Trump and the Folklore of Capitalism
How can we make sense of the return of Donald Trump, who again convinced enough US voters of his populist bonafides? Populist authoritarianism has made inroads around the world. Only Trump’s version, however, probably brings together so much wealth and power, with super-rich business executives now at the helm. Here I tap a brilliant but neglected book, The Folklore of Capitalism (1937), by the legal scholar and New Deal trustbuster, Thurman Arnold (1891-1961), to understand this remarkable development. Folklore of Capitalism helps explain Trump’s wide appeal, despite the electorate’s disagreements with many of his policy preferences.
Continue reading >>
The Hidden Reach of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act not only regulates artificial intelligence but also triggers the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, embedding EU principles of procedural justice into national administrative law. This development advances the Europeanisation of domestic legal systems and reshapes the balance between EU and national public law in the digital age.
Continue reading >>
Politicizing Constitutional Review
In July, the Finnish Parliament passed the Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration. The Constitutional Law Committee, a Parliamentary organ in charge of ex ante constitutional review of legislation, greenlighted the Act despite the fact that all of the 18 legal experts it consulted found it to be in conflict with the Constitution, human rights obligations and EU law. This sparked a discussion about the politicization of the Committee and the role its experts play both in the Committee and the media. In this blog, I argue that the Committee’s politicization is visible in how it dressed political arguments as legal when assessing the law.
Continue reading >>
Regulating AI at Europe’s Borders
How does the EU's AI Act affect migration and border management? This blog examines the critical gaps and challenges posed by the classification of high-risk AI systems, revealing how exceptions and loopholes amplify fundamental rights risks and accountability gaps. The analysis points out the need for stronger oversight and higher standards to protect the rights of individuals affected by AI-driven migration technologies.
Continue reading >>
EU’s AI Act and Migration Control. Shortcomings in Safeguarding Fundamental Rights
In the European Union, AI and non-AI technologies are increasingly being used for border and migration control. In this blog, Brouwer argues that the new AI Act, while adding safeguards, falls short of sufficiently protecting fundamental rights. This is due to its blanket exceptions and broad discretion for national and EU agencies to experiment with AI tools when making decisions about migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees. It is therefore important that the general legal framework on fundamental rights continues to be observed.
Continue reading >>
Autos als Belastungszeugen – hilft die KI-VO?
Moderne Autos, Fitnessarmbänder oder Herzschrittmacher beobachten ihre Nutzer ständig und werden dadurch zu potenziellen Beweismitteln. Können ihre Beobachtungen Teil der strafprozessualen Beweisführung werden? Sollten sie in Augenschein genommen oder doch eher wie Belastungszeugen konfrontiert werden? Hilft die KI-VO, wenn die Strafverteidigung die Vertrauenswürdigkeit einer Beobachtung testen will? Die der KI-VO eigene Mischung aus Produktesicherheit und Grundrechtsschutz birgt nicht nur ein generelles Potenzial für mehr Vertrauenswürdigkeit, sie könnte auch helfen genuin strafprozessuale Anliegen in das digitale Zeitalter zu überführen. Dieses Versprechen wird aber nur eingelöst, wenn Rechtswissenschaft und Rechtspraxis die europäischen Vorgaben in den Strafverfahrensalltag übersetzen.
Continue reading >>
Big Brother Is Analyzing You
Angesichts der Möglichkeiten automatisierter Datenanalyse wachsen bei den Sicherheitsbehörden die Begehrlichkeiten. Mit der im August 2024 in Kraft getretenen KI-Verordnung existiert eine Regelung, die die Gestaltung und Nutzung von Hochrisiko-KI-Systemen reguliert und dadurch die verfassungsrechtlichen sowie datenschutzrechtlichen Anforderungen an die polizeiliche Datenanalyse schärft. Für die gesetzlichen Vorgaben von Analysebefugnissen und deren Anwendung ist es entscheidend, klare Leitlinien für einen verantwortungsvollen und grundrechtsschonenden Einsatz von KI in Gefahrenabwehr und Strafverfolgung zu etablieren.
Continue reading >>
Ein Anfang, mehr nicht
Kein anderes Thema hat die Gemüter beim Ringen um die KI-Verordnung der EU so sehr erhitzt wie die automatisierte Gesichtserkennung in der Strafverfolgung und ihre Regulierung. Jetzt stehen die Vorschriften für Gesichtserkennung und andere Methoden biometrischer Fernidentifizierung fest – zumindest der aller-äußerste Rahmen, den die KI-Verordnung festlegt. Diese Regelungen sind allerdings nur ein Anfang, mehr nicht.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
KI im Einsatz für die Sicherheit
Mit der Verabschiedung der KI-Verordnung wurde nicht nur ein Rechtsrahmen für den sicherheitsbehördlichen KI-Einsatz geschaffen, sondern erneut die Diskussion über eine kompetenzwidrige Europäisierung des Sicherheitsrechts aufgeworfen. Neben der Notwendigkeit gemeinsamer datenschutzrechtlicher Mindeststandards im Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts sprechen jedoch auch die Einhaltung grundrechtlicher Garantien und die in der KI-Verordnung vorgesehenen Regelungsspielräume der Mitgliedstaaten für die Zulässigkeit einer übergreifenden Regulierung des KI-Einsatzes durch den EU-Gesetzgeber.
Continue reading >>
The AI Act National Security Exception
In 2024, the EU legislators adopted a detailed national security exception to the AI Act, contravening prior EU case law. Beyond the possibility of a future ruling that would realign the AI Act’s scope with said case law, the impact of this exception might be limited by other applicable laws and the interpretative and practical difficulty of distinguishing between national and public security. The AI Act’s failure to sufficiently account for these intricacies risks further legal uncertainty within the already complex security landscape. Therefore, this blog post explores the challenges of implementing the exception of national security to the AI Act’s scope of application.
Continue reading >>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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>