Zuckerberg’s Strategy

On January 7, 2025, and in the days following, the founder and CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, made a series of statements that framed Meta's previous and future content policy with an evidently strategic intention. The change of content moderation policy, as described in three comprehensive points in his personal announcement on his own platforms, may even sound reasonable, as discussed below. However, the reasoning and the framing of these changes appear to show that Meta is up to something entirely different from just further optimizing its curation of content on its platforms.

Musk, Power, and the EU

At a time when calls for the EU to respond to Musk’s provocations multiply, critical questions about whether, why, and how the EU may react remain largely unanswered. Musk’s conduct, which spans sectors as diverse as social media (X, formerly Twitter), AI (xAI), satellite technology (Starlink), space rockets (SpaceX), and electric vehicles (Tesla), pose unique challenges to existing legal frameworks. His multi-industry influence gives rise to profound questions about the limits of individual influence and power accumulation in a complex geopolitical landscape.

Das Dunkelfeld aufhellen

Algorithmische Lösungen zur Aufdeckung potenzieller Geldwäschefälle werden in Finanzinstituten und Banken bereits großflächig eingesetzt. Der EU-Gesetzgeber hat jedoch die Chance verpasst, solche KI-Systeme als hochriskant i.S.d. EU-KI-Verordnung einzustufen und damit einer besonders strengen Regulierung nach Art. 8 ff. EU-KI-Verordnung zu unterstellen. In der Geldwäschebekämpfung ist der Einsatz von KI mit gravierenden Risiken automatisierter Fehlentscheidungen verbunden, die durch die Privatisierung des geldwäscherechtlichen Verdachtswesens zu massiven Grundrechtsumgehungen führen können. Eine staatliche Einhegung wäre daher wünschenswert (gewesen).

Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine’s Courts

This post examines Ukraine’s recent steps toward AI integration in the courts, highlighting initiatives and plans for the future. While these efforts reflect a growing recognition of AI’s potential, they also reveal limitations. Concerns surrounding AI, such as data security and confidentiality, reliability, transparency, explainability, accountability, fairness, and bias, are just as significant in judicial contexts as they are in other areas.

A Troubling Triumph in Romania

The annulment of Romania’s presidential election results by its Constitutional Court is, at first glance, a triumph for democracy. By nullifying the first round – narrowly won by far-right candidate Calin Georgescu amid allegations of Russian-backed interference – the Court sent a clear message: electoral integrity is not up for debate. But is this really a victory? In truth, this decision reflects a troubling pattern in how democracies respond to crises: after the fact. The annulment is not so much a defence of democracy as a stark reminder of the limits of judicial power.

AI Act and the Prohibition of Real-Time Biometric Identification

Remote biometric identification (RBI) systems are increasingly becoming part of our daily lives. The most prominent example is the use of facial recognition technologies in public spaces (e.g. CCTV cameras). The AI Act regulates the use of RBI systems distinguishing between real-time and post RBI systems. While one of the main aims of the AIA was to ban real-time RBI systems, the Regulation failed to do so in an effective manner. Instead, it can be argued that the AIA still allows for a broad use of such systems.

The EU AI Act’s Impact on Security Law

The process of integrating European security law is imperfect and unfinished – given the constraints posed by the European Treaties, it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. This inevitable imperfection, lamentable as it may be, creates opportunities for legal scholarship. Legal scholars are needed to explore the gaps and cracks in this new security architecture and to ultimately develop proposals for how to fix them. This debate series, being a product of VB Security and Crime, takes the recently adopted AI Act as an opportunity to do just that: It brings together legal scholars, both German and international, in order to explain, analyze and criticize the EU AI Act’s impact on security law from both an EU and German national law perspective.

Daten sammeln für den Umsturz

Am 05.11.2024 nahm der Generalbundesanwalt (GBA) acht junge Männer fest. Sowohl der festgenommene Kurt H., Schatzmeister der sächsischen AfD-Jugendorganisation und AfD-Fraktionsvorsitzender im Stadtrat von Grimma, als auch Kevin R. arbeiteten beim sächsischen AfD-Landtagsabgeordneten Alexander Wiesner, der stellvertretendes Mitglied des 2. Parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschusses in der vergangenen Legislaturperiode war. Dieser Untersuchungsausschuss offenbart ein nicht unerhebliches Defizit im Grundrechtsschutz.

Why Australia’s Social Media Ban for Kids May Breach Its Constitution

On 29 November 2024, the Australian federal Parliament enacted a world-first law, which imposed a minimum age for access to most social media sites in the country. The law will not come into full force for at least twelve months, to give time to social media platforms to devise appropriate methods for verifying the ages of users. The law might be a rare example that fails the proportionality test. Social media companies have the means and incentive to mount a constitutional challenge to find out; surely they are going to do so.

Data Retention Laws and La Quadrature du Net II

La Quadrature du Net II has been criticized for allowing generalized metadata retention measures. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the law must not become a mechanism for protecting criminals. The scale of online rights violations are a real problem. P2P networks are not only a threat to copyright protection, but also an environment for the distribution of content related to serious crime. It is therefore necessary to strike a balance between these two concerns and to propose solutions that adequately protect users without guaranteeing impunity for criminals.