 Willkommen hier in Eliza für den dritten Talk dieses Blogs an diesem zweiten Tage hier. Uns wird heute Rainer Rehack etwas über was schützt eigentlich der Datenschutz erzählen und er wird uns eine kleine Einführung mit einem strukturellen Blick auf den Datenschutz gewähren. So, this evening's Talk is about Rainer Rehack, it's who's what's going to protect the privacy or what's going to protect data protection. Rainer Rehack is member of the fifth, that's the from computer specialists for peace and social responsibility. So what's private, what is protecting data protection? So why do data protection often is have to stop talking about privacy, individual privacy. So it's about the inner stuff. So this is quite short. So it's actually coming too short, we would like to have a broader view on the whole subject. So something about myself. Also ich bin selber wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Weizenbaum-Institut für die vernetzte Ich bin Assistent zu der Weizenbaum-Institut für die Interconnected Society. Mein spezielles Interesse ist in Information Security, Data Protection. Ich habe Computer-Sciences und Philosophie und die Chinese University of Hongkong und die Humboldt University in Berlin. Und mein Master's thesis war es um Online-Searching. So ich bin ein Teil der Viertel. Und zwei mehr. So ich möchte euch ein paar generelle Noten pointen. The problem that we would like to discuss in data protection theory and operationalization. So how to get concrete hands on information on from the theories. So ein bisschen kritisierten Nichtlösungen sagen. What are non-solutions? Wenn sich da Fragen anschließen, werden wir auch eine Q&A machen, dass wir das diskutieren können zusammen. Dann werde ich ein Fazit präsentieren und dann kommt noch eine... Hopefully we can also discuss those non-solutions in the discussion afterwards. There will be a resume and also some hints on literature and forums in the end. Also erstmal die Begriffe. So some definitions. So in Englisch it's even more complicated. There's privacy and data protection. So it's some mix of definitions or notions. Erstens, Datenschutz selber ist ein soziales... So data protection itself is a social definition or social notion. Datenschutzrecht ist ein juristischer Begriff. Data protection legislation is a juristic notion and also data security as a notion of computer sciences. All have their own rules of discurs. And together with the description of the problem, there is also a solution of its own, but they are all interconnected. So it's important to know what notion is being used of this privacy or data protection or notion of information. So some overview on the legislation on data protection. So it's protecting individuals. It's personal data. Und zum Beispiel die Begründung, was schützt eigentlich die Datenschutzgrundverordnung. So the general data protection regulation, GDPR, is protecting Article 8, that's protecting individual information or individual data, personal data. So if you would like, it's like the constitution of the European Union. Its Article 1 is the base of it all. So die Schutzpersonen bezogener Daten, das steht da genau so drin. Und wenn der Schutzpersonen bezogener Daten ein Grundrecht ist auf europäischer Sicht. So it's a basic law. Wobei die Frage da bleibt ja aber warum eigentlich? Wenn man so ein bisschen vorrechtlich diskutieren will, ist jetzt, wenn man sagt, wir schützen personen bezogene Daten, warum? Also, actually, it shouldn't be a circle like we are protecting personal data. Why? Because it's a basic law to protect personal data. That sounds a little funny, but actually it has to be put back to Article 1. So data security, this is about so Vertraulichkeit, Integrität verfügbar. So availability, integrity and privacy. So the reach to write would be about privacy, the write that's integrity, who has the right to change the data and execute the availability of this data. In der Datensicherheit geht es aber primär. When it's about data security, the primary focus is the security of business processes and the available data in those processes. So data should be available, shouldn't be changed and so on. And since 2008, individuals have the right to those two integrity and availability. So what about data protection or privacy? Den Schutzpersonen bezogener Daten. Guckt man in die Richtung, wie wird das motiviert? So, what's the motivation for data protection? So that's when the social component comes in, which data is being protected, how? So about the social background. We are a society. There are diverse actors who have different tasks in this society. So you don't have to sue the socks, because somebody else can do it better. Therefore you specialize on another task, for example. So, that's why we all interact with each other. So maybe we are interested in how Brad is done. In dieser Gesellschaft sind ja nicht alle Leute, die damit spielen, nicht gleich mächtig oder