9 Amendments of Ana GOMES related to 2018/2085(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that blockchain represents a new paradigm of data storage and management, the rise of which poses challenges in terms of data protection and transparency,, as the most disruptive technology since the advent of the Internet, is capable of decentralising forms of human interaction and markets, banking and international trade. Hence, as such disruptive force, the rise of blockchain represents a new paradigm of data storage and management that may be equally transformative from the perspective of data protection and transparency and, therefore, poses challenges regarding the protection of fundamental rights and exponentially increases the risks of money laundering, of the capture of the financial system by organiszed crime and of the financing of terrorism;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out the need to ensure that the useWelcomes the fact that the report recognises the challenge posed by the relationship between blockchain technologies and the implementation of blockchain technologies fully respect fundamental rights, in accordance with thethe EU data protection framework, namely the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR), and recalls that, as a result, this relationship might reveal a clash between the protection of fundamental rights, on one hand, and the promotion of innovation on the other hand that has to be addressed in the report; suggests the need to ensure that the blockchain must be fully in conformity with the EU’s data protection framework and fully respects the principles set out in EU law, in particular in relation to the processing of personal data as a fundamental right under Article8(1) of Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 16(1) of the Treaty onf the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses, furthermore, also resulting from that clash (between the protection of fundamental rights, on one hand, and the promotion of innovation on the other hand) that blockchains by no means automatically support data sovereignty but rather must be purposefully designed to do so, given that blockchains can also present risks for data protection.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. UnderlinesRecalls, therefore, that, if adequateproperly designed, blockchains can share the goal of the General Data Protection Regulation by giving data subjects more control over his/her data systems can pursue the GDPR’s underlying goal of giving a data subject more control over her/his data as long as a compromise is found in order to reconcile legal certainty of data protection with the promotion of innovation and with effective means of data protection; recalls, however, that the possible clash between the protection of fundamental rights and the promotion of innovation has to be addressed;.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes with concern the lack of any reference to the serious implications, which might be positive, but could also be detrimental, of blockchain technology in relation to the fight against money laundering and to countering the financing of terrorism, if such technology is appropriated by organised crime; recalls the link between blockchain and cryptocurrencies and its several implications for financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion also in the context of international trade;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Underlines that if adequately designed and specifically fashioned to achieve that objective, blockchains can share the goal of GDPR of giving a data subject more control over her/his data.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Underlines, furthermore, that when this goal is not there, all the decentralised structures - such as blockchains - are potentially more vulnerable to governmental or corporate surveillance than their centralised counterparts.
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need to consider the implications, botheither positive andor negative, of blockchain technology in view of the goals ofobjectives of the Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 30 May 2018, on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing1, which expressly brings providers of exchange services between virtual currencies and fiat currencies, as well as custodian wallet providers, within its scope; n (i.e. platforms used to exchange money for cryptocurrency), custodian wallet providers as well as coin investors and coin providers, into scope; underlines, in this context, that encryption can also be used by criminals, which is basically what happens in the context of cryptocurrencies as well as the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering or terrorist financing is a factor complicating law enforcement authorities’ criminal investigations. Notes that this Directive extends the EU’s regulatory reachperimeter to prevent criminal organiszations from exploiting the anonymity of virtual currency-based transactions, and to improve national regulators’ monitoring of the users of virtual currencies, for whom blockchain may be an decisive enabling technology.; _________________ 1 OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 43.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the suggestion, identified in the report, to set up an advisory group on blockchain within the European Commission; urges the need that this advisory group must include experts in the field of anti-money laundering, countering terrorism and tax evasion;