[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
E-Komm-Direktive, Art. 12(1)(ca)
- To: Fitug-Debatten <debate@fitug.de>
- Subject: E-Komm-Direktive, Art. 12(1)(ca)
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@guug.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 00:55:29 +0200
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
- User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.2i
Artikel 12 der E-Komm-Direktive regelt Haftungsfragen beim "mere
conduit". Die Version des Europäischen Parlaments lautet wie folgt:
Mere conduit
1. Where an Information Society service is provided that consists of
the transmission in a communication network of information provided by
the recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a
communication network, Member States shall provide in their
legislation that the provider of such a service shall not be liable,
otherwise than under a prohibitory injunction, for the information
transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the
transmission.
(ca) allows means of surveillance, which are to be rendered
operational on the basis of legislation or codes of conduct.
2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred
to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and
transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as
this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the
transmission in the communication network, and provided that the
information is not stored for any period longer than is
reasonably necessary for the transmission and that all necessary
steps are taken to ensure that the information is not, during
storage, accessible for persons other than the intended
recipient.
Nach meinem Verständnis bezieht sich Artikel 12 letztlich auf die
Aktivitäten eines ISPs, die sich als "Telekommunikationsdienste"
umschreiben lassen. Ich verstehe nicht, was bei solchen Diensten
Überwachungsmittel zu suchen haben, und noch weniger, was es da mit
Überwachungsmitteln auf Grund von "codes of conduct" auf sich haben
soll.
Fällt einem der Juristen hier dazu etwas ein?