All articles

A few weeks ago we have filed a complaint with the Austrian data protection authority about the Passenger Name Record. Our aim is to overturn the directive, in other words to virtually abolish it. Four weeks ago the data protection authority has rejected our complaint, which we think is good news, because that is the only way we can go to court. We now had four weeks to draft and file a complaint for the Federal Administrative Court.

To foster the debate about one of the most complicated digital rights issues of our time, epicenter.works releases today its first draft for a proposal on platform regulation. What regulation is needed for the digital world we live in and how can we strengthen the values that we need to safeguard in today's digital information society?

Our future with technology is a polarizing topic. While some urge that advancements pose grave threats to personal privacy and other fundamental rights, others believe whole-heartedly in the promise of new technologies to eradicate long-standing inequalities at a pace that humans have been unable – or unwilling – to go. This second vision, in which computers and algorithms solve social problems and have the power to fix the world, subscribes to a view of technological utopianism — the idea that, through reliance on new technologies, the world will become truly better for everyone.

The responsibility of communications platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook for their users’ online activities is a key factor affecting innovation and free speech in the 21st century. Still, the degree of liability for intermediaries – and the extent of online speech regulation – varies greatly, lacking a unified approach to regulation. Heightening the monitoring responsibilities of intermediaries is, in some ways, positive because intermediaries can work to support a healthy speech environment online.