gleich fähig. So in this society, not all people are equally powerful. That can be structural problems or organizational differences. Then there are organizations that are widespread among a lot of members. And all these actors are not equally powerful. They have their own interests. They have different opportunities and power to execute their power. Wenn wir Max Weber benutzen, dann ist die Chance der Wille gegen jemanden, der anderen will. Es ist nicht wichtig, auf welche Chance das ist. Jetzt ist die Frage okay, das ist alles noch nicht technisch. Das ist natürlich nicht technisch. Was wir in Dataprotektion interessieren, ist, dass wir eine Digitalisierung und Datifikation haben, und wir haben information-based Processing, und meistens State Processes. Und das resultiert nicht, um individuell zu wählen, was man mit dem Elbster oder der Text-Pain-System in Deutschland benutzen muss. Warum ist das relevant? Warum ist das relevant? All dieser Dataprocessing, um Entscheidungen zu schaffen, wie viel Geld kann ich von der Bank, was ist die schnellste Route von A zu B? Was sind die besten Freunde, die ich proposte? All diese sind Entscheidungen, in denen man mit dem Computer und so weiter aktiv sein könnte. Und Sidenode. Alle diese Entscheidungen werden auf, ob die Database nicht korrekt ist. Wenn es falsch ist, dann endest du in einem Dich, wenn die Route falsch ist. Wir sprechen über Dataprotektion und Information Processing. Dataprotektion bedeutet Information Models für eine Purpose. Das ist ein bisschen simplifiziert, aber ich frage mich natürlich bei einem Haus, was ich meiner Datenbank eintrage. Wenn ich Glas mache, dann ist das, was mich an einem Haus interessiert, wie viele Windows, welche Formate, et cetera, et cetera. Wenn ich ein Painter bin, dann interessiert es mich auf die Walls. Also, was ich immer suche, ist nur ein Teil der Realität. Und ich bin interessiert, was ich dafür benutzen möchte. Das ist ein Teil der Realität für eine bestimmte Purpose. Wir können also nicht die technische Definition von Daten, wie von Shannon, X kilohertz, und so forth. Das ist nicht das, was wir sprechen. Wir benutzen das semiotische Terme in Information. Und diese Information ist von Syntax, Symmantik, Pragmatik und Sigma. Syntax ist die Rennung in Lärchen. Symmantik ist die Rennung in Kontext. Pragmatik ist die Purpose. Sigma ist das Link zu der Person, die effektiert ist. So, ein konkretes Beispiel hier. Wir haben eine Tupe des Bindereits. Das war die Syntax, die Tupe der Daten. Symmantik ist die Geokordinatik von einem Telefon. Pragmatik ist für die Technologie und die Dataprozessin hilft, die Entscheidungen zu machen. Das hilft, die Organisationen zu benutzen, um ihre eigenen Interessen zu veröffentlichen. Es ist nicht für alle, sondern für die, die das beste benutzen. Sie benutzen es, according to their own worldview und their own ideas. Und das, es vielleicht, dass während dieser Information-Prozessin die Fundamental-Reitungen von Menschen verabschiedet werden. Das klassische Beispiel hier ist Biasis und Diskrimination wegen Algorithmen, oder so. All das Data, das in den Worst-Kasten komplett automatisch verabschiedet wird, und man kann nicht mehr Geld bekommen. Man kann nicht mehr Geld bekommen, man hat für diesen Monat eine Limit gebraucht. Und in dem ersten Moment kann man nichts machen. Und das ist der direkte Infekt dieser Information-Prozessin, die Menschen verabschiedet werden. Und es ist nicht so, dass die Information-Prozessin nicht mehr verabschiedet wird. Das ist eine gute Sache, aber es gibt Asymmetrie von Power und es gibt Violations- und Konfliktsinteressen innerhalb dieser Organisationen. Und als individuellen Person kann ich nicht mehr in meiner Kontrolle mehr verabschiedet werden. Denn sobald das Data verlässt, kann man die Unmengen von Daten über Individuen haben. So, ein Unternehmen, das viele Daten von Individuen hat, kann es analysieren, und die Daten und Konklusen generieren, dass ich als individuellen kann. Und das eröffnet verschiedene Möglichkeiten zu ihnen, als ich habe. Die Spieler in dieser Situation haben die Unmengen von Power. Also, wie ich es eben beschrieben habe, als Zitat nochmal von Adalbert Pochtle. So, so, Quoting hier Adalbert Pochtle, Information-Prozesses may not produce socially hurting consequences. Und Mr. Ross hier also says, the weaker person's of action must be preserved. Und that means that we have to build software that prevents these problems. So, for example, if the software in the menu never says export, well, then you can't do it. And we have to formulate conditions for this information processing that preserve that minimize these negative impacts. We have to change the conditions of this power asymmetry in our interest. Why does that have to happen? Because me as an outsider, I cannot reprogram the systems of Amazon and whatever. So, my only option is to say I don't use it at all. Or we change the conditions for this type