POLITICO’s weekly transatlantic tech newsletter for global technology elites and political influencers.

By MARK SCOTT

Send tips here | Subscribe for free | View in your browser

JUST LIKE A WONKY ADVENT CALENDAR, there are only two Digital Bridge newsletters to go for 2023. I’m Mark Scott, POLITICO’s chief technology correspondent, and I bring you live footage of why my family hates it when I turn my journalism spidey senses toward domestic matters. True story.

We’ve got something for everyone this week:

— Two months into the war, there’s a lot more pro-Palestinian content than pro-Israeli material. What that tells us about social media is unclear.

— The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act is (kinda) done. What happens next is a case study in why Brussels isn’t good at enforcing its digital rules.

— Section 702 of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is likely to get a four-month reprieve. But will that be enough to keep it alive?

THE FOG OF A DIGITAL WAR

IT HAS BEEN JUST OVER TWO MONTHS SINCE Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking about 240 hostages, according to Israel. In response, Israel invaded Gaza, leaving at least 15,000 Palestinians dead, based on estimates from local health authorities in Hamas-run Gaza. The suffering, for both sides, is unimaginable — and it looks unlikely to stop anytime soon. Within this cacophony of awfulness, social media has become an an active participant — used by those supportive of Israel and Palestine alike to promote their side of the conflict; raise awareness; and, often, peddle falsehoods.

In that sense, the Gaza conflict is no different from other 21st-century wars where dominating the digital media landscape is now part of combatants’ overall strategy to win hearts and minds, engage with like-minded supporters, and count claims from opponents. But what sets the Middle East war apart — alongside this being the first real test of Elon Musk’s ownership of X, formerly Twitter — is how disproportionate the online messaging has become. It’s hard to generalize because of how unique everyone’s social media experiences have become via algorithms tailored to individual interests. But, on average, there are just much more pro-Palestinian messages on the likes of Instagram, TikTok and YouTube compared with pro-Israeli posts.

Let’s look at the stats. On TikTok, I gathered roughly 50 hashtags that were either pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli or viewed as used by both sides. This is not a perfect science. But it’s true videos with the #StandWithPalestine hashtag garnered around 4.8 billion views, based on TikTok’s own data. In contrast, the #StandWithIsrael counterpart received just under 600 million views. Similar disparities could be seen with everything from #PrayforPalestine and #PrayforIsrael to #ProPalestine and #ProIsrael. This isn’t just a TikTok phenomenon. On other platforms like Facebook, there’s an equal asymmetry in which there’s more pro-Palestinian content being created compared to pro-Israeli material, based on Digital Bridge’s analysis via CrowdTangle, a social analytics tool owned by Meta.

Yet for me, this “hashtag comparing” doesn’t really tell us much. In response to criticism, tech giants like TikTok argue such analysis doesn’t capture the nuance of how each hashtag is used. I hate to admit it, but that’s correct. But I have different reasons than TikTok for suggesting hashtags aren’t a good proxy for tracking how the Gaza conflict is playing out online. For the companies, it’s all about context. How long someone spends on a video, they argue, is arguably more important than how many overall posts were created. It doesn’t matter if there are 20 times more pro-Palestinian posts, for instance, if pro-Israeli counter-messaging is getting more eyeballs.

And that is where my frustration lies. In the end, the volume of social media content produced is meaningless. What matters is the type of material served up to people via their online feeds. And that almost exclusively comes down to a platform’s so-called recommender systems, complex algorithms that decide what tiny fraction of the billions of pieces of content produced daily will make it in front of people’s eyeballs. Just counting hashtags isn’t going to get under the hood of those systems. What you need to do is look beyond the collective total amount of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli content, and figure out exactly how much of that is making it into people’s feeds.

Leaked documents and corporate whistleblowers suggest those decisions are geared toward displaying posts that people will engage with the most and, therefore, stay on each respective platform longer — generating more ad revenue. It’s an agnostic process, though one that — at least for Meta’s platforms — led to more polarizing content being served up because internal research confirmed such material was more likely to engage people than less divisive posts. It’s also an ecosystem that we have almost no information about because tech giants jealously guard these algorithms because they are the secret sauce for how, in the end, they make money.

But we can make educated guesses on how this is shaking out. Based on the volume of pro-Palestinian content compared with pro-Israeli material (itself, an imperfect science), we can surmise more people, globally, are engaging collectively with those posts — just given the sheer amount of content produced. If that’s true, we can also argue platforms’ algorithms will likely favor that content — though we have no evidence for that yet. That’s because these algorithms are geared toward displaying material that will likely engage users. If the volume of pro-Palestinian content is greater, and social media algorithms are focused on meeting people’s digital interests, then — hypothetically — it’s likely that companies’ recommender systems are over-indexing on pro-Palestinian messages to fill that need.

Yet, for now, that is just a working theory — one that companies often refute and that currently lacks quantifiable data to stand up. But compared to the “hashtag hunting” that currently dominates the debate, it’s a hypothesis based on how social media actually works.

