Speakers

Ridwan Oloyede is the assistant director for the professional development workflow at Certa Foundation’s Center for Law and Innovation. He most recently co-authored Certa Foundation’s report on the state of AI regulation in Africa and analyzed Rwanda’s unique approach to AI regulation as the first mover in Africa. Previously Ridwan Oloyede co-founded Tech Hive Advisor, PrivacyLensAfrica, and Privacy Bar & Bants. He has been designated as an expert at the Council of Europe’s Data Protection Unit. 

Carlos Affonzo De Souza is director of the Institute of Technology and Society of Rio de Janeiro and a professor of law at Rio de Janeiro State University and the University of Ottawa Law School. Carlos De Souza is an Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information and Society Project. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Global Network of Internet & Society Research Centers, and his recent work has focused on Brazil’s efforts to regulate AI ahead of November’s G20 meeting and the emerging rights-based approach in that regulation.

Mason Kortz is a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. He brings his legal training and background as a software and database developer to his work at the Cyberlaw Clinic. His recent research focuses on the law of artificial intelligence and algorithms, and he has written and presented on how algorithmic decision-making has impacted intellectual property rights, product liability requirements, and the criminal legal system.

Gabriele Mazzini is the architect and lead author of the EU AI Act by the European Commission, where he has focused on technology law and policy for the past seven years. Prior to joining the European Commission, Gabriele served in the European Parliament and the Court of Justice and was Associate General Counsel at the Millennium Villages Project, an international development initiative across several sub-Saharan countries. Gabriele Mazzini is a Connection Science Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Buildings account for around 35 % of Germany's total final energy consumption. Residential buildings account for the largest share of buildings' energy consumption for heating, hot water, lighting, and cooling. From an energy and climate policy perspective, reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector is of great importance. Economical and effective solutions contributing to the"Wärmewende", the transition to sustainable heating, can also contribute significantly to reducing energy imports.

The successful transition to sustainable heating, i.e., saving thermal energy and decarbonizing heat consumption, is highly relevant for achieving Germany's energy and climate policy goals. High savings effects for the energy raw materials natural gas and heating oil are seen not only in new buildings but above all in existing residential buildings. But what savings can be achieved with the various measures? Which investments are worthwhile for building owners? Which political decisions can support the implementation of the necessary investments?

The TAB report "Energy-saving effects in the building sector" presents concrete and practical principles and options for action. The TAB report is thus not only aimed at decision-makers in politics and housing companies but can also provide owners of multi-family and single-family houses with basic orientation.

On 3 March 2020, AlgorithmWatch launched a project to monitor Instagram’s newsfeed algorithm. Volunteers could install a browser add-on that scraped their Instagram newsfeeds. Data was sent to a database we used to study how Instagram prioritizes pictures and videos in a user’s timeline.

Over the last 14 months, about 1,500 volunteers installed the add-on. With their data, we were able to show that Instagram likely encouraged content creators to post pictures that fit specific representations of their body, and that politicians were likely to reach a larger audience if they abstained from using text in their publications (Facebook denied both claims). Although we could not conduct a precise audit of Instagram’s algorithm, this research is among the most advanced studies ever conducted on the platform. The project was supported by the European Data Journalism Network and by the Dutch foundation SIDN. It was done in partnership with Mediapart in France, NOS, Groene Amsterdammer and Pointer in the Netherlands, Süddeutsche Zeitung in Germany and was covered by dozens of news outlets over the world.

by Nicolas Kayser-Bril

Bernard Harcourt (Columbia Law School, Professor of Law and of Political Science)

Frank Pasquale (Brooklyn Law School, Professor of Law)

Christoph Burchard (Goethe University, Professor of Criminal Justice etc.)

Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann (Goethe University, Professor of Public Law etc.)

