kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i note that the court specifically criticised the lack of a requirement for a court order before the retained data could be accessed.
two thousand and five member states must indeed urgently review national implementing legislation to ensure full compliance with the ruling.
so the court has unequivocally upheld fundamental rights to data protection and privacy as a shield against indiscriminate blanket retention of data. it throws a real spanner in the works of increased data collection and hopefully marks the end of a decade and a half where surveillance overkill has been the name of the game.
if they do not i am sure that national courts will do so.
two thousand and five we are demanding answers to difficult questions and.
you cannot just invoke we're fighting criminals and terrorists' to justify disproportionate restrictions on freedoms.
this is the significance of what the court has said.
they had been unable to get through a mandatory data retention scheme in the westminster parliament so there was no british law to this effect.
it gets pushed through the brussels system with the connivance of the socialist and ppe groups. it was an appalling example of policy laundering.
i think it is unacceptable that member states do not repeal their national laws if they are clearly in breach of fundamental rights. i think that what you are proposing is policy laundering.
yes we want to keep our people safe.
i would like to get the first piece of evidence mr weber you who defend massive data retention that this has helped.
can we please have smart laws that protect our people and also respect fundamental rights?
imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality.
it also goes on to say the wide ranging and particularly serious interference of the directive with the fundamental rights at issue is not sufficiently circumscribed to ensure that that interference is actually limited to what is strictly necessary.
it is a context whereby there is an awareness worldwide of the mass surveillance that we all now face.
it is a context where the attack on privacy unleashed by the so called war on terror has been exposed by the heroic action of edward snowden.
i welcome the decision of the european court of justice to strike down this snooper's charter'. i find the response of some members here deeply ironic because it is their groups who allowed this to go through in three months only eight years ago.
while of course adding the rider that we need to fight against terrorism which means they actually do not welcome the judgment.
let us remember what we had here you have privatised big brother isps phone companies spying on the mass of people by logging details about their location their text messages their e mails their internet use and storing that information for two years.
let us remember who we need to thank here which is activists across europe including in ireland for taking up these issues for struggling for taking a court case in ireland against the state by digital rights ireland questioning the legality of irish data retention legislation.
they now need to be challenged from below.
they should not have to be;
the commission should take that up.
but if they do not then they need to be challenged from below with movements and with court cases challenging this that how can these possibly be proportional?
we also have to ensure that this victory is not undone and some of the comments by the epp here and by the commission's spokesperson previously are very worrying.
the commission's spokesperson responded to the ruling saying that we remain clearly and seriously committed to fighting crime and terrorism'.
i do not really know what that has to do with this ruling to be honest.
and deep judgment.
of course it was adopted at the time of terrorist outrages and so on but that is not the only reason that this judgment is important.
the ecj judgment confirms that the current rules on data retention fail to strike the right balance between on the one hand security measures allowing police services to do the vital job of protecting citizens from serious crime and on the other protecting fundamental rights to privacy and data protection in today's digital age by making sure data retention remains at all times proportional to risk.
this judgment says that data retention can still happen that we can address the security and terrorist risks but we cannot collect bulk data as we did in the pre snowden era.
the data retention rules fail the fundamental rights test and this judgment is a testimony to the high standards of data protection and privacy that exist in our european legal framework and that is why this judgment is so important.
in the post snowden era this judgment prohibits mass surveillance which is now unequivocally held as an infringement of the eu charter of fundamental rights to privacy and to data protection.
any such infringement of these fundamental rights must have clear justification and stringent safeguards in place including a definition of serious crime the purpose of access to data and importantly a system in place to control the access to data which should include judicial authorisation. following the judgment questions now focus on what happens next.
for us here in the european parliament this is an opportunity to stress to the council the importance of finding agreement on the text of the data protection package especially the directive on law enforcement. we must now underline that in light of this judgment.
parliament has already put forward its position and the next step in this debate is the completion of this legislation.
those of us who have had the opportunity to test those systems will understand their efficiency. secondly i want to highlight issues around the international framework the repeal of the eu directives and their incorporation into national legislation. i welcome that but i think it is now more important than ever commissioner that that process becomes much more transparent
we set down a road map in cars twenty one about the environmental and safety challenges that we expected the industry to meet and the crucial thing there is to give them stability and knowledge so that they can plan and design their new products in a sensible and sequenced way albeit with demanding deadlines and targets.