AI ACT: SHOW ME, DON’T TELL ME

THAT AURA OF SMUGNESS THAT YOU CAN FEEL is politicians and officials in Brussels congratulating themselves for getting a political deal done on the bloc’s Artificial Intelligence Act. To be clear, no final text is yet complete, though I’m told the outstanding details are merely minor tweaks — nothing substantial. Here’s the expected timeline: The final document will be approved in the second quarter of 2024; all-out bans on certain AI uses (more on that below) take effect in early 2025; and by the summer of 2026, the entire piece of legislation is fully enforceable. In short: We’re still at least a year away from seeing any bite to what has been agreed.

First, let’s give the Europeans their due. This year has seen multiple voluntary commitments on AI governance, most notably what the White House published in July. But the EU has gone further than others by making its rulemaking mandatory. Here’s an overview (also here) of what was decided. But, in short, controversial AI-based systems like social scoring will be banned; high-risk use cases like those associated with health care will be highly regulated; almost all mundane AI systems will have minimal to no oversight; and fines range between 7 percent of a company’s yearly turnover (not revenue) for the worst abuses to 1.5 percent of annual turnover for more minor misdemeanors.

Like almost all of the bloc’s new digital legislation, officials and lawmakers have focused almost exclusively on transparency and accountability to ward off wrongdoing. Companies developing high-risk AI use cases, for example, will have to document their activities, conduct outside audits and demonstrate human oversight of how these systems are developed. When it comes to the latest so-called general-purpose AI models (those requiring computer power greater than 10ˆ25 so-called floating point operations, or, basically, only those currently developed by Alphabet and OpenAI), these systems will also have to be tested by outside groups dedicated to finding potential vulnerabilities.

So far, this all sounds pretty familiar to existing voluntary commitments that every large Western AI developer has agreed to. What’s different with the European approach is that it’s all mandatory — and comes with significant fines for wrongdoing. And that, for me, is where I turn from optimist to pessimist on what Brussels announced at the weekend. The EU’s strategy is based on a false promise that, via countries’ existing agencies and a new AI Office to be created within the European Commission, there’s enough technical skill, financial resources and regulatory capacity to both keep track of existing models and keep ahead of what is to come.

If recent history has taught us anything, that is wishful thinking. The ongoing problems of enforcing Europe’s privacy regime, known as the General Data Protection Regulation, has come down to a lack of money and expertise — coupled with intra-EU regulatory in-fighting — that has left the bloc’s data protection legislation less than the sum of its parts. Europe’s social media rules, known as the Digital Services Act, are equally heading toward similar issues. That’s even after the bloc included an ongoing company levy (estimated to be $37 million a year) to pay for oversight that, like the AI Act, is predicated on transparency and accountability as key drivers for enforcement.

For me, what has been missing from the AI Act’s victory lap are details of how this is all going to work in practice. I want budget numbers. I want figures on new regulatory hires. I want an explanation of how these agencies will push back against companies’ transparency reports that may, or may not, be accurate. Recent research shows firms are pretty opaque about how their AI models work. So far, only Spain has announced the creation of a dedicated AI regulator. Other EU countries could follow, though will likely rely on already-stretched existing agencies to do the heavy-lifting on enforcing the bloc’s new AI legislation.

The same questions swirl around how the Commission’s new AI Office will function. Nominally, this yet-to-be created body will coordinate pan-EU oversight; enforce the rules specified for general-purpose AI; and oversee an outside group of AI experts to help with its work. So far, no budget for this work has been set — at a time when Europe’s finances are already stretched. Rumors abound that funding for the AI Office may come from the bloc’s Digital Europe Program, or $8 billion fund to help digitize the Continent. Still, until that happens, I fall back to the old journalistic cliche: Show me (how this is going to work), don’t tell me.

BY THE NUMBERS

SECTION 702 EXTENSION DOESN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM

SECTION 702 OF THE US FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ACT SPLITS OPINION. The rules allow American security agencies to surveil foreign nationals (and, controversially, some U.S. citizens) anywhere in the world. The provisions, though, will expire on December 31 — something that both Congress and the White House don’t want to happen. Still, there are currently two competing bills to overhaul Section 702, which has become a lightning rod for privacy campaigners over claims it is used to unfairly collect reams of data on primarily non-Americans. One, via the House of Representative’s Judiciary Committee, would make it harder for data to be collected on U.S. citizens. The other, via the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, would expand some of Section 702’s overall remit.

In a last-minute move, Section 702 is expected to be given a four-month extension under the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act, or must-pass legislation before the end of 2023. That would give U.S. lawmakers until April 19 to find a compromise. A lot of the controversy around Section 702 comes from some in the Republican party who believe the provisions allow for surveillance of U.S. citizens with little oversight. They cite the invalidation of two of four FISA-based warrants against Carter Page, a former Donald Trump aide, as evidence of such overreach. Importantly, no one in Washington really mentions how non-U.S. citizens — some, arguably, innocent — have similarly been caught up in such bulk surveillance.

