Articles for category: AAA General

New Media, New Data and a Dark Foreboding

After the major shift in surveillance practices from state power and control to big tech corporations and monetisation, we are currently witnessing yet another Zeitenwende: Surveillance practices as a means of hybrid warfare, with the AI-driven vision of accessing what people think and feel. This type of surveillance produces knowledge that not only claims to reveal what people are likely to do in the future but also what they feel and think. The consequences of this epistemological bending are potentially grave.

Testing the Waters of Private Data Pools

Nowadays, data is mostly collected not by state actors but by businesses. In 2010, the German Constitutional Court held that the legislator has to evaluate the overall level of surveillance in Germany before enacting new data retention obligations. In light of the recent rejuvenised discussions about data retention and a general surveillance account, this text explores whether such an account needs to consider private data pools and what is required for a successful evaluation.

Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes

On 7 November 2024, the CJEU provided clarifications for building a cohesive EU-wide framework for compensating crime victims. The ruling not only curtails Member States’ discretion in interpreting key concepts that are critical to defining eligibility for compensation, but it also strengthens the interplay between the Compensation Directive and the Victims’ Rights Directive. This judgment reinforces the the harmonized definition of victim established in Article 2 of the Victims’ Rights Directive, solidifying its status for determining those entitled to victim’s rights.

Data Retention in a Cross-Border Perspective

This blog post compares the European and US approach to metadata surveillance and highlights some challenges that arise therefrom. It aims at shedding light on the main legal issues that may arise for the future of global counterterrorism. The essential role of courts in striking and keeping a balance between security and protection of human rights is further examined in light of the judgement in La Quadrature du Net II. Efforts should be made to avoid that the economic power of the US would lower the privacy standards when it comes to metadata surveillance.

The Long and Winding Road

The Court of Justice’s Quadrature du Net judgements mark another key moment in the complex and long-lasting legal debate on mass data retention in the European Union. This blogpost critically discusses the “constitutionalisation path” outlined by the EU Judges as well as the fragmented roads taken by Member States, with specific attention to Italy. Ultimately, it demonstrates the need for a decisive EU legislators’ intervention, able to draw the future path of data retention regimes.

The Future of GDPR Enforcement

The ongoing trilogue negotiations on the GDPR procedural regulation aim to address significant enforcement shortcomings. From strengthening complainants' rights to harmonising Data Protection Authorities' discretion and improving cross-border cooperation, these discussions carry major implications for data protection in Europe. This analysis highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure effective and fair enforcement.

Of Minor Benefits and Major Costs

Is general and indiscriminate data retention permissible under the EU fundamental rights framework? In La Quadrature du Net II, the Court tilts the metaphorical scale towards data retention. The take-away could contribute to the enlargement of privatised surveillance that rests on a generalised pre-emptive data retention scheme. The ECJ’s findings could cement intrusive practices emerging from the counter-terrorism narrative to regular state practice at the expense of fundamental rights protection.

Who Let the Bots Out

As artificial intelligence revolutionizes modern warfare, systems like Israel’s Lavender and Ukraine’s Clearview AI are transforming combat with precision and efficiency. This advancement has sparked an urgent debate on the responsible use and governance of AI in military, with 57 countries signing the Political Declaration on AI’s military applications, urging adherence to international law. Central to this is the accountability – who is responsible when AI systems violate laws? This blog post argues that state responsibility for AI violations remains viable within existing legal frameworks.

Prioritising Member States Over Citizens

The classic story about the right to privacy and data protection in the EU is one of a high level of protection. Yet, this original rosy image is increasingly fading away, most visibly in the La Quadrature du Net litigation, which is a continuation of two dynamics. First, the Court is still cleaning up the residual mess that lingers on from the now annulled Data Retention Directive. Second, in so doing, it is incrementally allowing the Member States indiscriminately retain personal data. Hence, the Court is carving out space for Member States’ preferences to the detriment of the protection of the individual.

Data Retention

The recent judgements of the CJEU on data retention should not be regarded as an authoritarian move towards a less fundamental rights-sensible position of the Court. Rather, the case law adapts the ever more complex development of the constitutional security law, which was originally dominated by the Member States. As a European court, the CJEU cannot simply ban certain police measures but must respect the complexity and heterogeneity of national law enforcement agencies.