Jürgen Kaube (Co-Editor at Large, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)

Algorithms – and the actors behind them – are surveying and impacting ever more dimensions of our modern lives. They recommend which movies to watch; they calculate risk appropriate credit scores; and they play a role in meting out “just” punishment; to only name a few areas. At the same time, they correct imperfect human decisions and add new informational dimensions to decisions prior impossible. To assess and evaluate the impeding transformations of normative orders in a predictive society, we approach algorithms in light of the juxtaposition of trust and control. Why and under which conditions do – or don’t – we trust algorithms? Indeed, can and should we trust them? Especially because their algorithmic normativity was (not) produced in justificatory fora where trust is brought about in and through social conflicts? But then, how much trust – if any – should algorithms put into us as citizens? For example, do they have to presume us non-dangerous and harmless? Vice versa, how much control do we need to retain over algorithms? And how much control should they exert over us? Can we use algorithms to control the effect of algorithms and thus create a meta-level of trust? Especially in order to negate, or as a matter of fact: to entertain, the freedom to deviate in the algorithmic society? These are but a few of the questions that internationally renowned speakers raise in “Algorithms between Trust and Control”, a lecture series convened by Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann and Christoph Burchard, and co-organized by the research clusters ConTrust, Normative Orders and ZEVEDI in the line of the Frankfurt Talks on Information Law and under the auspices of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main.

The lectures will take place via Zoom. Please register to receive the login data.

As we move into a world in which algorithms, robots, and avatars play an ever-increasing role, we need to better understand the nature of AI and its implications for human agency. Helga Nowotny argues that at the heart of our trust in AI lies a paradox: we leverage AI to increase control over the future and uncertainty, while at the same time the performativity of AI, the power it has to make us act in the ways it predicts, reduces our agency over the future.

These developments also challenge the narrative of progress, which played such a central role in modernity and is based on the hubris of total control. We are now moving into an era where this control is limited as AI monitors our actions, posing the threat of surveillance, but also offering the opportunity to reappropriate control and transform it into care.

Helga Nowotny is one of the most prominent scholars in science studies worldwide, an area that counted Yehuda Elkana as one of its pioneers and promoters. For several decades Helga Nowotny has been one of the most influential institution builders in European higher education and research. She has worked with European intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and bodies, such as the European Science Foundation, governmental agencies in several countries of East and West as well as independent organizations and committees of scholars. She has taken part in or directly led, the design and establishment of innovative new institutions, such as the European Research Council, Collegium Budapest or Central European University.

The Yehuda Elkana Fellow’s activities are held in partnership with Bard College through the Open Society University Network and supported by a grant from the Open Society Foundations.

Artificial intelligence is being increasingly leveraged across industries to offer superior products and services and optimize business processes. The proliferation of AI, however, raises a number of ethical questions on data privacy, fairness, bias, and accountability. In the future, will AI decide who is insured and who is not? Who will get which level of insurance coverage? And will vulnerable groups be left behind uninsured? This talk focuses on the risks related to the use of AI in the insurance sector.

This event is organized by the Department of Strategy and Innovation.

Jonathan Simon (UC Berkeley, Professor of Criminal Justice Law)

Algorithms – and the actors behind them – are surveying and impacting ever more dimensions of our modern lives. They recommend which movies to watch; they calculate risk-appropriate credit scores; and they play a role in meting out “just” punishment; to only name a few areas. At the same time, they correct imperfect human decisions and add new informational dimensions to decisions prior impossible. To assess and evaluate the impeding transformations of normative orders in a predictive society, we approach algorithms in light of the juxtaposition of trust and control. Why and under which conditions do – or don’t – we trust algorithms? Indeed, can and should we trust them? Especially because their algorithmic normativity was (not) produced in justificatory fora where trust is brought about in and through social conflicts? But then, how much trust – if any – should algorithms put into us as citizens? For example, do they have to presume us non-dangerous and harmless? Vice versa, how much control do we need to retain over algorithms? And how much control should they exert over us? Can we use algorithms to control the effect of algorithms and thus create a meta-level of trust? Especially in order to negate, or as a matter of fact: to entertain, the freedom to deviate in the algorithmic society? These are but a few of the questions that internationally renowned speakers raise in “Algorithms between Trust and Control”, a lecture series convened by Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann and Christoph Burchard, and co-organized by the research clusters ConTrust, Normative Orders and ZEVEDI in the line of the Frankfurt Talks on Information Law and under the auspices of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main.