WONK OF THE WEEK

WE’RE GOING SLIGHTLY OUT OF MY TYPICAL COMFORT ZONE this week to focus on Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games, the studio behind the blockbuster Fortnite. His company won a landmark competition case Monday against Google after a judge ruled the search giant had used anti-competitive practices via its Android operating system and app store to harm rivals and consumers. Google said it would appeal the decision.

Sweeney is an unlikely antitrust champion. A graduate of the University of Maryland, he stumbled into gaming while working as a software consultant in the early 1990s, before rebranding his company to Epic Games. Fortnite was created in 2017, but Sweeney has been fighting battles with both Apple (in a case that he lost on nine out of 10 charges) and Google over how these tech giants pocketed a share of revenue when users accessed the game via the firms’ dominant app stores.

“This is an example of the greatness of the American justice system,” Sweeney wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “A [billion-dollar] company challenges a [trillion-dollar] company over complex antitrust practices, and a jury of 9 citizens hears the testimony and renders a verdict.”

THEY SAID WHAT, NOW?

“If the United Kingdom is to avoid being held hostage to fortune, it is vital that ransomware becomes a more pressing political priority, and that more resources are devoted to tackling this pernicious threat to the U.K.’s national security,” Margaret Becket, chairwoman of the U.K. parliament’s joint committee on national security strategy, in response to a report highlighting the country’s vulnerabilities to such cyberattacks.

WHAT I’M READING

— The U.K. government accused groups with ties to the Kremlin of trying to interfere in the country’s democratic institutions by targeting local politicians, journalists and officials with cyberattacks. More here.

— Stanford University published its inaugural Emerging Technology Review, a deep-dive into 10 emerging technologies (and not just artificial intelligence) and their policy implications. Take a look here.

— Hausfeld, a law firm known for filing lawsuits against Big Tech firms, filed a class-action case against Google’s alleged misuse of copyrighted material from publishers, including for the company’s generative AI products. More here.

— To combat widespread misinformation, society must move away from trying to have better facts about contentious issues and focus on how these problems can be framed, often online, to portray legitimate topics in false ways, argues Kate Starbird from the University of Washington.

— A group of liberal U.S. politicians called on Joe Biden to support the EU’s digital competition overhaul and reject claims it represented an illegal barrier to trade. More here.

— More than half of Brits, 44 percent of French people, and 33 percent of Germans said they viewed social media as hurting democracy, according to a poll commissioned by Luminate, an advocacy group.

SUBSCRIBE to the POLITICO newsletter family: Brussels Playbook | London Playbook | London Playbook PM | Playbook Paris | Global Playbook | POLITICO Confidential | Sunday Crunch | EU Influence | London Influence | Digital Bridge | China Watcher | Berlin Bulletin | D.C. Playbook | D.C. Influence | All our POLITICO Pro policy morning newsletters

politico.eu/newsletter/digital…

Members of the European Parliament today voted in plenary by a large majority in favour of the creation of a “European Health Data Space”, which would bring together information on all medical treatment received by citizens in a remotely accessible and interconnected electronic health records system. Thanks to an amendment tabled by digital freedom fighter Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party), together with MEPs from S&D, Greens and the Left, a parliamentary majority voted at the last minute to allow Member States to give their citizens a right to object to the collection of their health records in a remotely accessible and interconnected system. Such right to opt-out exists in Germany and Austria already. The final wording of the law will need to be negotiated with the EU governments, whose mandate does not so far allow for a right to object to the collection of health data. Other amendments initiated by Breyer, according to which patients should be asked before their patient data is made available to doctors or researchers, were not supported by a majority.


”A compulsory electronic patient file with Europe-wide access entails irresponsible risks of theft, hacking or loss of the most personal treatment data and threatens to deprive patients of any control over the collection of their illnesses and disorders,” emphasises Breyer, co-lead negotiator for the Greens/European Free Alliance group in the EU Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee. “This is nothing other than the end of medical confidentiality. Have we learnt nothing from the international hacker attacks on hospitals and other health data?

If every mental illness, addiction therapy, every potency weakness and all abortions are forcibly networked, worried patients risk being deterred from urgent medical treatment – this can make people ill and put a strain on their families! In the trilogue negotiations, I will fight to ensure that national opt-out schemes are clearly allowed for in the legislation.”

In the final vote, Breyer opposed the bill. There was no majority for amendments to the rule that patients will need to actively object to disclosing their health data to healthcare providers and researchers (opt-out). Citizens will not be asked for consent or asked verbally whether they wish to opt out.

Breyer explains: “For many patients who have little time or limited language skills, or who are older, it is too complicated to have to object in writing to a specific authority or to use digital tools to object. International standards such as the International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association or the Helsinki Declaration on the Ethical Principles of Medical Research have so far required that the patient’s consent be obtained before medical information is disclosed. An opinion poll we commissioned confirms that citizens expect to be asked for their consent before their health data is shared. Every website asks us for permission before setting a cookie, but we are not to be asked before our health data is shared? This system takes away patients’ control over their data and is unacceptable.”



According to a survey by the European Consumer Organisations (BEUC), 44% of citizens are concerned about the theft of their health data, and 40% fear unauthorised data access.

The first round of trilogue negotiations between the EU Council, EU Parliament and EU Commission is due to take place tomorrow. The Parliament‘s rapporteur wants to finalise the negotiations by 2024.

patrick-breyer.de/en/european-…

In the run-up to tomorrow’s vote in the European Parliament on the creation of a European Health Data Space and on amendments to prevent a mandatory European patient file, Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer the following speech in today’s plenary debate:

“Madam President, Commissioner, honourable colleagues.

We are representatives of the people. Surveys tell us: Citizens do not want all treatment, all of our physical and mental disorders to be collected in a Europe-wide networked electronic patient file without being asked, exposing them to security risks, as you are planning. Mandatory electronic patient records are unacceptable!

The majority of citizens also do not want our doctors to be able to view our entire medical history, from mental disorders to abortions and potency problems, without being asked. Interconnected electronic health records can have advantages, but as a Pirate, my conviction is: Nobody other than myself has the right to decide what is good for me and my health.

More than 2/3 of Europeans are opposed to industry being able to access our non-anonymised health data, such as psychotherapy records, without our consent e.g. for product development, as you propose. Why don’t you ask patients what they want?

In the interest of industry profits, you intend to undermine medical confidentiality, which is essential for not being deterred from agreeing to marital therapy or drug abuse therapy, for example, which may constitute a risk to our reputation. Do you realise what you are doing to families?

Stop trying to tell us that good care or research would only be possible by disempowering patients in this way. Our amendments show how progress and respect for the patients’ will can go hand in hand.

I insist: My physical and mental health is my business. My health data belongs to me. Respect that!”

Background: For tomorrow’s vote, MEPs are proposing amendments to prevent a mandatory Europe-wide interconnected health data space and to keep patients in control of their health data. The proposed EU Health Data Space regulation would oblige doctors to enter a summary of each patient’s treatment in the Europe-wide interconnected, remotely accessible system. The text does not provide for exceptions or a right to object even for particularly sensitive diseases and therapies such as mental disorders, sexual diseases and disorders such as erectile dysfunction or infertility, HIV or addiction therapies. Patients would only be able to object to access to their electronic patient file. How this right to object could be exercised is not specified. A survey by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) has shown that 44% of citizens are concerned about theft of their health data; 40% fear unauthorised access to data.

The plenary of the European Parliament is due to vote tomorrow and can approve final changes. The first round of trilogue negotiations between the EU Council, EU Parliament and EU Commission is due to take place on Thursday.

patrick-breyer.de/en/european-…

I rapporti che emergono da Tigray nelle ultime settimane dipingono un quadro cupo. Dopo aver sofferto per due anni di operazioni militari e occupazioni di terra bruciata, che coinvolgono atrocità diffuse e guerre d’assedio, le famiglie in tutta la regione del Tigray stanno lottando per sopravvivere. Questo dovrebbe essere un momento di guarigione, recupero e ricostruzione. Invece, è un momento di incertezza, disperazione e fame.

youtube.com/embed/WqZ963MlvMI?…

Per mesi, la leadership senior di USAID e WFP hanno ignorato pubblicamente la ben documentata discesa del Tigray nella fame di massa, che è stata innescata dalla loro controversa decisione di sospendere l’assistenza alimentare a marzo. Oggi, le notizie di decessi legati alla fame provengono da tutta la regione, con più hotspot scoperti in ogni area accessibile del Tigray, comprese le zone nord-occidentali, centrali, orientali, sudorientali e meridionali.

youtube.com/embed/ocDgPJhQq04?…

Sorprendentemente, non sembra esserci alcun monitoraggio sistemico e continuo delle morti per fame in tutto il Tigray. L’unico rigoroso studio sulla mortalità in Tigray condotto da quando è iniziata la sospensione degli aiuti, si è concluso a luglio. In questa valutazione, i medici del Tigray’s Health Bureau, del Tigray Health Research Institute e dell’Università di Mekelle hanno indagato sui decessi di circa il 10% della regione. Hanno determinato che più di 1.300 persone erano morte per cause legate alla fame dopo l’accordo sulla cessazione delle ostilità. Secondo i risultati preliminari, il tasso di mortalità mensile è aumentato bruscamente dopo l’inizio della sospensione di marzo ed è stato più alto nell’ultimo mese di copertura. Nei mesi che seguirono, il Tigray entrò nella sua tradizionale stagione magra e poi sperimentò un significativo fallimento delle colture a novembre a causa della mancanza di forniture agricole e siccità.

youtube.com/embed/fTNtffGH3Ug?…

Cosa viene detto al Congresso USA?

Lo studio è stato citato dal rappresentante Brad Sherman nell’audizione della scorsa settimana, “Etiopia: Promise o Perils, Lo stato degli Stati Uniti. Politica”, che è stata tenuta dalla sottocommissione per gli affari esteri della Camera degli Stati Uniti sull’Africa. Questa udienza è stata la prima tenuta in Etiopia sotto la presidenza del repubblicano John James del Colorado, che ha preso l’amministrazione Abiy Ahmed per svolgere la lunga e crescente lista di atrocità e crimini commessi sotto la sua guida. Il presidente James ha concluso senza mezzi termini:

“Se devo essere onesto, è sempre più difficile vedere dove si trova la promessa”.

Il deputato Sherman tecnicamente non fa parte della sottocommissione, ma alla fine dell’udienza gli è stato permesso di interrogare l’inviato speciale Mike Hammer e il vice amministratore aggiunto dell’USAID, Tyler Beckelman, davanti a una camera in gran parte vuota. In risposta ad una domanda sull’impatto e sulla ripresa dell’assistenza alimentare, Beckelman ha cercato di rassicurare il deputato che la sua agenzia stava ancora salvando vite in Etiopia, sostenendo che:

“Molta attenzione è stata posta sulla pausa negli aiuti alimentari… Gli aiuti alimentari sono solo una componente dell’insieme complessivo di attività umanitarie che forniamo alla popolazione etiope e cose come l’alimentazione nutrizionale per i bambini malnutriti e le cure per i bambini sotto i cinque anni continuato per tutto il periodo della pausa”. [Udienza della Camera degli Esteri, 30/11/23, 1:17 ]

Beckelman ha ragione nel dire che il supporto nutrizionale salvavita viene ancora fornito ai bambini in Etiopia. Nei sei mesi successivi alla sospensione degli aiuti alimentari nel Tigray alla fine di marzo, il numero di bambini sotto i cinque anni ricoverati per malnutrizione acuta grave (SAM) in Etiopia è diminuito solo leggermente. Tuttavia, per i bambini del Tigray, menzionati espressamente dal rappresentante Sherman, l’accesso a questo aiuto nutrizionale è quasi del tutto evaporato.

Per dirla in altro modo, un membro del Congresso degli Stati Uniti ha chiesto informazioni sulle morti per fame nel Tigray e il vice amministratore delegato dell’Africa Bureau dell’USAID ha risposto con una dichiarazione molto fuorviante che lasciava intendere che la rete di sicurezza per neonati e bambini piccoli che muoiono di fame nel Tigray non era stata tolta loro nel momento peggiore possibile. È importante che l’USAID difenda la decisione di sospendere gli aiuti, ma senza avanzare affermazioni che oscurino la reale portata della sofferenza del popolo tigrino.

Cosa non viene detto al Congresso?

Il grafico seguente illustra il fallimento dello sforzo umanitario internazionale volto a salvare la vita dei bambini del Tigray che stanno morendo di fame dopo otto mesi di sospensione degli aiuti alimentari. Mostra quanti bambini sotto i cinque anni sono stati ammessi ogni mese per malnutrizione grave in regioni selezionate dell’Etiopia rispetto al livello di ammissioni quando è iniziata la sospensione degli aiuti nel Tigray. Il ricovero per il trattamento della SAM è l’ultima linea di difesa contro neonati e bambini piccoli che muoiono di fame. È importante notare che ogni mese avvicina il Tigray alla stagione magra agricola e si allontana dall’ultima volta in cui qualcuno ha ricevuto assistenza alimentare esterna, con conseguente aumento della domanda di trattamento SAM.

In tutte le altre regioni di questo grafico i servizi nutrizionali vengono ancora forniti, ad eccezione del Tigray. Per i bambini del Tigray che sono stati sfollati, il trattamento per la SAM semplicemente non esiste al di fuori di un paio di città nella zona nord occidentale. A giugno, una valutazione dell’OIM ha rilevato che c’erano 140.993 bambini sotto i cinque anni sfollati nel Tigray. Secondo le misurazioni della circonferenza del braccio medio-superiore (MUAC) del più recente sondaggio nutrizionale SMART+ raccolto ad agosto, oltre il 35% dei bambini sfollati soffriva di malnutrizione acuta grave (5,7%) o moderata (30%). Ciò significa che, solo tra la popolazione sfollata, ad agosto circa 50.000 neonati e bambini piccoli morivano di fame.

Secondo il SAM Management Update del Nutrition Cluster, nei due mesi successivi all’indagine SMART+, settembre e ottobre, solo 210 bambini sfollati hanno ricevuto cure per la SAM . Il numero totale di bambini ammessi con SAM è di 207 nella zona nord-ovest e 3 nella capitale di Macallè. Nessuno dei 31.000 bambini nella zona Centrale, nessuno dei 16.000 bambini nella zona Orientale, nessuno degli 11.000 bambini nelle zone Sud e Sud-Est ha avuto accesso al trattamento per la SAM. L’unico tipo di assistenza disponibile per i bambini sfollati era il trattamento ambulatoriale; nessun bambino sfollato ha ricevuto cure speciali (ricovero) per la SAM.

Per fare un confronto, nei due mesi precedenti la sospensione degli aiuti alimentari (febbraio e marzo) quasi 1.300 bambini sfollati hanno ricevuto cure per malnutrizione grave. L’accesso alle cure per i bambini sfollati sotto i cinque anni è diminuito dell’84% a causa del protrarsi della sospensione degli aiuti.

Sarebbe dovuto accadere il contrario. Se l’USAID e il WFP non fossero stati pronti ad aumentare l’assistenza nutrizionale per soddisfare un crescente bisogno, la sospensione degli aiuti alimentari non avrebbe mai dovuto essere presa in considerazione. Non dopo due anni di fame armata. Non con l’avvicinarsi della stagione magra. Non con così tante vite innocenti in gioco.

Controllo del danno o controllo della crisi in atto

Quando le persone parlano di “controllo del danno”, il danno a cui si riferiscono è reputazionale. È qualcosa che fanno le celebrità o le aziende di fronte a uno scandalo. Non è mai coraggioso, ma spesso accettato. Non potrà mai essere una pratica accettabile per le organizzazioni umanitarie o i governi quando le persone che dovrebbero servire muoiono per mancanza dei beni e dei servizi che dovrebbero fornire. Le agenzie umanitarie e i governi devono adottare misure per controllare i danni causati e della crisi, alle persone che dipendono da loro per sopravvivere.

L’impatto della sospensione umanitaria era del tutto prevedibile. Avrebbe dovuto essere evitato, ma ormai è troppo tardi. Ciò di cui il Tigray ha bisogno ora è che le agenzie umanitarie e i funzionari inizino a controllare i danni che hanno causato. I donatori sono troppo disposti ad accettare che le principali agenzie umanitarie che operano nel Tigray dedichino maggiori sforzi alla crisi reputazionale più che al controllo della crisi e dei danni che hanno arrecato per poca trasparenza e la loro sospensione delle attività.

La popolazione del Tigray ha bisogno che i donatori chiedano alle agenzie umanitarie di fornire dati accurati sulle condizioni sul campo; adottare trasparenza su piani, decisioni e operazioni; distribuire assistenza alle persone bisognose. Qualunque cosa di meno costituisce una grave distorsione dei principi umanitari fondamentali che crea le condizioni per una ripetizione del tracollo totale a cui stiamo assistendo proprio ora nel Tigray.

FONTE: tghat.com/2023/12/08/starvatio…

tommasin.org/blog/2023-12-08/e…

In future, the European Court of Justice will proactively and systematically publish the letters and arguments submitted by the parties to proceedings on its website after a judgement has been delivered. An exception applies if the author of pleadings objects, but in this case there is a right to access the information via the EU Commission upon request. This is the result of the negotiations on the reform of the CJEU Statute between the EU Parliament and the EU Council, in which Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer was involved. The new transparency rule applies to all questions referred to the ECJ by national courts (“preliminary ruling procedures”). Following the initiative of Breyer, who is himself a judge by profession, the European Parliament had called for public access to the pleadings and arguments exchanged in court proceedings.

“With the systematic publication of submissions and arguments, the European Court of Justice is becoming more transparent than ever before. This also sets standards for the national judiciaries. It is a privilege that I, as a member of the Pirate Party, was able to introduce our core value of transparency into the negotiations and successfully implemented it thanks to the support of my colleagues. Pressure from civil society also helped.

After landmark judgements with far-reaching consequences, the public has a right to know and discuss the positions our governments and institutions advocated for. I am sure we will be surprised by some of the positions our own governments take. In a democracy where freedom of the press reigns, it must be possible to hold the powerful accountable for their behaviour in court. At a time when the EU and its Court of Justice are facing a crisis of confidence, transparency creates trust.

Of course, the new transparency rule with its restrictions and reservations does not yet fully meet our expectations. In particular, we will be keeping a close eye on whether member states with deep-rooted secrecy culture will systematically abuse their right to object to publication. Nevertheless, the introduction of the principle of proactive transparency in the EU judiciary is a milestone and a paradigm shift.”

patrick-breyer.de/en/pirate-pa…

Meta, the company behind Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, has announced significant security enhancements to its Messenger direct messaging service. In the future all personal calls and messages will be end-to-end encrypted by default. Pirate Party Member of the European Parliament Patrick Breyer, a long-time opponent of blanket chat control scanning of all private messages, comments:

“Zuckerberg’s move is a success also of my lawsuit against Meta’s voluntary chat control mass surveillance: with the gradual introduction of secure end-to-end encryption to direct messaging, Facebook and Instagram are ending their voluntary, error-prone searches in the content of our private messages and begin respecting the confidentiality of our communications.

Voluntary mass surveillance of our private communications makes no significant contribution to saving abused children or to convicting abusers, but criminalises thousands of minors, overburdens law enforcement and opens the door to arbitrary private justice by big tech industry. Voluntary chat control could never contain the amount of suspected CSAM on Zuckerberg’s platforms. Relieving the police of the flood of largely false reports frees up law enforcement capacity for targeted and undercover investigations into organised child sexual abuse, thereby really protecting children. Even without chat control mass surveillance, user reports and reports resulting of the automated scanning of public posts on Facebook and Instagram will continue to be made.

Regrettably, Zuckerberg‘s Meta continues general monitoring of users by deploying unreliable metadata analysis algorithms. We Pirates managed to force the company by way of the EU‘s Digital Markets Act to allow for cross-platform interoperability with alternative, more secure and privacy-friendly messengers in future. We will thus be able to switch to better messaging services while maintaining our contacts on Instagram and Facebook.

