LIBE Draft Opinion on Single Market Regulation

=Amendment 1=

Justification: The addition of that citation aims to strengthen the legal basis of the Regulation and hence to protect European citizens' personal data, as set out in article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

=Amendment 2=

Justification: cf. supra

=Amendment 3=

Justification: cf. supra

=Amendment 4=

Justification: This amendment is very welcome. As La Quadrature du Net indicated in its proposed amendment 2, the reference to Directives 1995/46 and 2002/58 allows the strict framing of the application of traffic management measures that are potentially dangerous from a data protection and privacy perspective. However the maintain of "lawful", referred to a content to be distributed by end-users, will severely hamper the freedom  of expression and information of the end-users, who do not have the means to judge the lawfulness of that content. Only the judicial authority is entitled to judge the lawfulness of a content.

=Amendment 5=

Justification: This amendment is on the same wavelength as amendments 1, 2 and 3 on citations. It aims at strengthening the reference and the compliance of the Regulation to the EU legal framework on data protection, in order to preserve the confidentiality of communications and the fruition of an open Internet.

=Amendment 6=

Justification: The rapporteur clarifies, once more, the legal framework of the Regulation and provides for measures geared towards guaranteeing the security of data processing by community institutions and bodies.

=Amendment 8=

Justification: This amendment is out of our purview.

=Amendment 9=

Justification: Even if the amendment by the rapporteur represents a good contribution to the confidentiality of communication, La Quadrature du Net suggests deleting article 19 as a whole. Entailing potential threats for innovation and fair competition, any prioritisation of the Assured Service Quality products deserves a much more in-depth analysis by NRAs and civil society organisations, who have not been consulted on this specific issue.

=Amendment 10=

Justification: This amendment is out of our purview.

=Amendment 11=

Justification: This amendment is warmly welcomed. As La Quadrature du Net indicated in its proposed amendment 14, the lawfulness of the content cannot become the basis for traffic management measures, or a way “to discriminating against, degrading or blocking any content deemed unlawful” (cf. point 19 of the European Data Protection Supervisor's opinion). The legal authority is the only one entitled to evaluate the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of a content. On the contrary, the risk of extra-judicial censorship, through privacy-invasive methods (such as the so-called deep packet inspection) could become much more real.

=Amendment 12=

Justification: Preventing or impeding a serious crime is a task that must be performed by a judge, in accordance to the rule of law. No exception can be accepted, especially under the regime of a traffic management measure.

=Amendment 13=

Justification: Article 23.5 of the proposal lists the different scenarios in which traffic management measures are deemed reasonable. For that purpose, and in order to defend the confidentiality of communications, it is highly necessary that traffic management measures are as transparent as possible, which is the legitimate goal of the rapporteur's amendment. However the intent of the amendment seems to be incoherent with the introductive wording of the text, which is: “Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:”

=Amendment 14=

Justification: This amendment is very welcome. As La Quadrature du Net pointed out in its proposed amendment 18, an explicit, informed and freely given consent guarantees a conscious choice by end-users, who are thereby able to decide whether to accept those restrictive measures or not.

=Amendment 15=

Justification: The amendment improves the Commission's text as it provides a guarantee for the processing of end-users' sensitive data. However it would be preferable to extend the protection to include all data and not just sensitive data.

=Amendment 16=

Justification: The amendment strengthens the confidentiality of communications and the privacy and protection of personal data in the framework of cooperation between NRAs. However, La Quadrature du Net suggests some additional improvements as indicated in its proposed amendment 21. In particular, they consider as mandatory the creation of an enforcement mechanism, through which NRAs could put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing network neutrality complaints and defend thereby their freedom of expression and information. To this end, all Internet users shall be entitled to make use of such complaint procedures in front of the relevant authority.

=Amendment 17=

Justification: The amendment strengthens the providers' obligation to be as transparent as possible in providing information on end-users' contract details.

=Amendment 18=

Justification: Article 25.1(e) does not presuppose the provision of information on traffic management measures for purposes listed in article 23.5, which is very important in order to prevent ISPs from breaching transparency and protection of privacy, personal data and confidentiality of information. Since the communication inspection techniques – susceptible to be used in the framework of traffic management measures – are highly privacy-invasive, they should deserve a special mention in the amendment.

=Amendment 19=

Justification: The amendment clarifies the referential legal framework and guarantees that end-users will be informed about the use of their personal data gathered in that directory.

=Amendment 20=

Justification: The amendment is in line with point 26 of the opinion of the EDPS. It aims at preventing traffic management measures, provided for in article 26.1(j) and implemented by Internet providers, that could be used as a way to unduly process personal data.

=Amendment 21=

Justification: The proposal of the EC needs to be improved in order to comply with article 7.1 of Directive 2002/58 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. The non-itemised bills guarantee a greater protection of confidentiality of communication since they do not reveal the identity of call addresses or calling subscribers. For these reasons, the amendment proposed by the rapporteur is very welcome. However, it would be preferable to add the wording “according to article 7.1 of the Directive 2002/58 EC” as this would better clarify the referential legal framework.