Prof. Jonathan Simon (Professor of Criminal Justice Law, UC Berkeley)

Convenors: Prof. Christoph Burchard (Goethe University, Professor of Criminal Justice, PI of ConTrust and "Normative Orders") and Prof. Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann (Goethe University, Professor of Public Law, PI of ConTrust)

Presented by:

Forschungsverbund "Normative Ordnungen" der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, "ConTrust" - ein Clusterprojekt des Landes Hessen, Frankfurter Gespräche zum Informationsrecht des Lehrstuhls für Öffentliches Recht, Umweltrecht, Informationsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften und Zentrum verantwortungsbewusste Digitalisierung

Burkhart Schäfer (University of Edinburgh, Professor of Computational Legal Theory)

Opening Remarks by Prof. Enrico Schleiff (President of Goethe University)

Opening Remarks by Prof. Rainer Forst (Speaker of ConTrust and Normative Orders)

Welcoming Remarks & Comment Prof. Klaus Günther (Dean of the Faculty of Law Goethe University)

Algorithms – and the actors behind them – are surveying and impacting ever more dimensions of our modern lives. They recommend which movies to watch; they calculate risk-appropriate credit scores; and they play a role in meting out “just” punishment; to only name a few areas. At the same time, they correct imperfect human decisions and add new informational dimensions to decisions prior impossible. To assess and evaluate the impeding transformations of normative orders in a predictive society, we approach algorithms in light of the juxtaposition of trust and control. Why and under which conditions do – or don’t – we trust algorithms? Indeed, can and should we trust them? Especially because their algorithmic normativity was (not) produced in justificatory fora where trust is brought about in and through social conflicts? But then, how much trust – if any – should algorithms put into us as citizens? For example, do they have to presume us non-dangerous and harmless? Vice versa, how much control do we need to retain over algorithms? And how much control should they exert over us? Can we use algorithms to control the effect of algorithms and thus create a meta-level of trust? Especially in order to negate, or as a matter of fact: to entertain, the freedom to deviate in the algorithmic society? These are but a few of the questions that internationally renowned speakers raise in “Algorithms between Trust and Control”, a lecture series convened by Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann and Christoph Burchard, and co-organized by the research clusters ConTrust, Normative Orders and ZEVEDI in the line of the Frankfurt Talks on Information Law and under the auspices of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main.

Prof. Burkhard Schäfer (University of Edinburgh, Professor of Computational Legal Theory)

Opening Remarks by Prof. Enrico Schleiff (President of Goethe University)

Opening Remarks by Prof. Rainer Forst (Speaker of ConTrust and Normative Orders)

Welcoming Remarks & Comment Prof. Klaus Günther (Dean of the Faculty of Law Goethe University)

Convenors: Prof. Christoph Burchard (Goethe University, Professor of Criminal Justice, PI of ConTrust and "Normative Orders") and Prof. Indra Spiecker gen. Döhmann (Goethe University, Professor of Public Law, PI of ConTrust)

Presented by:

Forschungsverbund "Normative Ordnungen" der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, "ConTrust" - ein Clusterprojekt des Landes Hessen, Frankfurter Gespräche zum Informationsrecht des Lehrstuhls für Öffentliches Recht, Umweltrecht, Informationsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften und Zentrum verantwortungsbewusste Digitalisierung

In the latest issue of SWP Comment, PD Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann and Annegret Bendiek explain why the new EU cybersecurity strategy is too one-sided. The focus should not only be on deterrence and defense, but also on trust and security. They advocate for promoting cyber diplomacy in the European Union.

Bendiek, A.; Kettemann, M. C. (2021): Revisiting the EU Cybersecurity Strategy: A Call for EU Cyber Diplomacy. In: SWP Comment

• AWI: Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research
• DLR: German Aerospace Center
• FZJ: Forschungszentrum Jülich
• GEOMAR: GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel
• GFZ: Helmholtz Centre Potsdam – German Research Centre for Geosciences
• HZG: Helmholtz Centre Geesthacht, Centre for Materials and Coastal Research
• KIT: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
• UFZ: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research

The platform is coordinated at Helmholtz Centre Potsdam – German Research Centre for Geosciences.

The eskp.de website vividly conveys knowledge on the central topics of natural hazards, climate change, pollutants and the effects of the energy turnaround on the environment in the form of scientific articles, interviews, video clips, science GIFs, information graphics and more.

ESKP processes research findings for society. The range of expertise in the Research Area Earth and Environment allows complex topics to be examined from different perspectives and to be presented as a whole, in particular via the format of the “Themenspezial” (currently only in German). The contributions also point out open questions as an impulse back into the science community and provide action options. The aim is to improve the basis for decision-making in politics and society.