of information processing. The question is always like, well, so data protections doesn't protect the data about the individuals. And actually it is protecting society on a whole. So, where, of course in the Data Protection Act of the European Union we find these individual rights, but not the whole picture of that. Fragen des Datenschutzes oder die Antworten des Datenschutzes und die des Datenschutzes rechts, dass die nicht deckungsgleich sind. So, the questions of Data Protection are not the same. For explaining that a little further, that means you could draw the analogy to the cartel offices that are we have the power over the market and that is controlled by the law. We have also the power on information and this is controlled by the data protection law. So, das ist natürlich immer die Frage was die Datenschutzdiskussion bereits auch eben seit den 60er-70er-Jahren produziert hat ist natürlich das Recht zu würden. Immer Gegenstand ist der Result of the jurisdiction of the data protection, but that means that if you do it like that then questions and answers are not similar. So, a bit more theory, more context. What is the flow of information? So, on the left we have the flow of information from powerful to powerless actors. Below it is the flow of powerless to powerful actors and we have the processes of enhancing or blocking the flow of information from the powerful to the powerless. So, to reduce the power asymmetry and that's what we call transparency. If we then block that if the big companies they they would called arcane practice which means it's unclear what's happening to us as individuals. On the other hand the information flow from the weak to the strong actors is something that we want to block. The dataification is um ist is what we want to stop because that's what we call data protection. So, from right on the top to left on the bottom that's what we see as a problem. So, when we talk to big companies they say we don't want to tell you what we do but we want to know everything. And this is what's making the powerful even more powerful. The green diagonal that's what is empowering the weak actors. So that's what people like fragt den Staat do. It's actually not a contradiction but it's the question of who is telling the rest of the world about themselves and who is not. And this is why why these two things are together. So why are there opinions of less data protection because it's expensive in terms of persons, in terms of finance, in terms of concepts. It's also hindering usage of data and information like you would need them for some federal purposes and tasks and for but of course this is true on the other hand for a lot of concepts, for a lot of rules that we have in our society. These are like hygiene and traffic and so on. And the rules they are so that not one actor is using all their power to get what they want. So what about privacy why didn't I use that? The problem of the term is if you're talking about privacy people think about me in my own bedroom and it's a bit Paul Müller is saying that's like living in a slug house. So you're encapsulated and you're not thinking about the outside and that's only possible in the pre-industrial ages. Now we can't we can't make that possible anymore so it's not not about controlling privacy completely because because the basic human civil rights they are affecting everyone. Und welche Grundrechte werden berührt von dieser Datenverarbeitung so the idea is to make techniques social controllable so which basic rights are concerned it's nearly all so like right to one owns opinion right to free speech so data protection is the digital dimension of all basic laws was richtig ist dran aber es verengt den Blick doch radikal worum es eigentlich geht. To reduce this is actually also not enough so how to operationalize this so how can we can form demands from those categories right strong and weak so what are the goals of protection information so information processing systems have to pay attention to different protection goals so this is integrity availability transparency not privacy and not combined not combined by those categories every IT system can be analyzed nicht verketbarkeit heißt bestimmte bestimmte information again not to combine information means information or data that has been received from different goals that shall not be combined they shall not be possible to buy them and to form a profile so not to collect data is not necessary to the actual goal of the processing the idea is that the individual can be sure that data which is hence over is only used for the special purpose and no more additional data is requested from myself ansonsten ist es ja ein schlechter Fall so, of course if I use something and I pay something I also would like that it's using it and it shall be available, that's availability so transparency this other notion is to know what is actually happening with my data how results are