content, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression. The provider can obtain such actual knowledge or awareness through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent economic operator to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – point i a (new)

(i a) Directive 2002/58/EC.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)

This Regulation shall not apply to matters relating to information society services covered by Regulation (EU) 2016/679and Directive 2002/58/EC.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)

Article 2 a Digital privacy Where technically possible, a provider of an information society service shall enable the use of and payment for that service without collecting personal data of the recipient. A provider of an information society service shall process personal data concerning the use of the service by a recipient only to the extent strictly necessary to enable the recipient to use the service or to charge the recipient for the use of the service. An operator of an online platform shall be allowed to process personal data concerning the use of the service by a recipient for the sole purpose of operating a recommender system if the recipient has given his or her explicit consent, as defined in Article 4(11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Member States shall not require a provider of information society services to retain personal data concerning the use of the service by all recipients. A provider of an information society service shall have the right to provide and support end-to-end encryption services.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.deleted

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court ~~or administrative authority~~, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court ~~or administrative authority~~, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – title

~~Voluntary own-initiative investigations and l~~Legal compliance

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Providers of intermediary services shall not be deemed ineligible for the exemptions from liability referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5 solely because they ~~carry out voluntary own-initiative investigations or other activities aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling of access to, illegal content, or take the necessa~~take the compulsory measures to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title

No general monitoring or, active fact- finding or automated content moderation obligations

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1

No general obligation shall be imposed to monitor the information which providers of intermediary services transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity ~~shall be imposed on those providers~~.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Providers of intermediary services shall not be obliged to use automated tools for content moderation.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. Providers of intermediary services shall, upon the receipt ~~of an~~, via a secure communications channel, of an authenticated order to act against a specific item of illegal content, issued by ~~the relevant~~a national judicial ~~or administrative~~ authorit~~ies~~y, on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, inform the authority issuing the order of the effect given to the orders, without undue delay, specifying the action ~~taken and the moment when the action was~~ taken.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 1

— the identification details of the judicial authority issuing the order and a statement of reasons explaining why the information is illegal content, by reference to the specific provision of Union or national law infringed;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 3

— information about redress mechanisms available to the provider of the service and to the recipient of the service who provided the content;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

(a a) the order is securely and easily authenticated;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

(b a) the territorial scope of an order addressed to a provider that has its main establishment, or, if not established in the Union,its legal representation in another Member State is limited to the issuing Member State;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)

(b b) where addressed to a provider that has its main establishment outside the Union, the territorial scope of the order, where Union law is infringed, is limited to the territory of the Union or, where national law is infringed, to the territory of the Member State issuing the order;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. The Digital Services Coordinator from the Member State of the judicial ~~or administrative~~ authority issuing the order shall, without undue delay, transmit a copy of the orders referred to in paragraph 1 to all other Digital Services Coordinators through the system established in accordance with Article 67.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, define a European technical standard for the secure communication channels that also provide for the authentication of the orders.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. Providers of intermediary services shall, upon receipt ~~of an~~, via a secure communications channel, of an authenticated order to provide a specific item of information about one or more specific individual recipients of the service, issued by ~~the relevant~~a national judicial ~~or administrative~~ authorit~~ies~~y on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, for the purpose of preventing serious threats to public security, inform without undue delay the authority of issuing the order of ~~its receipt and~~ the effect given to the order via a secure communications channel.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 1

— the identification details of the judicial authority issuing the order, a statement of reasons explaining the objective for which the information is required and ~~why the requirement to provide the information is~~the grounds for the necessarity and proportiona~~te to determine compliance by the recipie~~lity of the request, taking due accounts of the intermediary services with applicable Union or national rules, unless such a statement cannot be provided for reasons related to the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminalits impact on the fundamental rights of the specific recipient of the service whose data is sought and the seriousness of the offences;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 1 a (new)

- a unique identifier of the recipients about whom information is sought;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a – indent 2

— information about redress mechanisms available to the provider and to the recipients of the service concerned;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

(a a) the order is securely and easily authenticated;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a b (new)

(a b) the order is issued for the purpose of preventing serious threats to public security;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a c (new)

(a c) the order seeks information on a suspect or suspects of a serious threat to public security;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the order only requires the provider to provide information already legally collected for the purposes of providing the service and which lies within its control;

