Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Decision adopting a Multiannual Community Action Plan on promoting safe use of the Internet'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, computer network, consumer protection, data protection, information network

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/29

4.1.8.
proposes the establishment of a European (or
even internationally accepted) framework of codes of
conduct, guidelines and grass-roots measures such as
‘hot-lines’ and youth protection officers;

4.1.9.
proposes that all measures, policies and initia-
tives introduced in relation to the new services ensure
the use of the new services is encouraged, so that the
number of users will increase.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
adopting a Multiannual Community Action Plan on promoting safe use of the Internet’ (1)

(98/C 214/08)

On 26 January 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 130(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 April 1998. The rapporteur
was Mrs Drijfhout-Zweijtzer.

At its 354th plenary session of 29 and 30 April 1998 (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to one with three
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission acknowledges the great power
of the Internet in economic, social, educational and
cultural terms, but suggests that criminal organizations
might seek to exploit it and that it carries a limited
amount of illegal or harmful content.

1.1.1.
Illegal content immediately brings child por-
nography to mind. But it includes more than this and is
connected with a variety of issues:

— national security (instructions for making bombs
or for the illegal manufacture of drugs, terrorist
activities);

— protection of minors (illegal advertising, violence,

pornography);

— protection of human dignity (incitement to racial

hatred or discrimination);

(1) OJ C 48, 13.2.1998, p. 8.

— economic security (fraud, instructions for the illegal

copying of credit cards);

— security of information (malicious hacking);

— protection of privacy (unauthorized disclosure of

personal data, ‘spam’);

— protection of reputation (slander, illegal comparative

advertising);

— intellectual property (unauthorized dissemination of
works protected by copyright, e.g. software or
music).

1.1.2. Harmful
information covers both content
which is legal but the distribution of which is restricted
(adults only, for example), and content which could give
offence to certain users.

1.2.
The Commission rightly believes that, in addition
to an active policy for encouraging legitimate use of the
Internet, measures are also needed to curb abuses.

C 214/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

1.3.
The purpose of the action plan is to reduce the
amount of harmful or illegal material available on the
Internet. As it is impossible to erect virtual borders or
barriers on the Internet and as the Member States have
differing interpretations of harmful or illegal content,
this is a European issue par excellence. The action
plan should be seen as a complement to and, where
appropriate, a way of strengthening measures and
initiatives already in existence in the Member States.

2. Summary of the Commission proposal

The three main areas of policy covered by the

2.1.
action plan are as follows:

— promotion of self-regulation (for example to curb

illegal content);

— promotion of a filtering and rating system (for

screening potentially harmful content);

— information and awareness (aimed at parents, teach-

ers and children).

At various meetings the Council, the Parliament and the
governments of the Member States have expressed their
support for these policies.

The financial support of the Community is
2.2.
required for the implementation of the action plan (a
total of ECU 30 million over a four-year period).

2.2.1.
Action line 1 is aimed at the creation of a safe
environment by providing financial support for the
establishment of a European network of hotlines and of
codes of conduct and guidelines for self-regulation (total
ECU 5,6 million).

2.2.2.
Action line 2 is for developing filtering and
rating systems, allowing these systems to prove their
own worth and demonstrating their advantages (total
ECU 12,7 million).

2.2.3.
Action line 3 is intended to encourage aware-
ness actions for the general public and teachers, first by
preparing basic material (tailored to the various Member
States) and then disseminating it via workshops, presen-
tations and existing media channels (including the
Internet). Total funding required for this action line is
estimated at ECU 9,4 million.

3. The Committee’s comments

3.1.
The Committee is, generally speaking, very
favourably disposed towards the Commission’s action
plan. The Committee notes that the planned actions
actually attempt to address the problem. Even more
important than this is attempting to change mentalities,
thus curbing excesses. The Committee realizes however
than this is unrealistic.

3.1.1.
The Committee is very glad that the Com-
mission has drawn a distinction in its action plan
between illegal and harmful content.

