Mr President, we are all of us affected on a daily basis by the risks presented by the new computer-related crimes. It happens every time we shop using credit cards, use a telephone, open our e-mail or travel by plane. We are concerned here with traditional crimes which affect us partly due to information technology: child pornography, counterfeiting, xenophobia and the trades in drugs, human beings, human organs, weapons etc. However, we are also concerned here with new types of crime directed against the way in which society operates: the spreading of viruses, unauthorised access, hacking, denial of service etc. Traditional methods of combating these crimes are inadequate, even if on-line crime is just as criminal as off-line crime. The underworld is threatening society with new methods from a digital platform. Criminals exploit the differences in legislation between one Member State and another, and so the EU must maintain a united front. The Commission has tabled proposals to which the Committee is giving impetus and which it is developing. We seek common definitions for solving conflicts of competence, as well as the closer harmonisation of criminal law and the law of procedure and the mutual recognition of preliminary investigation procedures. We want to make Europol and Eurojust more effective but, at the same time, set clear limits. Now, controversial demands are also being made for the interception, registration and storage of our communications. Where these are concerned, the Committee demands respect for fundamental rights, such as the secrecy of correspondence and telephone calls, and strict requirements for the whole area. The Committee also demands a ban on such invasions of privacy, except in those cases in which the measure fulfils all the following requirements: it is necessary, has proper justification, is the only possible solution, is proportionate to the crime, is limited in time and has been decided upon in the courts. No one wants a big brother society. We in the European Union must comply with the demand we ourselves have made for cheap Internet access for all citizens, which means that we cannot transfer the costs of this to companies. We want to encourage voluntary cooperation and have therefore proposed the setting up of an open forum to which a variety of players can contribute their experiences and pool these for the benefit of all, a forum in which understanding can increase, awareness of these problems be developed and best practice be promoted. In this forum, industry and legal authorities, together with consumers, will be able to create a code of conduct and develop early warning and crisis management systems, and it will be possible to develop preventive technology and protective measures and to make these more widely available. Coordination within the EU is also required so that our measures are not rendered ineffective at a global level. Member States and candidate countries should be invited to develop common tactics and a cohesive EU policy within international bodies such as the UN, the OECD, the Council of Europe and the G8. The committee was unanimous and gave its support to the message of the report, which is about improving respect for personal privacy now that evermore effective measures to combat computer-related crime have to be developed. Finally, a big and heartfelt thank you to everyone who has assisted in the preparation of this report. There are a lot of you, since there are many conflicting interests that have been reconciled. A brief word about the two amendments that have been introduced to the report. They can be seen as technical in nature. The first is aimed at adding the word ‘terrorism’, since the committee unanimously adopted this as an oral amendment which has since in some way been lost from the text submitted to plenary. The word ‘terrorism’ must, of course, be present in a report on cyber crime. We also want to change the term ‘labelling’. This change is proposed because ‘labelling’ obviously does not cover what we intend as effectively as ‘certification’, which is the term we wish to introduce. The term we use in Swedish, ‘märkning’, is tricky to translate. This is mainly a translation issue, then. I now turn to the Cappato report. Because I do not have very much time, I shall concentrate entirely on the opt-in/opt-out debate. It is too early at this stage to abolish subsidiarity and force everyone to give up the status quo with its freedom of choice and instead to introduce an opt-in clause. There would then be a risk of being criticised for over-regulation. We should be in danger of having a new ‘cucumber debate’, with the EU being criticised for its passion for detailed regulation. Through being contrary to two important directives in the area of information technology, such a move could damage future legislation in this area and render our existing legislation inconsistent. The debate on constitutional issues could also be harmed because such action could lead to a loss of confidence in the EU. This would apply especially to the European Parliament if we were to adopt inconsistent positions. We are in the middle of a process of technical development, involving filtering and broad band, which may mean that this opt-in/opt-out debate will be out of date and a thing of the past in three years’ time. I do not think that we should become bogged down in an outmoded position and, at the same time, abolish the possibility of choice without obtaining any added value, for a European opt-in solution would not put an end to spamming, a lot of which originates outside the EU. The United States itself has not harmonised its legislation, for example. An opt-in system involves problems in drawing the line between commercial information, on the one hand, and information about society and voluntary organisations, on the other. It could also prevent the development of newspapers on the Net and create difficulties for small companies which have to store their information in case they are prosecuted. How, moreover, would the punishment be meted out? Finally, we politicians must not legislate as soon as we see a phenomenon we do not like. As politicians, we do not always know what is best for each individual person and company in each particular case. Our job is to speed up the development and distribution of the technical products which will make spamming a thing of the past and to press for supervision, something which Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s amendment in fact does. Finally, we must, as politicians, defend freedom of expression and not restrict it unnecessarily and without due care.

Political group: PPE-DE