Without any mass surveillance, Meta could make Facebook and Instagram secure by design for children if Zuckerberg was willing to compromise on profits. Why, for example, are young people not asked, regardless of their age, if they want their photos and profiles to be publicly visible to strangers?”

patrick-breyer.de/en/secure-en…

The EU Parliament’s Industry Committee today approved a new EU regulation on digital identity (eIDAS 2) against the votes of the Pirates and their group. According to the law, a new digital identity app will enable EU citizens to access public and private digital services such as Facebook or Google and to pay online. The deal was approved despite IT security experts and scientists publicly warning against mass surveillance and recently countering disinformation by the EU.

“This regulation is a blank cheque for surveillance of citizens online, endangering our privacy and security online”, comments Pirate Party lawmaker Patrick Breyer. “Browser security is being undermined, and overidentification will gradually erode our right to use digital services anonymously. Mark Zuckerberg should have no right to see our ID! Entrusting our digital lives to the government instead of Facebook and Google is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. This deal sacrifices essential requirements the European Parliament had put forward to make the eID app privacy-friendly and secure. The EU misses the opportunity to establish a trustworthy framework for modernization and digitization. We will watch the implementation very closely.”

Pirates Mikulas Peksa and Patrick Breyer worked until the last minute to try and fix at least some of the numerous risks of the EU digital identity scheme. In a major victory, Member States will not be obliged to assign a single unique ID number to every citizen. Signing up for the eID app will be voluntary, and it will remain possible to access public and private services by other existing identification and authentication means. The app client will be open source.

„Overall though the scheme remains a blank cheque for surveillance of citizens online“, concludes Breyer. „As hundreds of scientists publicly warn and contrary to what the EU claims, web browser manufacturers could be forced to expose our securely encrypted Internet use (including intimate and sensitive activities) to government surveillance. This is an unacceptable attack on secure encryption. The eID apps can also be used to monitor our digital lives because there is no requirement of unobservability and unlinkability. The content of our eID wallets (potentially bringing together personal banking data, medical prescriptions and criminal records) could be monitored via central databases because we have no right to store documents exclusively on our personal devices.

The lure of conveniently signing in to private digital services using a single official eID app is a trap. Overidentification will gradually erode our right to use digital services anonymously which currently keeps us safe from criminal activity, unauthorised disclosure, identity theft, stalking and other forms of abuse of personal data. The eID app will not allow for multiple, truly separate user profiles which vulnerable persons rely on.

The server-side code of the eID wallet will not have to be open source, meaning the public cannot know what the code actually does and if it is safe.

In view of all this, the new EU eID app will not be trustworthy and will fail to sufficiently encourage the development of digital and eGovernment services in Europe – much to the Pirates regret.“

patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-digita…

EU governments gave the green light yesterday to the creation of an EU Health Data Space (EHDS) which would interconnect patient data across Europe. In the meantime, lawmakers have yesterday submitted amendments to give patients a right to object to the collection of their personal health data in the new Data Space, and to ensure that patients retain control over their health data.

Firstly, 70 MEPs from S&D, Renew, Greens and Left request the following should be added to the Regulation: “Member States may provide for natural persons to have the right to object to the registration of their personal health data in an EHR system.” “Compulsory electronic health records for every citizen that are accessible across Europe would entail irresponsible risks of data theft, hacking or leaks of the most personal treatment data. It would deprive patients of any control over the collection of their illnesses and disorders,” warns Breyer. “This is nothing less than the end of medical confidentiality. Have we learnt nothing from the international hacker attacks on hospitals and other health data? If every mental illness, addiction therapy, every potency weakness and all abortions are collected in a remotely accessible data space, worried patients risk being deterred from urgent medical treatment – this can make people ill and harm their families! In the European Parliament, I will fight to give patients a choice over the collection of their health data.”

Other amendments tabled yesterday by Breyer and other MEPs concern the plan that patients would need to actively object in future in order to prevent healthcare providers and industry from accessing their treatment records. “Citizens should at least be asked orally whether they wish to object to the lifting of medical confidentiality,” explains Breyer the amendments. “For many patients who have little time or limited language skills, and for the elderly, a complicated written or electronic procedure is too burdensome to give them a real choice. International standards such as the International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association or the Helsinki Declaration on the Ethical Principles of Medical Research have so far required that the patient’s consent be obtained before their medical data is disclosed. A public opinion poll we commissioned confirms that people expect to be asked for their consent before their health data is shared. Every website asks us for consent before setting a cookie, but we shouldn’t even be asked before our health records are shared? This doesn’t effectively keep patients in control of their data.”

Background:

The EU’s Health Data Space bill is intended to oblige doctors to enter a summary of each patient’s treatment into an interconnected system (Article 7). Exceptions or a right to object are not provided even for particularly sensitive diseases and therapies such as mental disorders, sexual diseases and disorders such as impotence or infertility, HIV or addiction therapies. Patients whould only be able to object to access to their electronic patient file by other healthcare providers or industry. How this right could be exercised would be up to every Member State. According to a survey by the European Consumer Organisation BEUC, 44% of citizens are concerned about the risk of theft of their health data; 40% of citizens fear unauthorised data access.

