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.

Protecting Victims Without Mass Surveillance

Mass data retention is on the rise. In the current heyday of security packages in Germany, we are now witnessing a “super grand coalition” in favor of mandatory IP address retention. Some are calling for greater protection for victims through data retention. Yet, what one often overlooks is the following: The investigative capacities of law enforcement authorities have never been better, and the digital data pools that can be analyzed have never been larger. Hence, victims must be protected without mass surveillance.

More Protection for Victims Through Data Retention

Mass data retention is all about proportionality. The threat level determines the proportionality of the means – both of which are subject to the perpetual flux of time. Data retention is intended to protect victims of digital crimes. To protect freedom online, our security services urgently need to be able to access stored IP addresses. The alarming developments in our security situation are calling many certainties from the past into question. This also involves a re-evaluation of traffic data retention.

Eyes Everywhere

Ten years after its groundbreaking judgment declaring the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the EU Charter, the Full Court significantly eased its previously strict requirements. On 30 April 2024, it issued La Quadrature Du Net II and, for the first time, declared the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses permissible for the purpose of fighting general crime. Given the CJEU’s fundamental change of heart, we have gathered a range of scholars to contextualize the judgment and situate it within the broader debate on mass data retention, online surveillance, and anonymity.

Frisch gewagt ist nur halb gewonnen

Kein Erfolg ohne Training und gutes Trainingsmaterial. Was schon seither für Menschen gilt, ist auch für Künstliche Intelligenz („KI“) nicht anders zu beurteilen. Diese benötigt quantitativ und qualitativ hochwertige Datensätze, um menschenähnlich kreativen Output generieren zu können. Teil dieser Datensätze sind urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke (etwa Fotos oder Texte), derer sich Unternehmen auch bedienen, ohne vorher die Einwilligung der Urheber einzuholen. Ein Urteil des LG Hamburg versucht nun dieses Spannungsfeld aufzulösen – dies gelingt allerdings nur teilweise.

Trusted Flagger als Gefahr für die Meinungsfreiheit

Hannah Ruschemeier hat hier in einem Beitrag vom 4.11.2024 ein positives Bild der sogenannten Trusted Flagger gezeichnet. Über die eigentlichen rechtsstaatlichen und grundrechtlichen Probleme geht der Beitrag hingegen großzügig hinweg. In der konkreten Umsetzung des Digital Services Act (DSA) verbergen sich aber nicht akzeptable Gefahren für Meinungsfreiheit und Demokratie.

Art. 21 DSA Has Come to Life

Art. 21 DSA is a new, unusual and interesting framework to settle disputes over online content moderation decisions. By now, the first four online dispute settlement bodies (ODS-bodies) have been certified, and most of them have already started taking cases. In this article, based on recent interviews with representatives from all certified bodies, I will explore how these very first ODS-bodies are set up and which very first experiences they have made.

Flagging Trusted Flaggers

Nachdem die Bundesnetzagentur den ersten vertrauenswürdigen Hinweisgeber (Trusted Flagger) benannt hat, werden Vorwürfe der Zensur, übermäßigen Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit und fehlenden Erforderlichkeit solcher Stellen laut. Dabei ist das Konzept der Trusted Flagger keinesfalls neu oder eine Idee das DSA und das Vorgehen gegen illegale Inhalte im Netz weiterhin eine große Herausforderung in demokratischen Gesellschaften. Der DSA schafft klare Vorgaben für Trusted Flagger und transparente Verfahren.

Of Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights Charters

The Council of Europe has adopted the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence – the first of its kind. Notably, the Framework Convention includes provisions specifically tailored to enable the EU’s participation. At the same time, the EU has developed its own framework around AI. I argue that the EU should adopt the Framework Convention, making an essential first step toward integrating the protection of fundamental rights of the EU Charter. Ultimately, this should create a common constitutional language and bridge the EU and the Council of Europe to strengthen fundamental rights in Europe.