3.1.1.1.
But the Committee notes that, in translating
this into specific measures, very little attention has been
paid to illegal content in relation to protection of
intellectual property, human dignity and privacy or to
offences relating to national and economic security.
Although these issues are specifically listed in the action
plan under the heading of illegal content, the bulk of
the funding (ECU 20,1 million!) has been reserved for
the action lines aimed at protection of minors (the
awareness actions and the development of material
for users). The Committee considers this a serious
shortcoming and returns to this question in its con-
clusions.

The Committee wholeheartedly endorses the
3.1.1.2.
Commission’s conclusion that,
in combating illegal
content, the accent must be placed on self-regulation
and application of the law.

The Committee wonders however whether, in
3.2.
dealing with harmful content, relying on public aware-
ness of ways of preventing individuals from coming into
contact with such content is not too limited an approach.
The Committee is not convinced that the technological
solution proposed by the Commission is the most
effective way of tackling a social problem.

A danger of this technological approach is that,
3.2.1.
once a filter system has been installed, parents and
teachers, believing that their children are now in a safe
environment, will see no need for further supervision,
not realizing that children will quickly find any loopholes
in the system. Experience has shown that children’s
computer knowledge often surpasses that of their parents
and teachers. The Committee also wonders whether the
target group (parents and children) will be sufficiently
involved in the development of the system.

2.2.4.
Action line 4 concerns support measures (legal
questions, meetings and evaluation). ECU 2 million are
earmarked for this.

3.3.
Although rating offers great advantages in terms
of the cataloguing and indexing of content, thus making
the Internet more transparent and accessible, this applies

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/31

both to desirable and undesirable information. The
Committee would also point out in this connection that
rating might in practice well be counter-productive.
Ratings would be assigned not only to innocuous
content, but also to potentially harmful content, such
as pornography. This would greatly simplify the task of
anyone searching for harmful content on the Internet.

The Committee notes that, contrary to previous
3.3.1.
assertions, only one major browser programme (Micro-
soft Explorer) currently supports PICS (Platform for
Internet Content Selection), on which rating and filtering
are based. Other browsers, such as Netscape and (the
European) Opera do not. Even if Netscape and Opera
eventually become PICS-compliant, without legal com-
pulsion there will always be programmes which do not
support PICS, enabling a child to circumvent
the
restrictions relatively easily. Although the Committee is
in general not unfavourably disposed to the development
of PICS, it does question the claim that PICS will turn
the Internet into an environment free of harmful content.

3.4.
The Committee supports the Commission in its
view that cultural and social diversity based on freedom
of expression is a thing of great value which must not
be compromised by efforts to achieve a safe Internet;
also that, in deciding what is harmful and what is not,
the onus must be on the individual, whether or not
in his capacity as educator. In this connection, the
Committee would point out to the Commission that,
from a technological point of view, it is not only teachers
who can use filter systems to protect children from
harmful content, but also Internet access providers.
This would mean a system which is presented as
‘user-empowering’ becoming an instrument of control,
actually taking choice out of citizens’ hands.

3.5.
The Committee would also point out that the
Internet is more than just the World Wide Web. PICS
offers no solution where chat groups, e-mail and
news groups (discussion forums) are concerned. The
Committee does not consider filter systems based on
rating designed to achieve safe communication to be a
realistic option. The proposed approach offers no
solution for important Internet applications such as chat
and e-mail, which are also used by children.

3.6.
The Committee insistently draws the Com-
mission’s attention to blocking as an alternative to
rating. Although perhaps a blunter instrument, it is for
all that no less effective. Blocking programmes do not
require rating by the owner or supplier of the content,
but rely on third parties supplying target group-specific
lists of proscribed expressions. In the USA there are
already dozens of blocking programmes (such as Cyber-
nanny, Surfpatrol etc) which, when installed on a PC,
black out proscribed words and images on the basis of
these lists.

3.6.1.
The distinction between rating and blocking is
an important one, as rating requires an industry-wide
approach (all content suppliers have to participate),
whilst all that is required for blocking programmes is
targeted promotion of innovation. In the case of blocking
programmes it is stimulation of the demand side (parents,
educators and teachers) which is important, whilst
rating can only be successful if there is an industry-wide,
supply-side approach.
the above (see
points 3.3-3.5) the Committee pins its hopes on solutions
aimed at developing the demand for useable blocking
programmes.