Founded in 2006, ITIF is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institute—a think tank. Its mission is to formulate, evaluate, and promote policy solutions that accelerate innovation and boost productivity to spur growth, opportunity, and progress. ITIF’s goal is to provide policymakers around the world with high-quality information, analysis, and recommendations they can trust. To that end, ITIF adheres to a high standard of research integrity with an internal code of ethics grounded in analytical rigor, policy pragmatism, and independence from external direction or bias.

Focus

ITIF focuses on a host of critical issues at the intersection of technological innovation and public policy—including economic issues related to innovation, competitiveness, trade, and globalization; and technology-related issues in the areas of information technology and data, broadband telecommunications, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, agricultural biotechnology, and clean energy. (Read more about ITIF’s policy goals and values.)

Ongoing research programs and educational activities include:

• Setting the policy agenda on technology, innovation, and global competition issues by producing original research reports and analytical commentary;
• Shaping public debate by hosting events, giving speeches and presentations, providing official testimony, publishing op-eds, and serving as expert issue analysts in the news media; and
• Advising policymakers through direct interaction in Washington, D.C., and other state, national, and regional capitals around the world.

On the strength and influence of this work, the University of Pennsylvania has ranked ITIF as the world’s leading think tank for science and technology policy, and one of the top 27 U.S. think tanks overall.

Expertise

ITIF is led by its president and founder, Robert D. Atkinson, an internationally recognized policy scholar and widely published author whom The New Republic has named one of the “three most important thinkers about innovation,” Washingtonian Magazine has called a “Tech Titan,” and Government Technology Magazine has judged to be one of the 25 top “Doers, Dreamers and Drivers of Information Technology.” Under Atkinson, ITIF’s team of policy analysts and fellows includes authors and recognized experts in the fields of economics, tax policy, trade, telecommunications, privacy, cybersecurity, and life sciences, among many others.

ITIF is home to the highly regarded Center for Data Innovation, which develops and promotes policy ideas to capitalize on the tremendous economic and social benefits that data-driven innovation can offer. ITIF also launched—and spearheads—the Global Trade and Innovation Policy Alliance, an international network of think tanks that conduct evidence-based research into policies that can foster greater trade liberalization, curb “innovation mercantilism,” and encourage governments to play proactive roles in spurring innovation and productivity.

● Digital Infrastructure, Methods, and Algorithms

and in the innovation areas of

● Digital Health

● Digital Society

● Digital Industry and Services.

The ECDF is a project based on a large-scale public-private partnership (PPP) between more than 30 companies, organizations, all four Berlin universities, the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and more than ten research institutions from Berlin science.

The ECDF has a planned duration of six years. With 38.5 million euros in funding, the project aims to create more links in the field of digitization in Berlin, try out new forms of cooperation, concentrate on innovative interdisciplinary cutting-edge research and attract excellently trained young scientific talent. The ECDF was approved by the Einstein Foundation Berlin in September 2016 after an elaborate review.

While technology has certainly helped jump start movements like Black Lives Matter, critics say it has also played a role in not just amplifying racial tensions but has also actively reinforced systemic racism through the lack of diversity in its creators and the inherent biases within its algorithms themselves. Jim Steyer, CEO and founder of Common Sense Media and author of the book Which Side of History: How Technology Is Reshaping Technology and Our Lives, has devoted a section of the book to exploring just how entangled Silicon Valley has become in our national history of racism and inequality.

In this program, Steyer will be joined by book contributors Ellen Pao, CEO of Project Incude, and Theodore Shaw, director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. They will discuss technology’s role in exacerbating racial inequality in the United States and the leadership role Big Tech needs to take in order to move the nation forward. We’ll explore how racial inequality is baked into the very fabric of technological platforms, and how diversity, inclusion and equity might hold the solution to changing its course.

We explore new models of thought and action

Modern societies are based on ever-changing sets of norms, procedures and structures that are intended to enable free and democratic coexistence. In times of fundamental social, economic and technical transformation, however, some of these institutions are reaching the limits of their ability to change and "broken concepts" are emerging. This term refers to ways of thinking, patterns of action or explanatory models that are so deeply connected to their previous context that they now seem to have come from a different era and need to be rethought. We want to research such broken concepts – such as the once-meaningful distinction between the offline and online world – and help overcome them by offering new models of thought and action. 