beformed and what results so, the idea of the possibility to intervene it should be possible to say at any point of time that the operation should be stopped the processing should be stopped for example if I see that there is an error and I should be able to say stop and I would like to correct the data for example or if I see that the system is discriminating I would like the system to be stopped and then do something to improve the system but of course if we are the weak then we are not able to do something though that's by this is important protection goal so, and of course if I hand over the data to be processed but with this processor and not handed over to another processor kann man sagen, interessant nicht verkehrtbarkeit Transparenz und Intervenierbarkeit so, that's interesting those three ones not combining transparency and possibility to intervene the green ones they are actually summarized under data protection and the red ones in the slide they are actually covered by data protection data security from the information computer science so, could be imagine a discussion between data protection officer and the data protection officer will ask why actually there so, she is asking for the purpose and on the other hand the IT group, they are saying yes, they are there, but they are really well protected so, you see the different focus of the two groups so, the different protection goals also not in contradiction with the legislation so, this was a general overview for the basics of this overall topics so, what are the non solutions so, first off, the self data protection very very, very especially in Connection with the blockchain which I will not talk about right now so, we remember powerful actors, powerless actors personal choices what can we do so how can I self protect my data if we are talking about in organizational internal data protection how would I do that with Facebook do I walk in with guns which has its own share of problems how could I possibly do anything about that or remember, why do we have data protection not because it's like traffic where both are the same strength but because they are differently powerful and now going to the weak so, you can protect yourself is just cynical that's just going to the victim and saying, well, you should just defend yourself that makes no sense whatsoever so, now you can imagine in this situation when do we need data protection when it's about credit or or shopping or search information that's where we need it you can imagine going to refugees at the border and saying well, you just can do self data protection and so, here the goal we cannot just go and say well, just go do it yourself and here we have to thank for example Jörg Poler and Facebook does not have data protection settings Facebook insert social media but what you have is settings that allow you to control how other users see and interact with your data but there is no settings that allow you to determine how Facebook uses your data you cannot control how they link your data if you take data protection seriously that's kind of a sticking point there and bei bestimmten Mobiltelefonen von Google da steht Datenschutz wollen sie ein Backup machen so, for example in cell phones, when it says data protection, do you want to make a backup well, that's not data protection that's data security, which is not the same thing at all now, another non-solution is data ownership I mean the concept of ownership is an exclusive right to things I have some mobile thing, a bike or whatever or maybe even immobile stuff like a house and I can exclusively determine what happens to that and that's what our entire law system is based on and and if you think about data as ownership ownership implies that things can be stolen if data is stolen, well, is it gone? no, it's still there it's not like a bike, where if it's stolen then you just don't have one anymore na, ihr merkt an der Stelle das ist schon vom Konzept her you notice that in the abstract it's already weird okay, so fine now we own our data and whatever and we can sell our data to someone and we get something from that and that's a huge discussion I don't want to go there would it be worth 3 Euro per month to every Facebook user to enable manipulation of elections in entire societies? what kind of trade is that? and you'll notice that something is mismatched here, something is wrong here and that doesn't be that's because it doesn't really scale like the individual person wouldn't profit really from these 3 or fine 30 Euros that wouldn't change anything and again this would once again just support the powerful actors it's effectively it's buying of something here it's I can remain owner of my data I don't have to give it away but essentially it's buying yourself out of this if you have the money then you don't have to sell it but if you need the money well then you just got to sell it classic example here is transmitting car data for Mercedes cars it's kind of like for expensive cars at some point if the car is expensive enough they don't phone home the data doesn't leave the car anymore and you can imagine the same thing for smart TV data you go to a single parent and you tell them well you can have this TV for 500 Euros or you can have it for 250 if you let it sell all of your data so if data is ownership then who owns communication data where multiple people are involved what do we do here and it's entirely unclear how this would be resolved and equally here you could talk about hygiene sovereignty and you go into the kitchen and there are hygiene rules you can check in the restaurant is the kitchen clean enough and how would you even tell you have no idea what to look for and it's just as absurd and again this is just the sovereignty of the stronger verbunden okay so connected to this data ownership data sovereignty idea I called it the fetish of consent and it relates to the fundamental right to informational self-determination and I get asked if my data may be used for a certain purpose and what's the problem there so two things either there is an information asymmetry or a power asymmetry information asymmetry means I have to consent to this thing and next to that I have 150 pages of legalese than I have to consent to and and sure the companies and say well we're just gonna add some logos and simple images and so people will understand and then maybe we can use simple language and we'll try really really really hard and if everybody tries really really hard and people still don't really understand then well you know we tried and so that puts the pressure the pressure to act back again on the individual person who has to bear this burden of being fully informed and if you say well it's a power asymmetry as I talked about before than where you have like network effects and so on what kind of problems arise for other people to like I say I understood the end user license agreement for google mail but I agreed that data from others are being shared as well people who contact me on google mail and I consented to that for everybody who interacts with me through this medium so it's not that I didn't understand it that I didn't have the information but that I had somehow the power to consent for them and there are all these dependencies and exactly the same as with the ownership question you can consent to using this service or you can pay and then we collect less data and if you look so if you look at this power asymmetry then it becomes less of a question of we have to write our end user license agreement better it becomes a question that needs to be regulated some uses of information simply must not be possible we have issues here where entire societies have had issues with violent crime based on information shared through these social networks and that has to be dealt with ok so we're getting into the final stretch algorithm ethics so well that's a mixture of can algorithms be ethical or not for one algorithms aren't actors organizations are actors you can analogously ask is there a concrete ethics you can ask that about anything these algorithms have a purpose and whose interests are being and if organizations interests are being supported by these algorithms then they are being used and if you say well but it's an ethical question not really it's a question of responsibility not exactly ethics if you say well yes but these algorithms are really complicated and maybe we don't really understand artificial intelligence well you can ask yourself what is it about the behavior of dogs well obviously the owner of the dog is responsible it doesn't matter why the dog did something but somebody has to be responsible and that's the owner of the dog and the same is true for algorithms so so these algorithms they don't choose purposes they are tools to achieve a purpose and well how effective applying ethics to these tools is a question that we've been dealing with since the beginning of capitalism ok so now we learned about these protection goals can't we just protection goals to all kinds of information systems yes of course we can there's a whole lot of good research to that in schleswig-hausten they did some research about that and ultimately it just boils down to we have to regulate that we have to put up fences around this and it's kind of not something we like to propose to this corporation it's always getting somewhat problematic once we do that aber we are talking about using artificial intelligence to check this but The problem here is applying these sort of ethics is sort of toothless and it doesn't really do anything and if we really look at this datafied world then we have already So, all of this discourse about ethics is interesting, but the implementation of the law is lagging behind. So, who is interested in Ben Wagner wrote about that you can download these slides from the Internet. How