firstly the agreement to bring in electronic stability control systems at the earliest possible date is a very major contribution to safety and i very much welcome that.
about the line the commission is taking on negotiating those directives which are being done in another body a un body and not within this house.
i have been alerted over the last few weeks to plans by car manufacturers to avoid any refrigerant change at all in two thousand and eleven and beyond by applying type approval of certain components.
madam president i want to raise a related matter. the commission will know that three f' gases are among the six major greenhouse gases.
on this occasion however i was pleased to be persuaded because this proposal contains provisions which both improve road safety and happily assist a company in northern ireland which is at the cutting edge of technology and production of tyre pressure monitoring systems. thus a proposal which makes the fitting of such systems mandatory is not just good for road safety;
with devastating levels of road deaths across the eu measures which make our cars and thus our roads safer have to be welcome.
it is one area above all where regulation has a definite role to play.
the task force works closely with the commission and eu delegations in the eastern neighbourhood in support of independent media.
if we look at opinion polls measuring how many people accept obvious disinformation planted in pro kremlin media then unfortunately we have to conclude that russian disinformation can be extremely successful.
this work is very important.
there are two questionnaires available one for our citizens and one targeted at legal entities and journalists to draw on their professional experience.
i have had the occasion to address this house on cyber security previously and i am afraid time does not allow me today to go into details but from the commission side as set out in the proposals last september we strongly support measures to build our cyber resilience and our cyber deterrence.
in russia's official military doctrine as well as statements by top russian generals they describe the use of false data and destabilising propaganda as legitimate tools and information as another type of armed force.
on behalf of the commission i welcome the analysis set out in parliament's resolution on eu strategic communication to counteract propaganda against the union by third parties. there seems frankly little doubt that the pro kremlin disinformation campaign is an orchestrated strategy
the group will contribute to the preparation of a strategy addressing the challenge of fake news which we will issue in spring this year.
that is why we place great emphasis on the role of the east stratcom task force under high representative vice president mogherini responsible for countering disinformation in the eu's eastern neighbourhood.
it is one of the commission's priorities for the coming year.
it has also launched a russian language service from brussels providing updates and fact based background information about the union for russian language journalists.
we have to remain vigilant.
in terms of positive communication the task force supports and advises eu delegations in the eastern partnership russia and central asia on how to improve their communications.
the task force is a permanent member of all the relevant donor committees supporting independent media.
its objectives as we have already heard are to ensure more effective communication and promotion of eu policies towards these neighbourhoods and eu member states to contribute to a strengthened media environment in these neighbourhoods and member states and to improve eu capacity to forecast address and respond to disinformation activities by external actors.
the aim is to increase visibility and more accurate representation of eu policies in the russian media.
the commission has also launched a public consultation on fake news which is open until twenty three february.
while eu member states are obviously in the front line for such russian disinformation the commission's main role is to try and head off any fragmentation that might arise from differing member state responses to such activities.
as we have heard in november last year we established a high level expert group which has now started its work to advise the commission on scoping the phenomenon grasping its international dimension defining the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders and presenting recommendations.
we will see what those consultations highlight but we believe that strong media literacy and promoting quality media are important elements of meeting the challenge of fake news because media freedom and pluralism are pillars of our of our democracy.
delivering the same disinformation stories in as many languages as possible through as many channels as possible as often as possible.
russian authorities are not exactly shy about the goals of this disinformation campaign and disinformation activity.
it is primarily for member states to guarantee media freedom and pluralism.
it provides media products to support that activity for example the team was responsible for the communications campaign in the run up to and during last november's eastern partnership summit.
the purpose of a disinformation campaign is to get people to believe that the disinformation is fact is credible.
its twitter account ensures that the task force's products reach up to two million people per month in addition obviously to regular background briefings including to international media think tanks and academics.
that is why we need to redouble our efforts to debunk this propaganda and why we welcome the debate today.
we see that you are giving the same message of extremism conflicts and dislike for democracy as russian disinformation tries to impose on our societies.
secondly to impose targeted sanctions against hacking and falsified publication of sensitive data.
