WRITTEN QUESTION P-0780/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. President Bush's powers to carry out cyber attacks.
Date: 2003-03-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet, United States, computer crime, computer network, computer system, data protection, data-processing law, information system

C 242 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

All together, 411 RASFF notifications on food from third countries containing residues of prohibited
substances were issued during the year 2002, concerning mainly products from China, Thailand, Brazil,
and Vietnam. The details of these alerts broken down by country are set out in a report which has been
circulated to the Parliament. This information is also to be found in the report on the RASFF for the year
2002 published on the Commission web site at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/
sfp/ras_report2002_en.pdf.

When a maximum residue limit cannot be established for a substance because its residues in food,
‘at
whatever limit, constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer’ according to Community law (1), the
substance is prohibited for use in food producing animals within the Union. This leads to the conclusion
that all products of animal origin containing such residues should be withdrawn from the food and feed
chain. Article 22.2 of Directive 97/78/EC (2) also provides that, where the Competent Authority determines
that the goods constitute a danger for human health, the importer Member State must ‘seize and destroy’
the consignments in question under the supervision of the Competent Authority.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment
of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (cid:1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
(2) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of

veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (cid:1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2003/C 242 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0780/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: President Bush’s powers to carry out cyber attacks

Up until recently very little attention was paid to possible cyber attacks and their repercussions. In Europe
the primary responsibility for the vulnerability of computer systems was placed on industry and
organisations themselves, even by the European Parliament. Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September
2001 in the United States and the constant warnings about possible cyber attacks, much greater attention
is now being paid to security.

Not only do we have to fear damage as a result of cyber attacks by Iraq or Islamic groups such as the Unix
Security Guards or Anti-India Crew but, in the war on Internet terrorism, President Bush signed a special
into law six months ago enabling him to carry out cyber attacks himself. These attacks are not
bill
necessarily restricted to Iraq but can also affect the total operation of the World Wide Web. In other
words, Bush can completely paralyse the net if he wants to. It is assumed that only targets of military
importance would be attacked. The major problem with online attacks is that there can be a great deal of
collateral damage. Because of the high degree of complexity and interdependence of the Internet, other
countries and firms may be seriously inconvenienced by such action. A denial-of-service attack, a classic
way of disabling a network, also has implications for intermediate networks between the attacker and his
target.

Is the Commission aware of this new law which gives President Bush the power to carry out cyber

1.
attacks and, if so, what does it think of it?

How does the Commission intend to protect European citizens and firms from such attacks and their

2.
consequences?

3. Who does the Commission think should pay for the damage that might be caused by such attacks
and how can compensation be obtained?

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/175

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of an article in the Washington Post of 7 February 2003 that alleges that
according to United States administration officials, President Bush has signed a secret order in July 2002,
known as National Security Presidential Directive 16. According to the Washington Post, this Directive
orders the United States government to develop national-level guidance for determining when and how the
United States would launch cyber-attacks against enemy computer networks. Allegedly, military planners
imagine computer experts hacking into enemy electronic networks to, e.g., shut down radars, disable
electrical facilities or disrupt phone services.

The Commission is not aware of any publication or official confirmation of this Directive by the United
States government.

Measures in the area of defence against cyber-warfare have elements similar to those promoting
cybersecurity and combating computer-related crime, and the Commission has been very active in
developing policy in these areas.

The Commission adopted a Communication on ‘Creating a safer information society by improving the
security of information infrastructures and combating computer-related crime’ on 26 January 2001 (1) that
acknowledges the importance of information and communication infrastructures, including the Internet, as
a critical part of its economies and proposes specific actions.

On 19 April 2002, as proposed in the Communication, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council
Framework Decision on attacks against information systems (2). The proposal requires Member States to
establish in national
law the criminal offences of illegal access to an information system and illegal
interference with information system. It also contained provisions on criminal penalties, rules on liability
of legal persons and associated sanctions, rules on jurisdiction, and a requirement for Member States to
join the existing network of operational points of contact on high tech crime available 24 hours per day,
seven days per week. The Parliament delivered its Opinion on the draft Framework Decision in October
2002 (3), and the Council reached political agreement on the text of the main articles on 28 February
2003.

The eEurope 2005 Action Plan aims to stimulate security services and thus to contribute to securing the
information infrastructure. Also previous eEurope Action Plans focused on improving cybersecurity as a
priority.

In February 2003, the Commission has proposed a European Network and Information Security Agency (4).
The objective of the Agency will be to serve as a centre of competence where both Member States and the
Commission can seek advice on matters relating to cybersecurity. The Agency will also provide assistance
to authorities of the Member States (cid:1) including the various Computer Emergency Response Teams
(CERTS).

the Commission has just

In addition,
research and
technological development (RTD) in which the R & D on security and dependability technologies is a key
component of the ‘priority’ on Information Society Technologies (IST). Also in the 5th Framework
Programme, ample attention was given to security technologies and dependability of
information
infrastructure, including research on interdependencies.

launched the 6th Framework Programme of

In most cases, under civil and criminal law in the Member States, the attacker would be liable for most
attacks against information systems. Following implementation of the Framework Decision on attacks
against information systems, the attacks for which there is criminal liability will be extended to include,
e.g., denial of service attacks in all Member States.

C 242 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

In the case of acts that are carried out by or on behalf of a foreign state (including acts of war), the
question might arise whether this state would enjoy state immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of
other states for such acts. However, a response to this question would depend on the precise state of
international law in this evolving field, and on the specific circumstances of the act in question.

(1) COM(2000) 890 final.
(2) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.
(3) A5-0328/2002 final.
(4) COM(2003) 63 final.

(2003/C 242 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0781/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Trade in horses

With reference to the Commission’s answer to question P-1386/02 (1) on the trade in horses issue, could
the Commission detail the outcome of the follow-up mission to Ireland, which was planned by the FVO
for the second half of 2002.

And could the Commission indicate the result of the inquiries undertaken by the Commission services in
charge of public and animal health and animal welfare, with the competent authorities in the UK and
Ireland, on the controls within the framework of Council Directive 90/426/EEC (2), and provide me with a
copy of the findings.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 212.
(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 42.

Answer given by M. Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

With reference to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to provide a
follow-up to its reply to Written Question P-1386/02.

Between 25 and 29 November 2002 the Food and Veterinary Office carried out the mission in Ireland
referred to in the above reply. However, the mission could not, as initially planned,
investigate the
movement of equidae, but had to concentrate on long distance international transport of cattle.

Nevertheless, as regards equidae, from the Commission’s inquiries with the competent authorities in Dublin
and London it would appear that the transposition of Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999
amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding
and production (1)
into Irish and British law respectively is well advanced but not completed. The
consultation with stakeholders has been or will be completed and agreement has been reached on the
organisations designated for issuing passports for equidae for breeding and production.

taking into account

The Commission,
the discussions in the Parliament and in the Council on a
Commission proposal (2) for an amendment of Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council
of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (3), has prepared a
draft modification of Decision 2000/68/EC providing more details on the operation of this identification
system. This aims to achieve a systematic and complete identification of equidae. However, this new draft
requires further discussion because identification of equidae not only has public and animal health
implications, but is also affected by Community legislation on breeding and competition.

(1) OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.
(2) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
(3) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.