By doing so, we are actively shaping the society of the future. Based on the scientific competences brought together at the institute and its dedication to interdisciplinarity, HIIG can engage with current topics such as the "platformisation" of the economy and society or the use of artificial intelligence and question the underlying concepts, structures and norms.

In response to increasing public pressure to tackle hate speech and other challenging content, platform companies have turned to algorithmic content moderation systems. These automated tools promise to be more effective and efficient in identifying potentially illegal or unwanted material. But algorithmic content moderation also raises many questions – all of which eschew simple answers. Where is the line between hate speech and freedom of expression – and how to automate this on a global scale? Should platforms scale the use of AI tools for illegal online speech, like terrorism promotion, or also for regular content governance? Are platforms’ algorithms over-enforcing against legitimate speech, or are they rather failing to limit hateful content on their sites? And how can policymakers ensure an adequate level of transparency and accountability in platforms’ algorithmic content moderation processes?

Recommended resources:

• MediaManipulation.Org
• Donovan, J. 2020. “Thank You for Posting: Smoking’s Lessons for Regulating Social Media. MIT Technology Review.
• Donovan, J. 2020. “Covid Hoaxes Are Using a Loophole to Stay Alive—Even after Content Is Deleted.” MIT Technology Review. 2020.
• Donovan, J. 2020. “Trump’s Viral Flu Tweet Proves America Is Losing the Battle against Covid Misinfo.” NBC News.
• Donovan, J., and boyd, d. 2019. “Stop the Presses? Moving From Strategic Silence to Strategic Amplification in a Networked Media Ecosystem” American Behavioral Scientist, September.

The lowest CO2 emissions are produced when HD video is streamed at home over a fibre optic connection, with only two grams of CO2 per hour of video streaming for the data centre and data transmission. A copper cable (VDSL) generates four grams per hour. UMTS data transmission (3G), however, produces 90 grams of CO2 per hour. If the transmission technology used to transmit data is 5G instead, only about five grams of CO2 are emitted per hour. The electricity used by the end device is not factored into this calculation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only reinforced the urgency of the strategy. EU Heads of States have agreed that the European Green Deal is one foundation of the post-COVID-19 economic recovery. Despite the recession, the European Commission under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen will present a comprehensive plan to increase the EU's climate target to at least 50 per cent and as much as 55 per cent by 2030. This will inevitably require a faster lignite phase-out than previously planned because of all the fossil fuels lignite is the most CO2-intensive. In this light, Agora Energiewende and Forum Energii have jointly commissioned a study to Aurora Energy Research to look at the effects of the withdrawal from lignite in Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany in parallel by assessing the consequences for the power sector and answering the following questions: - How will security of supply be ensured after lignite power is shut down? - Who will be an importer and who will be an exporter of electricity in the region? How will electricity flows change? - How will CO2 emissions change? - What will be the costs of eliminating coal from the energy mix and how will it affect wholesale energy prices? On 3 September we will focus on the key results with regards to the Czech Republic digging deeper into the question, which challenges arise from phasing out lignite in the Czech power sector. The virtual event targets experts working on the Czech power sector. It will be held in English and includes a Q & A session.

The day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its 1.5-degree report, commissioned by the UN, was also the day William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics “for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis” as embodied in his influential Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model. The UN Paris Agreement called to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees to contain climate risks. Nordhaus’s numbers point to 3.5 degrees as the economically optimal warming by the year 2100. Now a new study published in Nature Climate Change has produced an update to the DICE model that can help to reconcile the camps.

Misinformation about COVID-19 has led to severe harms in multiple instances: as an example, a rumor that drinking methanol would cure the virus resulted in hundreds of deaths. While end-to-end encryption is an important privacy safeguard, this encryption prevents platforms such as WhatsApp, Signal, and others from employing centralized interventions and warnings about misinformation. Several options, however, from user interface changes to tip lines to having more intelligence on client devices offer hope.

In this presentation Dr Scott A. Hale will discuss how text similarity algorithms are being used to help fact-checkers locate misinformation, cluster similar misinformation, and identify existing fact-checks in the context of tip lines on platforms with end-to-end encryption. The presentation will detail research at the Oxford Internet Institute and Meedan, a global technology not-for-profit developing open-source tools for fact-checking and translation, that is actively being used by fact-checkers to improve the information available online.