In view of

3.6.2.
The Committee does not consider realistic the
argument of human rights organizations that blocking
would restrict freedom of expression, as with pro-
grammes of this kind it is not the disseminator of the
information but the receiver of the message who is
responsible for the correct use of the filter system.
Experience (in the USA) shows that blocking pro-
grammes are a useful tool in the hands of educators who
need a safe environment for the children in their care.
The Committee suspects that one major reason for the
general lack of interest in blocking programmes of this
kind in Europe so far is unfamiliarity with this approach
to the problem, and with the medium.

3.7.
The Committee finds no reference in the Com-
mission’s action plan to the distinction between open
and closed networks. Citizens’ need for high-quality and
easily accessible information is creating a market for
networks based on Internet technology which may be
part of the Internet but which contain only a small
proportion of the content available on the Internet. In
terms of their diversity and quantity ‘mini-Internets’ of
this kind are thus not comparable with the worldwide
Internet.

3.7.1.
Providers of such large-scale mini-Internets or
intranets have control and are thus in a position to offer
their customers guaranteed quality of service, not only
in terms of capacity and security but also as regards the
transparency and reliability of the content.

C 214/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

3.7.2.
In closed networks of this kind there is a clear
distinction between information suppliers (firms) and
information users (customers). Private users do not have
home pages. It therefore goes without saying that
intranets of this kind are easier to protect against illegal
and harmful content than the open, worldwide Internet.
The Committee foresees closed networks of this kind
increasingly satisfying citizens’ needs for a safe Internet.
Partly in the light of the period for which the action
plan is intended to run, the Committee wonders how
far the proposed action lines take account of this
development.

4. Conclusion

In the light of the proposed action lines, the
4.1.
Committee considers the action plan over-ambitious.
The Committee considers it highly unlikely that the
proposed measures will in the long term result in a ‘safe’
Internet. Careful selection of content at source is, and
will continue to be, necessary for a safe environment.
But the Committee does not consider this a realistic
possibility for the worldwide Internet.

4.1.1.
The Committee also considers the classification
and rating of all information available via the Internet
to be impracticable. Moreover, communication (chat,
e-mail, discussion forums) are simply impossible to rate.
The Committee therefore sees little future in the active
promotion of filtering systems based on rating (action
line 2).

4.2.
The Committee therefore proposes that the scope
of the action plan be restricted to combating illegal
content (action line 1) by means of self-regulation and
application of the law, and that lower priority be
assigned to the development of means of combating
harmful content (action line 2).

In this last area (development of filter and
4.2.1.
rating systems) the Committee expects healthy market
forces to result in the development and commercial
marketing of blocking programmes. There is a growing

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

demand from parents and teachers for filters for material
deemed unsuitable for minors, particularly if they are
simple to install. The Committee urges the Commission
to promote research and development in this area under
action line 2, and in so doing to include existing systems.

4.2.1.1.
The Committee, on the other hand, considers
action line 3 (the preparation and dissemination of basic
material tailored to the Member State) to be the most
important. It is impossible to over-stress the importance
of parents and teachers being aware that their monitoring
and educational role extends to the Internet.

This action line is important, however, not
4.2.1.2.
purely in relation to the protection of minors. All (future)
users could benefit.

4.2.1.3.
The Committee attaches great importance to
the exchange of (positive) experience (e.g. between
educational establishments, consumer organizations
etc.), which is included in this action line.

4.2.2.
The Committee wholeheartedly supports the
establishment of a European network of hotlines, but
feels that the ECU 5,6 million earmarked for action
line 1 are insufficient. The establishment of a European
network of hotlines will require a major effort from
many parties and close coordination with government,
which the Committee considers to be primarily respon-
sible for the protection of citizens and enforcement of
the law.

The Committee suggests that a major part
4.2.2.1.
of the action line 2 budget be reallocated to the
establishment and maintenance of these hotlines and that
this be done in close coordination with the responsible
government department.

4.3.
Lastly, the Committee is of the opinion that it is
necessary to have contact points dealing with consumers’
interests, so as to establish uniform, effective representa-
tive bodies for the plethora of services, service providers
and network operators which are expected to appear. It
will be necessary to step up consumer protection by
appointing consumer lawyers to telecommunication
regulatory authorities.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS