EAID touchstones for the European elections on 9 June 2024

The European Academy for Freedom of Information and Data Protection (EAID) has posed questions on data protection and freedom of information for the European Parliament elections on 9 June 2024. The answers given by political parties in Germany are documented below. The document is limited to the responses received by End of May. (Note: This text was translated using Deepl software)

1. Should the European Commission propose (fundamental) changes as part of the ongoing evaluation of the General Data Protection Regulation, and if so, which ones?

The Greens

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has set global standards for the protection of personal data in recent years. However, enforcement of the rules in the member states varies. While Germany needs less bureaucracy and more legal certainty, the rules must be enforced just as consistently against international digital companies based in other member states. The European Commission must therefore ensure uniform and consistent enforcement of the GDPR in order to effectively protect fundamental rights and citizens’ rights and create a level playing field for all companies that excludes special treatment for large corporations compared to SMEs. We want to use the upcoming evaluation of the GDPR to simplify the regulations while maintaining the same level of data protection and making them more practicable, also to take into account the special needs of SMEs and start-ups.

CDU/CSU (EPP)

The CDU and CSU want to make data protection simpler and more innovation-friendly. The privacy of citizens is and remains a valuable asset. But data protection law is too complicated. The CDU and CSU want a much simpler and more standardised data protection law that is applied in the same way throughout the EU. This requires a reform and harmonisation of the existing legal situation and application. The principle here is that due diligence obligations belong in sensitive areas.  The CDU and CSU welcome the fact that the EU wants to enable data spaces such as the European Health Data Space and facilitate the sharing of data.

FDP (Liberals)

We Free Democrats see functioning European data protection with data sovereignty and informational self-determination for citizens as the basis for a fair and functioning data economy. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has established itself as the global standard for data protection in many key aspects. We want to consistently de-bureaucratise it and develop it further. In particular, we will ensure that the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and their concerns are given greater consideration and that the bureaucratic burden is reduced.

The Left

The Commission should not propose any (fundamental) changes to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There is an urgent need for revision. For example, the GDPR does not differentiate between data processing for profit and data processing for the common good. Data processing for the common good should also be legally privileged to enable a solidarity-based digital transformation. In addition, the data economy often forces consent to tracking and surveillance-based advertising with paid alternatives. This devalues the protection of consent. At the same time, the GDPR has brought many advantages in terms of transparency, data subject rights and official enforcement. Should the GDPR be revised, it is to be feared that the lobby of the data industry will primarily achieve the dismantling of the many good protection standards. At this point in time, the good aspects of the GDPR must be protected against business lobbying and right-wing conservative dismantling, despite its weaknesses.

Pirate Party

The General Data Protection Regulation is the gold standard for data protection worldwide and a role model. In the current climate, reopening the package would lead to a serious watering down, which is why we Pirates reject it. Instead, we are calling for specific legislation to ensure a higher level of protection for electronic communications (ePrivacy) and also for our use of the internet (usage data). There is also an urgent need to improve the enforcement of data protection law, especially in Ireland, including through infringement proceedings.

2. What is your position on the Belgian Presidency’s proposal on chat controls to combat child sexual abuse?

The Greens

We all have a duty to protect children from sexualised violence. This requires structural reforms as well as investment in prevention work and more staff in counselling centres and the police. Instead of monitoring all private chat and messenger messages (“chat control”), we are in favour of targeted measures. The European Parliament has clearly and unanimously positioned itself in line with our position: Surveillance of communication content without cause is contrary to fundamental rights and is not feasible with us. At the same time, decisive action must be taken against the dissemination of sexualised depictions of violence by children and young people online. To this end, we want to strengthen the personnel of investigating authorities and improve European cooperation. We also want to strengthen preventive measures, such as a clearer design of online services with easy options for reporting abuse.

