Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 51998AC0627

**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'** 
  
*Official Journal C 214 , 10/07/1998 P. 0029*

  

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` () (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 pornography 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);

- 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.

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

2.1. The three main areas of policy covered by the 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, teachers and children).

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

2.2. The financial support of the Community is 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 awareness actions for the general public and teachers, first by preparing basic material (tailored to the various Member States) and then disseminating it via workshops, presentations and existing media channels (including the Internet). Total funding required for this action line is estimated at ECU 9,4 million.

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

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 Commission 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 conclusions.

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

3.2. The Committee wonders however whether, in dealing with harmful content, relying on public awareness 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.

3.2.1. A danger of this technological approach is that, 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.

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 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.

3.3.1. The Committee notes that, contrary to previous assertions, only one major browser programme (Microsoft 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 compulsion 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 Commission'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 Cybernanny, 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. In view of the above (see points 3.3-3.5) the Committee pins its hopes on solutions aimed at developing the demand for useable blocking programmes.

3.6.2. The Committee does not consider realistic the argument of human rights organizations that blocking would restrict freedom of expression, as with programmes 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 programmes 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 Commission'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.

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

4.1. In the light of the proposed action lines, the 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).

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

4.2.1.2. This action line is important, however, not 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 responsible for the protection of citizens and enforcement of the law.

4.2.2.1. The Committee suggests that a major part 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 representative 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.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

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

[Top](#document1)