i agree we have to tackle these challenges;
and fourthly to develop an effective well targeted and tailor made strategy on how to communicate and promote our european policies and values.
i observed in two thousand and seventeen a few of our members using the technical infrastructure of this parliament to broadcast discussions and interviews on kremlin backed news channels such as russia today.
in all our actions we ought to keep in mind that the european union's main strength when facing hostile influence from russia is information rather than criminalisation.
as a european parliament we could perhaps improve things in our own house too.
mr president ladies and gentlemen dear colleagues as previous speakers have already pointed out russian disinformation campaigns are intended to undermine objective or ethical journalism while casting all information as biased or as an instrument of political power.
it is high time to build up the resilience of our union.
i'm not quite sure if you can really on the one hand criticise disinformation campaigns backed and facilitated by russian media outlets and on the other hand allow active support to them with our very own parliamentary infrastructure.
they are the front line defending democracy and the free press but they are caught in an uneven fight and that is why i am calling for a marked strengthening of east stratcom and an eu action plan for countering russian meddling in the two thousand and nineteen european election.
our best defence is to stand firm on european values principles and ideals democracy freedom of the press speaking the truth to power.
all of these eu member states have been and continue to be the target of russian misinformation and propaganda campaigns.
the eeas and this east stratcom team is doing a tremendous job as several have noted.
we are looking at what more we can do with the big internet platforms to address these issues and we are pursuing with you the measures that need to be taken to reinforce our cybersecurity our cyber resilience and deterrence.
the challenge for public authorities at all levels is to find ways of tackling disinformation without having an adverse effect on freedom of expression as a number of you have underlined.
two thousand and sixteen deliberate disinformation raises the stakes.
it raises the stakes both for freedom of expression and for our properly functioning democracies.
we will continue our support to media freedom of expression.
as i said earlier the commission is looking at what more might be done to address the challenge of hostile propaganda fake news and online disinformation always bearing in mind that balance between countering disinformation and respecting our democratic rights including crucially freedom of expression.
we will come forward with proposals focusing on this challenge of fake news later this spring.
europe drives the global agreement on climate change and it should be among the rule makers for cyber space.
the eu cyber security agency is in its infancy and if we want to be serious about it its budget should be increased not twofold but tenfold.
the world's richest and most powerful publisher facebook has replaced editors with algorithms shifting entire societies away from critical thinking while making billions from our clicks.
fourthly there is no substitute for independent and fact based journalism.
one key to our capacity building in the cyber domain is trans atlantic cooperation and nato and given the political dynamics in washington european states have to take the lead in any collective action vis vis the kremlin as well as in setting international rules for cyber space.
transparency and stricter regulation are the key words for political party and campaign funding in the member states.
our response must be an effective eu media policy set up to defend our liberal european democracy basic values and way of life. lastly in shaping the eu's media policy we must certainly not be limited only to election periods as putin's foreign services troll factories and bots are on duty.
it finally ended up across the atlantic just to find washington dc equally unprepared.
mr president thank you very much. now just so there's no misunderstanding about my position on russia i'll repeat what i've said many times before.
the old soviet union used to spend millions on infiltrating and undermining western governments and societies and it has to be said they were very successful at it.
so there's nothing new going on but you are seeking to create a scapegoat for your own unpopularity with the peoples of europe.
now don't blame the russians for your own mistakes.
to give you two examples you're unpopular because of economic stagnation on austerity due to the eurozone and mass uncontrolled immigration and the islamisation of our societies due to that immigration.
now you seek a distraction and you found it in russian propaganda.
you give mr putin too much credit.
he is not the author of your unpopularity you are the authors of your own unpopularity.
and the main solution i see in terms of counter propaganda is an honest open and professional media.
a media which is free from censorship and which is not regulated or directed by politicians. we should not make the mistakes of soviet leaders but today sorry i have a strong feeling that we're dangerously close to that.
the russian propaganda in the first quarter of an hour afterwards was extremely successful all over the world including in our countries. listen to the sound of silence whenever i even mention this thing nowadays.
some months ago in this very same european parliament building an exhibition was opened showcasing russian views on the events in syria.
all facts must be checked. you must be critical of your sources and no russian media channel should be considered a trustworthy source. one must be able to distinguish between propaganda channels and real journalists and it is not that difficult actually.