The Left

The Belgian Council Presidency’s proposals for a chat control regulation are also unacceptable. The Left strictly rejects client-side scanning in the context of chat control and state trojans. However, this alone is not enough to stop the planned Chat Control Regulation and the associated violation of fundamental rights. Mass scanning of private communications must be stopped in general. Exemptions from the ePrivacy Directive as they currently exist are unacceptable. Instead, we are calling for work to be resumed on the ePrivacy Regulation, which must include a consistent right to encryption. We reject all aspects of the planned Chat Control Regulation and all compromise versions of it. This also includes the plans for mandatory age verification and network blocking. We cannot see any urgent measures for more protection of children from sexualised violence here.

Pirate Party

Our MEP Dr Patrick Breyer is the shadow rapporteur for this regulation. The supposedly new proposal is a deceptive manoeuvre to push through the core of the EU Commission’s extreme initial draft on chat control unchanged. As the Council’s legal service and independent academics have confirmed in an open letter, the latest move does not change the nature of chat control disclosure orders. Millions of private chats and private photos of innocent citizens are to be searched and extracted using unreliable technology without those affected being even remotely involved in child abuse – destroying our digital privacy of correspondence. Despite lip service being paid to encryption, client-side scanning is to be used to undermine previously secure end-to-end encryption in order to turn our smartphones into spies – this destroys secure encryption.

The restriction of chat control to ‘high-risk services’ is meaningless because every communication service is always misused to send illegal images and therefore has a high risk of abuse. The leaked catalogue of criteria shows that any real-time communication, anonymity or encryption is considered a high risk, resulting in chat control.

The fact that chats are only to be blocked if two or more reports are received from the highly unreliable algorithms is also meaningless, as falsely reported beach photos or consensual sexting rarely involve just a single photo. The fact that the Council Presidency wants to exempt police officers, soldiers, intelligence officers and even interior ministries from chat control proves that they know how unreliable and dangerous the snooping algorithms are that they want to unleash on us citizens. It is outrageous that the EU interior ministers themselves do not want to suffer the consequences of the destruction of digital privacy and secure encryption that they are imposing on us.

3. Do you think that age verification on the Internet without excessive interference in the informational self-determination of users makes sense and how could it be realised?

The Greens

Effective protection mechanisms that ensure the protection of children and young people are fundamentally important.

Up to now, age verification technologies for the internet have either not been possible in a data protection-friendly manner or have been easy to circumvent. They can also restrict other fundamental rights, such as freedom of information or access to public services. This was the result of a study commissioned by our European Parliamentary Group and published in March 2024. We continue to advocate for mechanisms that offer effective protection, safeguard fundamental rights and do justice to data protection.

CDU/CSU

Age verification on the internet makes sense from a youth protection perspective, as it helps to ensure that content harmful to minors does not reach minors. At the same time, it is important that such systems do not excessively restrict informational self-determination. The CDU and CSU are therefore in favour of solutions that offer effective protection for young people without unduly restricting the rights of users. One way of realising this could be to use the eID function of the new ID card.

The Left

There are certainly technically sound and data-saving ways of implementing age verification. For example, the electronic functions of the ID card can be used to verify the age of majority as a simple yes/no query without transmitting the date of birth or identity key material. However, an interpretation of the eIDAS Regulation to the effect that these queries can be made without the ID card as a chip card should be rejected. This would jeopardise informational self-determination and bring down barriers against the risk of over-identification. The right to anonymous Internet use must be preserved. Identification requirements should generally be limited to the absolute minimum necessary. They always harbour the risk of unintentionally ostracising people or exacerbating existing social problems. In our opinion, age controls on the Internet do not help to protect minors.

Pirate Party

Truly anonymous, trace-free and trustworthy age verification is only possible by purchasing an access code from a retailer in exchange for ID. Only then can you be sure that your identity will not be recorded. On the other hand, such codes can then also be passed on to young people, so that the intended protection would not be realised. A survey commissioned by us shows that the vast majority of young people would prefer their apps to be registered by adults in the event of age verification. In this respect, age verification is the wrong way to protect young people. Instead, protective measures that empower users, regardless of their age, to defend themselves against unwanted content are the right approach.