Finally, I propose a statistical test as a baseline to identify and assess potential cases of algorithmic discrimination in Europe. Adoption of this statistical test will help push forward academic and policy debates around scalable solutions for fairness and non-discrimination in automated systems in Europe.

This series of online events offers an opportunity for Parties and other stakeholders to continue exchanging views and sharing information in order to maintain momentum in the UNFCCC process and to showcase how climate action is progressing under the special circumstances the world is currently facing.

This will include advancing technical work under the constituted bodies, as well as providing a platform for information exchange and engagement on other work being done under the UNFCCC, including on adaptation, mitigation, science, finance, technology, capacity-building, transparency, gender, Action on Climate Empowerment, and the preparation and submission of nationally determined contributions. Formal negotiations and decision-making are not envisaged for these events; they will take place at the SB sessions in October of this year.

In her lecture Joanna Bryson will argue that there are really only two problems humanity has to solve: sustainability and inequality, or put another way: security and power. Or put a third way: how big of a pie can we make, and how do we slice up that pie? Life is not a zero-sum game. We use the security of sociality to construct public goods where everyone benefits. But still, every individual needs enough pie to thrive, and this is the challenge of inequality. Joanna Bryson will argue that understanding these processes answers the questions above. She will then look at how AI is presently affecting both these problems.

Joanna J Bryson, Professor of Ethics and Technology at Hertie School, is an academic recognised for broad expertise on intelligence, its nature, and its consequences. She advises governments, transnational agencies, and NGOs globally, particularly in AI policy. She holds two degrees each in psychology and AI (BA Chicago, MSc & MPhil Edinburgh, PhD MIT). Her work has appeared in venues ranging from reddit to the journal Science. She continues to research both the systems engineering of AI and the cognitive science of intelligence, with present focuses on the impact of technology on human cooperation, and new models of governance for AI and ICT.

This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entries on Environmental impacts of food production and CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

What is the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of our diet?

I have shown previously that what we choose to eat has the largest impact, making a bigger difference than how far our food has traveled, or how much packaging it’s wrapped in. This is because only a small fraction comes from transport and packaging and most of our food emissions come from processes on the farm, or from land use change.

Regardless of whether you compare the footprint of foods in terms of their weight (e.g. one kilogram of cheese versus one kilogram of peas); protein content ; or calories, the overall conclusion is the same: plant-based foods tend to have a lower carbon footprint than meat and dairy. In many cases a much smaller footprint.

As an example: producing 100 grams of protein from peas emits just 0.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂eq). To get the same amount of protein from beef, emissions would be nearly 90 times higher, at 35 kgCO₂eq.

This publication gives an overview of actors and areas of action and stresses that collective engagement is needed more than ever to further develop Internet governance, to strengthen multistakerholderism as well as multilateralism and to hinder the fragmentation of the net. The publication was created by iRights.Lab on behalf the FES.

Here you find the online version of "Who Governs the Internet?"

Proponents of clean energy alternatives struggle to present convincing narratives on the coal-to-clean energy transition in national debates in the region. Power market reforms are introduced at a slow pace and regional integration and cooperation remains a serious challenge. As a result, RES deployment remains far below the economically viable potential. This conference aims to look at some of the burning questions surrounding the ongoing reforms in the energy sector in Europe, assessing the status quo and discussing options and requirements for finally moving towards a decarbonised energy future. It shall support a fact-based dialogue on the energy transition in Southeast Europe and create a space for making inclusive alliances comprised of governments, EU institutions, utilities, think-tanks, NGOs and citizens.

Under the title “Zukunft Gesundheitsdaten — Wegweiser zu einer forschungskompatiblen elektronischen Patientenakte” (Future health data — a guide to a research-compatible electronic patient file), the iRights.Lab developed a comprehensive study on the subject of eHealth on behalf of Bundesdruckerei (federal printing house). It shows which challenges have to be mastered so that Germany can also use the potential of digitalization in the field of eHealth.

Here the study can be dowloaded in German.

The first part of the event consists of three virtual parallel workshops. The HIIG is proud to host the online workshop: “Citizens, give us your problems! How to Open Data without giving it away.” The event will conclude with a panel discussion about the workshops outcomes and the overarching question of how to enable a sustainable digitalisation in cities like Berlin. The virtual panel discussion will be open to a broader public through a livestream (on this website).

