Parliamentary questions
4 November 2010
E-9115/2010
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE) , Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) and Marietje Schaake (ALDE)
Subject: Internet blocking
Article 21 of the new Directive on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and child pornography provides for an EU‑wide obligation to block websites showing such images, which raises legality, necessity and proportionality issues.
1. The Commission has stated on other occasions(1) that according to ‘solid legal analysis’(2), blocking is likely to be illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights, inter alia because ‘it is undoubtedly more difficult to satisfy the necessity test for Internet content, because users seldom encounter illegal content accidentally’ and that circumvention possibilities are so great that the approach is illegal because ‘it is argued that the restriction provided by law is not suitable for the aim pursued’. Would the Commission agree that this ‘solid legal analysis’ should also be applied to its own proposal on Internet blocking? Can the Commission explain why it has reached a different conclusion for its own proposal?
2. Can the Commission state whether it has carried out an analysis of specifically why certain websites allegedly remain online for periods that it believes necessitate blocking? Can the Commission publish this analysis or explain why such an analysis has not been done?
3. In 2007, the Commission decided, in the context of anti-terrorism measures, not to propose blocking of websites because they move around too quickly(3), but this applies also to child pornography websites. Why the Commission has made a different decision for this proposal?
4. The impact assessment accompanying the proposal explains that legislation is needed because Member States are not motivated to implement the Council of Europe Convention quickly or thoroughly enough. Can the Commission explain why it feels that the expected inaction of the Member States will not be exacerbated by the mandatory introduction of web blocking?
5. The proposal does not specify which type of blocking is requested of Member States, though this has important consequences: IP address blocking (which can block huge numbers of innocent sites), DNS blocking (which is very easy to circumvent), hybrid blocking (which can be hacked to provide a ‘telephone directory’ for abusers) or deep packet inspection (which has grave implications for privacy)?
(1) Response to Parliamentary question on Internet blocking in Turkey E-5087/10.
(2) OSCE report on Turkey.
(3) ‘In addition, the issue of the speedy re-apparition of websites that have been closed down must be considered: when a website is successfully removed from a host server, it reappears very easily under another name’, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007SC1424:EN:NOT
Please find the answer here.
