Activities of József SZÁJER related to 2020/2018(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market
Amendments (10)
Amendment 8 #
1. Stresses that wherever it is technically possible and reasonable, ,intermediaries should be required to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them, since anonymity effectively prevents unauthorised data disclosure and identity theft; notes that where the Directive on Consumer Rights requires commercial traders to communicate their identity, providers of major market places could be obliged to verify their identity, while in other cases the right to use digital services anonymously should be upheldprevent unauthorised data disclosure and identity theft through the effective implementation of applicable data protection and E- privacy rules; notes that establishing the personal identity of sellers in the digital space is essential for the security of digital transactions and therefore it should be made enforceable that they communicate their identity, providers of major market places could be obliged to verify their identity in order to reduce the prevalence of counterfeits and other fraudulent activities, disincentives bad actors online and aide law enforcement. The introduction of such obligations should, however, be proportionate and include appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of users in the course of legitimate and lawful activities;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on Member States to ensure that online service providers verify the identity of their business customers and thus fulfil the requirements set in Article 5 of the e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that automated tools are unable to differentiate illegal content from content that is legal in a given context; highlights that human review of automated reports by service providers does not solve this problem as private staff lack the independence, qualification and acStresses the importance to establish a clear, uniform and up-to-date regulatory framework, with among others clear definitions and more effective rules to fight harmful and illegal countability of public authoritiesent online ; stresses, therefore, that the Digital Services Act should explicitly prohibit any obligation onnsure that online platforms that are actively hosting or moderating content bear more responsibility for the content they host and encourage hosting service providers or other technical intermediaries to use automated tools for content moderation, and refrain from imposing notice-and- stay-down mechanisms; insists that content moderation procedures used by providers should not lead to any ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload-filtering of contentproactive measures such as repeating offender policies, the use of trusted flaggers, bulk notification submissions or automated tools in order to identify and prevent the dissemination of illegal content without prejudice to the ability of the parties concerned to have recourse to judicial remedy;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the notion of expeditious reaction, which is already included in the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the Digital Services Act should ensure that safeguards and legal remedies are available for all measures applied by platforms and digital service providers as independent judicial authorities have the ultimate responsibility for enforcing the law, and they take the final decidingsion on the legality of online activities and on ordering hosting service providers to remove or disable access to illegal content as soon as possible should rest with independent judicial authorities; considers that only a hosting service provider that has actual knowledge of illegal content and its illegal nature should be subject to content removal obligations;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that the spread of false and racist information on social media should be contained byone of the measures against the spread of false and illegal content on social media is giving users control over content proposed to them; stresses that curating content on the basis of tracking user actions should require the user’s consent; proposes that users of social networks should have a right to see their timeline in chronological order; suggests that dominant platforms should provide uensure higher transparency in automated decision-making processers with an API to have content curated by software or services of their choicby making sure that algorithms are not biased, and the decision making processes within an algorithmic system must always remain comprehensible and as transparent as possible;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that, in order to overcome the lock-in effect of centralised networks and to ensure competition and consumer choice, users of dominant social media services and messaging services should be given a right to cross-platform interaction via open interfaces (interconnectivity). Stresses that online marketplaces should be encouraged to impose a locked ecosystem for the use of digital products sold on their services; a high level of interoperability should be ensured by providing these products in a format that is open and allows its exportation to any digital environment;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Emphasises that any new framework in field of the digital services must be manageable for European start- ups and SMEs and should therefore include proportionate obligations and clear safeguards for all sectors;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Stresses the importance to extend the territorial scope of the Digital Services Act to cover also the activities of digital service providers established in third countries as long as they offer their services in the EU. Suggests that where intermediaries are established in a third country, they should designate a legal representative, established in the Union, who can be held accountable for the products or services they offer;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Points that the DSA should pay special attention to users with disabilities and guarantee their accessibility to digital services. The Commission should encourage service providers to develop technical tools that allow persons with disabilities living in the European Union to properly use and benefit from Internet services.