Panel Speaker

Andrea Cominola | Junior Professor for Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future (ECDF) and Technische Universität Berlin. His research focuses on the modeling and management of water and energy demand, the detection of leakages and cyber-physical anomalies, behavior modeling, data mining and machine learning.

Luiza Bengtsson | Data, Actors, Infrastructures team member at HIIG and works on implementing Data & Society Interface research projects with the vision to enable open data access for public good, without data sharing in the classical sense and without collateral damage to individuals or institutions.

Ophélie Ivombo | Program officer for Digitisation of the Consumer Advice Centre Berlin and Bündnis Digitale Stadt Berlin. 

Thomas Krause | Project Manager Digitisation Strategy, Senate Department for Economics, Energy and Public Enterprises.

doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3484550

Dr. Stephan Dreyer is Senior Researcher, Johannes Schmees is Junior Researcher at the Leibniz-Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut. This entry is based on a forthcoming and extensive article which came to being in the context of the interdisciplinary research project “Deciding about, by and together with ADM-Systems.”

It was announced with some fanfare that Alexa and others would soon demonstrate breakthroughs in the field of emotion analysis. Much is written about affective computing, but products are far from market ready. For example, Amazon’s emotion assistant Dylan is said to be able to read human emotions just by listening to their voices. However, Dylan currently only exists in form of a patent.

So far, Amazon, Google et al. have not launched such products. Identifying unique signals that indicate that someone is sad seems to be a bit more complicated than they initially thought. Maybe someone’s voice sounds depressed because they are depressed, but maybe they are just tired or exhausted.

However, these difficulties do not prevent other companies from launching products that claim to have solved these complex problems by using voice and speech for character and personality analysis.

In Germany, two examples spring to mind. One is the company Precire, based in Aachen, a city on border with Belgium. Their idea: you record a voice sample, and based on the person’s choice of words, sentence structure and many other indicators, the software then produces an analysis of their character traits. The software can be used in staff recruitment or to identify candidates for promotion.

The company states that its software carries out the analysis based on a 15-minute language sample. The then CEO Mario Reis stated in an interview in 2016 that the results were based on science and scientifically tested. This statement is repeated in a book published in 2018. This book also cites additional studies and findings to further support the scientific grounding of the method.

By Veronika Thiel

Armin Nassehi is Professor of Sociology at LMU Munich; he researches and teaches in the areas of sociology of culture, political sociology, sociology of religion as well as sociology of knowledge and science. His sociology is mainly based on Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory. Nassehi’s next book “Muster. Theorie der digitalen Gesellschaft” will be published at the end of August.

German and European researchers have thus far dealt only tentatively with the topic of microtargeting in election campaigns. Most of the research projects and scientific papers on the subject are from the USA. Since Barack Obama’s election campaign in 2008 at the latest, it has become clear that both Democrats and Republicans in the US are employing massively data-driven processes in their election campaigns. In the paper State of Research: Microtargeting in Germany and Europe, we summarize the current expert debate on microtargeting in political communication, point to gaps in the research and provide suggestions on where new work is needed.

The paper was commissioned by the Landesanstalt für Medien NRW. The publication can be downloaded (German) free of charge from the Media Authority’s website and from our own.

To discuss the report and its findings during the event, Claude Turmes, Minister for Energy & Spatial Planning, Luxemburg, and Patrick Graichen, Executive Director of Agora Energiewende, were joined by a prestigious line-up of leading EU decision-makers: Sami Andoura (EU Commission), Aurélie Beauvais (SolarPower Europe), Eva Chamizo Llatas (Iberdrola), Giles Dickson (WindEurope), Fiona Hall (eceee), Susanne Nies (ENTSO-E), William Todts (Transport&Environment), Robert van der Meer (HeidelbergCement), Paul Voss (Euroheat&Power), and James Watson (Eurogas).

The recent IPCC report emphasises that climate-related risks are significantly more dangerous to human life and to the systems that sustain us at 2^oC warming compared with 1.5^oC. Yet global action is lagging, stymied by political meandering. To avoid the worst outcomes, global carbon emissions must be cut by half by 2030 and to zero by 2050 – an unprecedented task which requires bold and compelling action. The Club of Rome – Climate Emergency Plan proposes ten action points to achieve the goal set by the historic Paris Agreement, aligned with science and economic pragmatism, to limit temperature increase to 1.5^oC.