4. What is your position on the conflicts that have become apparent in the trialogue on the e-Privacy Regulation (data retention, data protection supervision and purpose limitation) and will you advocate the early adoption of the Regulation?

The Greens

We played a key role in Parliament’s position in October 2017, which excludes data retention, gives oversight exclusively to the data protection authorities and strictly limits purpose limitation. We also campaigned for clear rules for “do-not-track” signals. Unfortunately, negotiations are currently deadlocked. We will continue to campaign for effective data protection standards. In any case, data retention without cause has now been ruled out by several judgements of the ECJ and the Federal Constitutional Court.

The Left

It is scandalous that in recent years the EU Commission has been working intensively on the genesis of an absurd chat control regulation and, before that, an exemption regulation from the e-Privacy Directive to allow the mass scanning of private communications, while the e-Privacy Regulation has not made any progress for years. This is no coincidence, as the encroachments on the confidentiality of electronic communications that have been unleashed, which violate fundamental rights, would be incompatible with a consistent e-Privacy Regulation. The trialogue negotiations have been going on behind closed doors for a long time now, which makes it all the more difficult to obtain information about the current state of negotiations or even to enable public participation. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. Regulations on data retention do not belong in the e-Privacy Regulation, nor do regulations that lead to a fragmentation of data protection supervision. The adoption of the regulation is also important in order to finally bring about privacy-by-default, protection of communication metadata and an end to the annoying and misleading cookie banners.”

Pirate Party

Our MEP Dr Patrick Breyer is shadow rapporteur for the stalled ePrivacy reform. As a long-time campaigner against the indiscriminate retention of communications, location and internet connection data, Patrick Breyer finds the demand by EU member states to legalise such a breach of the dam through the back door as part of the ePrivacy reform and to remove the basis for the groundbreaking ECJ case law against data retention completely unacceptable. Because the majority in Parliament shares this view, but the EU Council insists, the negotiations are stuck. 

In addition, while the EU Parliament is calling for many urgent improvements and strengthening of communications data protection (e.g. through encryption or a ban on tracking walls), the EU Council wants to massively water down and lower the current level of protection of the ePrivacy Directive. We are therefore in favour of the ePrivacy reform if and only if data protection in communications is actually strengthened. As long as the EU Council insists on serious deteriorations, we favour the very good level of protection provided by the current ePrivacy Directive.

5. How do you assess the AI Regulation recently adopted by the EP and where do you see starting points for its further development and supplementation so that it takes account of the rapid technological development in this area? 

The Greens

Progress in the development and application of AI represents a huge opportunity for many areas of life. At the same time, the rapid progress of AI is giving rise to new risks. The AI Act is an important step towards ethical and sustainable AI regulation. We have long been in favour of AI legislation that protects fundamental rights. We Greens have succeeded in ensuring that the new AI law bans a number of the most problematic applications, such as emotion recognition at university and in the workplace. We want to use AI in accordance with our shared values to ensure effective protection of human rights and equality.

CDU/CSU (EPP)

The CDU and CSU want artificial intelligence, not artificial bureaucracy. Europe should become a centre for the development of artificial intelligence based on ethical principles that serves people. We want to promote and accelerate research, support the development of applications and enable freedom. We must manage its risks, but must not miss out on the opportunities and benefits of AI through over-regulation. The new regulations must not stifle innovation in AI and must be regularly reviewed for appropriateness and up-to-dateness and further developed if necessary.

SPD

The AI Act is the world’s first and most comprehensive piece of legislation on the regulation of artificial intelligence. The act is based on a risk-based approach that also applies to future technological developments. Before any further development of the act, its impact should be assessed once it has come into force. As with most EU legislation, a regular review is planned to ensure that the legislation continues to be relevant and effective and meets rapidly changing conditions.