this impacts people's access to information and thus democratic resilience.
but in the quest for solutions the worst thing we can do is to erode the very freedoms we need to defend.
a few action points we need transparency rules for political advertisements online.
we need algorithmic accountability and the tackling of botnets and trolls.
we should actively try to reach russian speaking minorities in europe and populations in the countries around europe directly in russian language with pluralist sources and opinions.
in essence we are talking about an attack on democracy.
when it comes to confronting this the high representative has stated that the external action service has taken proper action.
the eu instantly needs to raise public awareness to streamline the exchange of intelligence and to allocate necessary resources to institutions like europol and stratcom.
in order to protect and preserve fundamental values we need an effective strategy.
mr president we are again discussing the influence of so called russian propaganda in eu countries. what about the millions the millions in eu propaganda to pervert the democratic decisions of the irish the dutch and the french on the lisbon treaty?
and you spent millions on eu propaganda to prevent brexit aided and abetted of course by the bbc the brussels broadcasting corporation which also receives largesse i believe from the eu.
this destroys any impartiality or credibility that they might have had.
fortunately the british public saw through that one.
but the eu is still trying to do this by setting up the orwellian propaganda machine to push the eu project and subvert national democracies in your own words challenging euroscepticism.
i am more concerned with eu propaganda than the clunky russian version and i assure you so are most other people.
so thank god for them.
my first point is about democracy.
the commission needs to provide solid estimates of public investment needs between now and two thousand and twenty taking account of existing policy objectives.
but these instruments will not be enough to solve the growing public investment deficit across the member states.
only then will we be able to assess whether the proposed instrument will address the public investment deficit or whether as we believe we need to go further.
today we have voted on the so called two pack but we have still not made any progress in recognising the importance of public investment as a key part of national budgetary policies.
that democratic deficit needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
my second point concerns the economic situation.
we believe that we need to address that deficit systematically within the rules on economic governance through a new growth regulation.
this morning president barroso proposed an interinstitutional agreement on a growth initiative to properly involve the european parliament in the process.
public investment is now to be increasingly addressed as you have said through european instruments for example through an increased role for the eib and the pilot project on project bonds.
it is simply not acceptable that such recommendations are meant to be followed by member states without the proper democratic involvement of both national and european parliaments.
i welcome president barroso's proposal but i would also like to recall that two years ago this parliament voted for something much more important an interinstitutional agreement on the european semester.
furthermore the government of each member state is elected directly or indirectly and responsible to the electorate whereas the commission has no responsibility to any electorate and the european council as a whole has no responsibility to the electorate of any particular state. coming to the substantive content of the guidelines the economic and financial affairs council meeting on twenty one
this means that in the globalist economy facilitated by the eu the wage rates of european workers must fall to the levels of those in the emergent economies.
february said in paragraph twenty and i quote to promote competitiveness reforms need to focus on labour markets in particular wage setting mechanisms to ensure efficient adjustment of labour costs'.
to support growth we also need a european budget that has the magnitude and the means to invest in the future.
we need more cross border and community investment in renewable energy and green growth in transport and communication infrastructure as well as in research and innovation. to this end we have proposed an increase in the eib's lending capacity.
there can be no further mutualisation of economic risk without deeper integration of decision making. in other words to move further in mutualisation it is necessary to strengthen our stability culture.
we put forward country specific recommendations for the reforms that are needed to deliver stability growth and jobs in the twenty seven member states and for their citizens. the member states have taken last year's recommendations seriously. efforts have been made to implement them but progress is still very uneven between member states and more needs to be done.
should be part of the same overall framework the overall construct intended for the twenty seven member states while allowing stronger requirements and deeper integration for the euro area as necessary.
the commission has put on the table concrete proposals to enhance sustainable growth some of them have been on the table already for several months.
the new legislation in force on economic governance reinforced today with the voting of the two pack' in parliament has given new tools to the commission to ensure that member states choose the right part of a growth friendly fiscal consolidation but also stick to their country specific recommendations. as a liberal i truly believe that reforms of our economy and social system such as labour market reforms and pension reforms should be at the heart of regaining competitiveness in the eurozone.
this is completely against the spirit of the recommendations given to france to ensure that all workers stay in employment longer.