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3

3. The Digital Services Coordinator from the Member State of the national judicial ~~or administrative~~ authority issuing the order shall, without undue delay, transmit a copy of the order referred to in paragraph 1 to all Digital Services Coordinators through the system established in accordance with Article 67.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The provider shall inform the recipient whose data is being sought without undue delay. As long as necessary and proportionate, in order to protect the fundamental rights of another person, the issuing judicial authority, taking into due account the impact of the request on the fundamental rights of the person whose data is sought, may request the provider to delay informing the recipient. Such a request shall be duly justified, specify the duration of the obligation of confidentiality and shall be subject to periodic review.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. This Article shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to competent administrative authorities ordering online platforms to provide the information listed in Article 22.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Where information is sought for the purpose of criminal proceedings, Regulation (EU) 2021/XXXX on access to electronic evidence shall apply.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 d (new)

3 d. Providers of intermediary services shall transfer the personal data on recipients of their service requested by public authorities only where the conditions of this article are met.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 e (new)

3 e. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, establish a common European information exchange system with secure channels for the handling of authorised cross-border communications, authentication and transmission of the order referred to in paragraph 1 and, where applicable, of the requested data between the competent judicial authority and the provider.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)

Article 13 a Online advertising transparency Providers of intermediary services that display advertising on their online interfaces shall ensure that the recipients of the service can identify, for each specific advertisement displayed to each individual recipient, in a clear, concise and unambiguous manner and in real time: (a) that the information displayed on the interface or parts thereof is an online advertisement, including through prominent and harmonised marking; (b) the natural or legal person on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed and the natural or legal person who finances the advertisement; (c) clear, meaningful and uniform information about the parameters used to determine the recipient to whom the advertisement is displayed; and (e) if the advertisement was displayed using an automated tool and the identity of the person responsible for that tool. 2. The Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing harmonised specifications for the marking referred to in paragraph 1(a)of this Article. 3. Providers of intermediary services shall inform the natural or legal person on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed where the advertisement has been displayed. They shall also inform public authorities, upon their request. 4. Providers of intermediary services that display advertising on their online interfaces shall be able to give easy access to public authorities, NGOs, and researchers, upon their request, to information related to direct and indirect payments or any other remuneration received to display the corresponding advertisement on their online interfaces.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 b (new)

Article 13 b Targeting of digital advertising 1. Providers of intermediary services shall not collect or process personal data as defined by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for the purpose of showing digital advertising to recipients of their service, of other information society services, or directly to the public. 2. Providers of intermediary services may show targeted digital advertising based on contextual information. 3. The use of the contextual information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be permissible only if it does not allow for the direct or indirect identification of a natural person, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 c (new)

Article 13 c Recipients’ consent for advertising practices 1. Providers of intermediary services shall not, by default, subject the recipients of their services to targeted, micro-targeted and behavioural advertisement, unless the recipient of the service has expressed a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous consent to receiving such advertising. Providers of intermediary services shall ensure that recipients of services can easily make an informed choice when expressing their consent by providing them with meaningful information about the use of their personal data. 2. When processing personal data for targeted, micro-targeted and behavioural advertising, where consent has been received, online intermediaries shall comply with relevant Union law and shall not engage in activities that can lead to pervasive tracking, such as disproportionate combination of data collected by platforms, or disproportionate processing of special categories of personal data. 3. Providers of intermediary services shall organise their online interface in a way that provides clear information regarding the advertising parameters and allows the recipients of services to easily and efficiently access and modify those advertising parameters. Providers of intermediary services shall regularly monitor the use of advertising parameters by the recipients of services and make improvements to their use where necessary.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND, Paul TANG

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) the name and an electronic mail address of the individual or entity submitting the notice, except in the case of information considered to involve one of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2011/93/EU;deleted

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

2020/0361(COD)

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3

3. Notices that include the elements referred to in paragraph 2 shall be considered to give rise to actual knowledge or awareness for the purposes of Article 5 in respect of the specific item of information concernedThe individual or entity submitting the notice may choose to provide their name and an electronic mail address that shall not be disclosed to the content provider except in cases of alleged violations of intellectual property rights.

2021/06/10
Committee: LIBE

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

(fa) a policy, including relevant procedures and governance frameworks, to support and promote the establishment of cybersecurity PPPs;

2021/06/03
Committee: ITRE

3. If the preservation is no longer necessary, the issuing authority shall inform the addressees without undue delay and the preservation shall cease immediately.

2019/12/11
Committee: LIBE