FDP (Liberals)

We want to make the EU a hotspot for artificial intelligence that serves people’s life chances instead of disempowering them. That is why we welcome the adoption of the AI Regulation as an important milestone. As the world’s first standardised regulation for the use of artificial intelligence, it creates legal certainty.

We reject both conservative surveillance wishes and left-wing over-regulation fantasies. The FDP is in favour of an unbureaucratic and practical implementation of the European AI regulation that enables innovation and protects civil rights. For AI training data, we are in favour of a fair use principle based on the American model. We want to strengthen the competitiveness of the European AI economy and enable modern monetisation models for rights holders.

At the same time, it has unfortunately not been possible to enforce a ban on biometric facial recognition by AI in public spaces at European level. However, we want a right to anonymity in public spaces. The widespread use of software for automated and mass facial recognition in public spaces harbours the risk of total surveillance. We are therefore endeavouring to use the leeway in the national implementation of the European AI Regulation in such a way that we legally exclude the use of this technology.

The Left

Although the adopted AI Act creates an urgently needed legal basis for the use of artificial intelligence (AI), it has not been possible to fully dispel the concerns about data protection and consumer rights that The Left has expressed on several occasions to date. The Left shares the criticism that the decision to regulate the permissibility and limits of law enforcement practices in a market regulation instrument such as the AI Act is fundamentally questionable. In the course of the negotiations, it became clear that the EU favours its economic and geopolitical goals over the goal of protecting fundamental rights and therefore clearly misses the mark (e.g. there is no consistent ban on biometric remote identification in public spaces, thus creating the conditions for an expansion of mass surveillance in public spaces within the EU). However, the multiple references to national law lead to different decisions on how to weigh up the issues and therefore do not result in a harmonised approach across the EU. The Left will closely and constructively support the upcoming regulatory projects in the member states (market and supervisory authority structures to be created, regulation of biometric remote identification, transparency, sustainability, etc.).

Pirate Party

When it comes to the private use of machine learning, the AI Regulation (AI Act) sets inadequate but nevertheless important guard rails. However, when it comes to the use of AI by the state, the regulation crosses our red line of mass surveillance. Comprehensive and permanent real-time facial recognition, intimidating behavioural surveillance in public spaces as used in Hamburg, error-prone facial recognition in video surveillance tapes of demonstrations even for petty offences, the AI-supported evaluation of people’s origins, unscientific ‘video lie detectors’ – none of these dystopian technologies are prohibited by the AI Act from our governments, which also include illiberal and far-right governments such as those in Hungary or Italy. Instead of protecting us from a high-tech surveillance state, the AI Act meticulously regulates how to introduce it. As important as the regulation of AI technology is, the defence of our democracy against the establishment of a high-tech surveillance state is non-negotiable for us pirates. Further development and additions will need to be considered once the regulation is in place and applied.

6. Do you consider the different supervisory regimes provided for in the various EU legal acts regulating the digital space (in particular the GDPR, Data Governance Act, Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, AI Regulation) to be appropriate and how should they be further developed in the interests of greater harmonisation? 

The Greens

The supervisory structures of the various legal acts regulating the digital space are not sufficiently harmonised. On the basis of the first evaluation report, we want to decide what standardisation of governance structures is required. In principle, greater harmonisation should be sought.

CDU/CSU (EPP)

The CDU and CSU are in favour of a comprehensive reduction in bureaucracy for business and society. This does not only apply to legislation at European level. The national implementation of EU legislation is also key. We want a more harmonised supervisory landscape in Germany and Europe. This applies both to the situation within individual legal acts and across legal acts. We want there to be clear responsibilities and contact persons that are clear and easily recognisable for citizens and companies.