To avoid further collapse of environmental, political and socio-economic systems, urgent leadership is required now from governments, industry and citizens. Climate change is no longer a future threat. It is already affecting billions of people across the globe and every economy. Annual losses for the US alone will reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, according to the new US Climate Assessment and continued climate related impacts could create 140 million climate migrants globally by 2050.

The Club of Rome in its seminal 1972 report The Limits to Growth alerted the world to the environmental and demographic challenges. The central message was that the quest for unlimited growth in population, material goods and resources, on a finite planet, would eventually result in the collapse of its economic and environmental systems. That prediction is clearly manifesting in the climate change crisis awe are confronted with today.

The Climate Emergency Plan of the Club of Rome was launched on December 4th 2018 at the European Parliament. You can download the full report here.

The Methodological Convention for Estimating Environmental Costs 3.0 included a large number of parameters to calculate the costs of environmental pollution. This included the costs of restoring damaged building and infrastructures, of the market value of crop losses and production losses, as well as the sum which people would be prepared to pay for the avoidance of damage to their health. The Methodological Convention 3.0 helps to compare and contrast the costs of environmental pollution and the costs of environmental protection.

Climate protection is important. And the goal for Germany is clear: From over 11 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent to less than 1 tonne of CO₂-equivalent per person and year. This is the position of the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) in line with the international community of states. We still have a lot to do in order to achieve this goal. And ultimately we'll only get there if we have effective government framework conditions.

But today we can already take the lead as individuals. We can already avoid not only kilograms but tonnes of carbon - both when it comes to our own emissions (our carbon footprint) as well as when it comes to helping others avoid emissions (our carbon handprint). The UBA Carbon Calculator will help you keep track: Where do you stand today? What are the main tools at your disposal? What contribution can you make to climate protection in future?

Please note: Calculations only apply to the German context. Using the calculator while living in other countries will only give you some indication of your footprint, the actual values might differ substantially.

Emissions from shared amenities such as heating and electricity are automatically divided by the number of members in your household. Only in the case of car rides you have to make this allocation yourself, as only you can estimate the way you share.

Since the Industrial Revolution, however, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. Global warming and a changing climate have a range of potential ecological, physical and health impacts, including extreme weather events (such as floods, droughts, storms, and heatwaves); sea-level rise; altered crop growth; and disrupted water systems. The most extensive source of analysis on the potential impacts of climatic change can be found in the 5th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report; this presents full coverage of all impacts in its chapter on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. In light of this evidence, UN member parties have set a target of limiting average warming to 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. This entry provides a historical to present day perspective of how CO2 emissions have evolved, how emissions are distributed, and the key factors that both drive these trends and hold the key to mitigating climate change.

Current ethical debates about the consequences of automation generally focus on the rights of individuals. However, algorithmic processes – the major component of automated systems – exhibit a collective dimension first and foremost. This can only be addressed partially at the level of individual rights. For this reason, existing ethical and legal criteria are not suitable (or, at least, are inadequate) when considering algorithms generally. They lead to a conceptual blurring with regard to issues such as privacy and discrimination, when information that could potentially be misused to discriminate illegitimately is declared private. Our aim in the present article is, first, to bring a measure of clarity to the debate so that such blurring can be avoided in the future. In addition to this, we discuss ethical criteria for technology which, in the form of universal abstract principles, are to be applied to all societal contexts.

Linked Data has the potential to revolutionize the way we discover, access, integrate, and use data; just in the way the World Wide Web has revolutionized the way we consume and connect documents.

This course will introduce you to the basic principles and technologies of Linked Data to enable data sharing and reuse on a massive scale. Held together by ontologies, i.e. knowledge representations based on Semantic Web technologies, Linked Data serves as the central building block of the emerging Web of Data.

Shoshana Zuboff is a social scientist and author of three books, each of which has been recognised as the definitive signal of a new epoch in technological society. Her latest book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism reveals a world in which technology users are no longer customers but the raw material for an entirely new economic system. Zuboff is the Charles Edward Wilson Professor Emerita at Harvard Business School and was a Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School from 2014 until 2016.