Next Tuesday, the plenary of the European Parliament is to vote on final amendments to their negotiating mandate. The first round of negotiations between the EU Council, EU Parliament and EU Commission is due to take place as early as next Thursday. The rapporteurs want to finalise the negotiations before the 2024 European elections.

patrick-breyer.de/en/european-…

Now that the EU plans for mass screening of private communications and undermining secure end-to-end encryption (chat control 2.0) have been put on ice due to a lack of majority among EU governments, the EU Commission is proposing an extension of the existing voluntary chat control regulation, which is currently set to expire on 3 August 2024, by two years. The planned fast-track procedure has not yet been communicated by the EU Commission. For Pirate Party lawmaker and most prominent opponent of chat control Patrick Breyer, who is also his group’s lead negotiator on the file, the proposal is an admission of failure:

“Proposing to continue working with the status quo is an admission of failure of the scandalous methods of Home Affairs Commissioner ‘Big Sister’ Ylva Johansson to implement authoritarian chat control in Europe.” Due to her unprecedented, radical attack on digital privacy and secure encryption, ‘big sister’ Johansson is directly responsible for the complete failure to achieve any better protection of our children from abuse. Johansson’s personal crusade for and ideological obsession with mass surveillance is blocking truly effective preventive measures, for example by requiring online services to be secure by design. Victims of child sexual abuse deserve politicians who are capable of protecting children in an effective, politically and legally feasible way – this is cross-party consensus in the EU Parliament.”

At the same time, Breyer criticises the instrument of voluntary chat control: “The Commission’s report on the supposed effectiveness of voluntary chat control has been overdue for months. No surprise: the voluntary mass surveillance of our private communications by US services such as Meta, Google or Microsoft makes no significant contribution to rescuing abuse victims or convicting producers of child sexual abuse material. It instead criminalises thousands of minors, overburdens law enforcement and opens the door to arbitrary private justice by internet companies.”

“The regulation on voluntary chat control is both unnecessary and violates fundamental rights: Social networks as hosting services do not need the regulation to screen public posts. And the error-prone NCMEC reports that result from the indiscriminate screening of private communications by Zuckerberg’s Meta will end as a result of the announced introduction of end-to-end encryption by the end of the year. The legal opinion of a former ECJ judge finds that voluntary chat control violates fundamental rights. A victim of child sexual abuse and I are taking legal action against this.”

The EU Commission intends to inform the justice and interior ministers on 4 December 2023.

patrick-breyer.de/en/extension…

The lead committees of the European Parliament, LIBE and ENVI, have today voted in favour of the creation of a “European Health Data Space” (EHDS), which will bring together information on all medical treatments received by citizens. Specifically, the bill will oblige doctors to upload a summary of each patient’s treatment to the new data space (Article 7). Exceptions or a right to object are not provided for, even when it comes to particularly sensitive diseases and therapies such as mental disorders, sexual diseases and disorders such as impotence or infertility, HIV or drug abuse therapies. Patients would be able to restrict access to their health records, but not their creation.

“The EU’s plan to collect and interconnect records on all medical therapies entails irresponsible risks of data theft, hacking or loss. Even the most delicate therapies can no longer be administered off record in the future,” criticises Patrick Breyer, Pirate Party MEP and co-lead negotiator for the Greens/European Free Alliance in the EU Parliament’s Committee on Home Affairs. “This is nothing other than the end of medical confidentiality. Have we learnt nothing from the international hacker attacks on hospitals and other health data? If every mental illness, addiction therapy, every erectile dysfunction and all abortions are registered, concerned patients risk being deterred from seeking urgent medical treatment – this can make them ill and put a strain on their families. This digital disempowerment of patients needs to be put to a vote in plenary in December!”

Breyer, who voted against the bill today, also criticises the fact that patients would need to actively object to prevent healthcare providers and industry from using their data. “For many patients who have little time, limited language skills or education, or who are elderly, having to actively object with a certain authority or via a digital tool is too complicated in practice to give them a real choice. International standards such as the World Medical Association’s International Code of Medical Ethics or the Helsinki declaration on Ethical Principles for Medical Research require seeking patients consent before disclosing their medical information. A public opinion poll we commissioned confirms that citizens expect to be asked for their consent before their health records are being shared. Every website asks for our permission before setting a cookie, but we are not even asked before our health records are shared? This system deprives patients of real control over their data and does not deserve our trust.“

The European Parliament’s plenary is due to vote in December and can make final amendments. A survey by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) has shown that 44% of citizens are worried about their health data being stolen; 40% fear unauthorised access to their data.

According to the latest state of negotiations, the EU governments also want to introduce a compulsory interconnected electronic health record for everyone without any right of objection. This could be decided as early as 6 December in the so-called COREPER Committee. Trilogue negotiations between the institutions will ensue with a view of finding an agreement early next year.

patrick-breyer.de/en/european-…