FDP (Liberals)

We Free Democrats welcome all digital policy initiatives at European level that aim to strengthen European values in the digital space and further develop our internal market. Projects such as the DSA and the DMA can be seen as milestones for the citizens of Europe. For example, they ensure greater security in the digital space and strengthen user rights as well as media and press freedom. Nevertheless, different governance regimes have emerged, which seem understandable given the different areas of regulation. Harmonisation can make sense if it reduces or prevents bureaucracy and does not impair the enforcement of regulations. However, legal acts such as the AI Regulation are still too recent to be able to judge this. We will continuously evaluate the impact of all legal acts at European level and identify any need for adjustment, which may also include harmonisation of supervisory rules.

The Left

The supervisory regulations in the “digital space” provided for in various EU legal acts are often the result of complex negotiations and balancing of interests. The Left is of the opinion that the “digital space” is by no means a homogeneous space. In many cases, different (and usually decentralised) supervisory authorities may be necessary and beneficial in order to ensure that companies act responsibly in the digital space and respect the rights and interests of users (consumer protection, data protection, further protection of fundamental rights). The creation of a single centralised, uniform “digital authority” that could replace all of this would be a fallacy because it would reduce the “digital component” to a technologically neutral aspect and subordinate the social and economic issue to it. Achieving a balanced approach to regulating the “digital space” does not require “centralisation”, but rather good coherence and cooperation procedures.

Pirate Party

GDPR supervision plays a special role because the independence of data protection.

Data protection supervision is enshrined in primary law. In the case of other digital legislation, more detailed regulation or harmonisation has regularly failed because the EU member states do not want to be talked into this issue. For the time being, EU member states can set up digital supervisory authorities with bundled competences. If this prevails, greater harmonisation could be feasible in the future.

7. Do you have a TikTok account or are you planning to set one up ? What are the reasons for your decision? What is your opinion of TikTok’s practice with regard to the requirements of EU law on data protection, transparency and the prevention of fake news?

The Greens

We have also recently opened a TikTok account. In this way, we cannot leave an important part of today’s digital public sphere – especially for young people – to extremist and populist parties, which are massively represented there. Like all services offered in the EU, TikTok is subject to supervision by the European data protection authorities, which have already taken action with regard to the processing of children’s personal data. The spread of disinformation and fake news poses a threat to our liberal democracies. Consistent action must be taken against such content on all digital platforms.

CDU/CSU (EPP)

The CDU and CSU want to reach a broad and diverse audience with their political messages. This requires a target group-orientated approach. Social media is also used for this purpose. It is particularly important to protect the rights of citizens online – the relevant laws, such as the Digital Services Act, must therefore be complied with by all social networking sites. There are major question marks as to whether TikTok currently fulfils all requirements, for example with regard to the protection of minors and access for researchers. We therefore welcome the fact that the EU Commission has initiated formal proceedings against TikTok.

As Free Democrats, we are monitoring the developments and debates surrounding the TikTok app very closely. In particular because the app is so successful and there are repeated reports of data protection problems and censorship mechanisms on the platform, a cautious approach to TikTok is called for. We are not calling for TikTok to be banned at this time. It is much more sustainable to strengthen the maturity and media literacy of each individual. European citizens must be able to critically scrutinise and classify information from sources such as TikTok, recognise manipulation and form their own opinions. At the same time, the EU Commission must continuously monitor the influence that government agencies exert on internet companies. Sanctions must follow in the event of legal violations.

The Left

Yes, our lead candidate Martin Schirdewan and other members of our parliament use TikTok. The transparency of the working methods of the major platforms and the fight against fake news are regulated in various laws (AVMD Directive, DSA, Media Freedom Act, etc.). However, enforcement repeatedly shows that deletion practices and dispute resolution mechanisms replace editorial responsibility, source evaluation and research. In April 2024, the EU initiated infringement proceedings against TikTok in France and Spain for the first time, albeit due to other risks for young people. This shows that the technological and economic development of global platforms is still faster than EU legislation. The reach of the platforms is nevertheless attractive for political communication and is used by some of our parliamentarians.

Pirate Party

The Pirate Party is actively using a TikTok account in this EU election campaign, ignoring serious concerns, so as not to leave this important medium to anti-European and anti-democratic parties – especially as 16-year-olds are eligible to vote for the first time. We do not actively promote this account, and all videos there are also accessible via other channels, so that nobody has to use TikTok for the first time. 

TikTok is in breach of data protection in many respects, both on the server side and with regard to the app, and monitors users much more extensively than is necessary to provide the service. Unfortunately, this surveillance capitalist practice is largely standard in the industry and can also be found in competing US services such as Instagram. The right way out would therefore be to force the operator to operate TikTok in compliance with data protection regulations and to introduce legislation to ensure strong protection of internet use. 

As far as false reports are concerned, a distinction must be made between illegal and legal content. Illegal content must be removed as soon as it becomes known. In the case of legal content, it should not be up to the state or private internet companies to decide whether information is true or false. Users should be supported in categorising this (e.g. through references and fact checking). 

The real problem with fake news is the recommendation algorithms, which spread borderline, problematic and provocative content particularly quickly in the interests of corporate profit. Users should be able to sort their timeline by date and should also be able to use configurable and possibly non-commercial recommendation algorithms programmed by third parties to sort their timeline (interoperability). Such algorithms can ensure that we really get to see what we want to see and not what can be used to sell us advertising for as long as possible.

8. Will you be in favour of developing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents of the European institutions into a European Transparency Regulation?

The Greens

Yes, we will continue to campaign for improvements to Regulation 1049/2001, including more proactive publication of EU documents. For more democratic legitimisation of decisions at EU level, more transparency is needed in all EU institutions, especially in the European Council and the Councils of Ministers. The debates and positions of the individual member states should be made more comprehensible. We are pursuing our goal of more public access to EU documents in all policy areas.

CDU/CSU (EPP)

Transparency is one of the European Union’s greatest assets and is already enshrined in its treaties. The CDU and CSU support this and want to make documents available at a low threshold if there is no obstacle to this. The CDU and CSU believe that the European institutions have already set a high standard in this area, which should be further strengthened in the interests of transparency.

SPD

After the European Court of Justice ruled for the first time in 2018 in favour of wider access to documents from trilogues, it has become necessary to update the legal framework of Regulation 1049/2001. We support this objective and also share the conclusions of the European Ombudsman’s enquiry into transparency in the legislative process in the Council. The European Council is unwilling to publicise the positions of Member States on legislative procedures. In our view, it is time to revise the regulation on public access to documents of the EU institutions to include decisions and discussions during internal Council negotiations in legislative procedures.

The Left

In Art. 15 III TFEU & Art. 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, access to public documents was elevated to constitutional status in line with Art. 255 EC. In addition to the Council, Commission and Parliament, which maintain document registers, publication obligations now also apply to the ECJ, ECB and EIB, albeit only with regard to their administrative tasks. Official secrecy becomes the exceptional case requiring justification. In 2023, the EP, with the participation of THE LEFT & under pressure from 18 NGOs, demanded access to CJEU documents in landmark proceedings. With the EU Disclosure Regulation for Financial Institutions (2021), the possibility of evaluating investments & financial products has moved more into the public interest. At the same time, the EU Transparency Regulation for Financial Advisors was adopted, which requires that environmental & social sustainability risks be a documented part of the advice provided. Even though these transparency policies concern private institutions, their prioritisation – a regulatory assessment of their social and environmental impact – could be an interesting benchmark to further develop Regulation 1049/2001. Beyond access to documents of the EU institutions (incl. trade & international law treaties, see Pfizer) and their history (legislative train, incl. trilogue), we need to ensure more transparency about the activities of MEPs, Commissioners and Council members in order to recognise & exclude democracy-destroying lobbying.

Pirate Party

Definitely. Our MEP Dr Patrick Breyer, as shadow rapporteur for the reform of the Statute of the European Court of Justice, has already succeeded in enforcing the proactive publication of pleadings on the Court’s website as a rule. This must be extended to other institutions, because transparency is a functional condition of a democracy based on accountability.