ethics is the new way of self-regulation, where companies say, oh yeah, we are ethical, we are regulating ourselves. Mit ethischen Diskursen sollen die Unternehmen noch mal doller drüber nachdenken, was sie tun. So, in der Organisation, think about the interests of the affected people, when they deal out their data policies. So, from their own interests they wouldn't want to do that. Dann muss man sich immer vor Augen halten, dass die Rechte der Betroffenen so nervig sind, sind immer die Pflichten der Verantwortlichen. Or hosting something, then you have to think about the conflict of interests. Mir sind die Interessen und die Rechte der anderen davon egal. If you don't want to document that, that means you are not interested in the interests of the other. Dann, als letztender Fokus auf personenbezogene Daten, ist auch ein bisschen problematisch. Individual data is a problem. We would need an analysis of data processing, and what is the consequence of this data processing. Für individuelle und für gesellschaftliche Schutzfunktionen, dann müssen wir tatsächlich über diese harten Grenzen nachdenken. And the consent is not enough for the individual nor for the protection of the society. Angreifer ist nicht Mallory, angreifer ist Bob, nämlich die andere Seite, die die Daten kriegt, was die damit tut. So, the enemy is the one that gets the data. He was referring to information security here, where typically it's Alice and Bob communicating and Mallory being the attacker. And he's saying that the attacker is not Mallory, not a disinterested third party, but actually Bob, the one who is communicated with. Dann könnt ihr euch an diesen Mikrofon aufstellen. And we are now moving to the question and answer portion. And the Herald is instructing people to approach the microphone and for anybody who leaves that they would please leave quietly. So, thank you very much for that interesting talk. So, if we have peer-to-peer systems with different power relations, where we have equal relations. Und gerade diese peer-to-peer Systeme ermöglichen ja gerade diese mächtigen Daten. These peer-to-peer systems are ready to bypass these power relations of asymmetry. So, what example then for about the small association, the sports association? How should they deal about that? Ja, gut, okay. Es ist ein sehr, sehr guter Punkt gerade diese peer-to-peer. Das ist ein guter Punkt, genau diese peer-to-peer Systeme sind... Ich sehe sie als eine große Chance, die Daten zu verteilen, zu distribuieren, die Daten, die man nicht hat, die Powercenters, wo die Daten sind. Aber man muss aber auch mit Bitcoin sehen, wo sie zentralisiert werden. Ich habe viel Hoffnung für diese Systeme, aber das braucht noch viel Forschung, um alles zu reduzieren. Aber wenn wir eine Fragung von dem Geld in eine Nukleaire Power in das System betrachten, dann kann ich total sehen, wie das funktioniert. In einem technischen Punkt der Sicht kann ich... Ich denke, das sind alle die Probleme. Und ich denke, das ist ein Weg, das wir gehen können. Und als du hier auf den Kongress gehst, die Nutzhalle und so, kannst du viele Projekte sehen, in denen es möglich sein könnte. Und die zweite Frage ist eine legale Frage. Ich werde schnell über sie sprechen. Es gibt auch Legale, die in mehr Details gehen. Und die GDPR hat dieses risk-based Approach. Wenn der Verein... So, wenn diese Organisation... ... das multinationales, globales soziale Netzwerk betreibt... ... hat diese multinational-globale soziale Netzwerke, dann hat es große Füße, weil dieser Risiko ist. Wenn du einfach deine eigene membership-Liste, dann hast du viel kleiner Füße, weil du... Weil die Füße, die du brennst, hat es um deine Situation zu sein. Vielleicht nicht ein CSER-Zypher, aber du musst nicht ein hoher Sicherheitssystem haben. Es muss nur um die Risiko des effekten Menschen sein. So, GDPR schaut nicht nach, wie groß die Organisation ist, ist meine Antwort. Die GDPR schaut aber auch, wie groß die Risiko des effekten Menschen ist. Also, die Menschen, die sich über sie komplimieren, sind ich glaube, komplimiert, weil sie sich nicht vor dem Zeitpunkt informieren, wie sie es sollten. Aber auch, weil es eine Menge... ... Angst gibt, dass es um die Menge der Efforten, die Menschen, die sich umnehmen, ist, und helfen, und so weiter. Genau, das ist so meine Antwort. Und ja, all in all, das ist einfach meine Antwort. Und der wichtigste Punkt ist, wie groß die Risiko des effekten Menschen sind. Ich meine, die Organisation... Ich meine, die Organisation ist auch technisch. Sie haben jetzt für die Erklärung, was ist Datenschutz zurückgegriffen, jetzt auf die Erklärung... Also, für die Erklärung, was ist Dataprotektion? Sie benutzen die Standard-Dataprotektion-Modelle. Sind sie verschiedene Modelle... ... in der Wissenschaft? Sind sie verschiedene Diskursen? Also, das ist eine sehr, sehr gute Frage, tatsächlich. Sehr gute Frage. Ich denke, diese Standard-Modelle der Dataprotektion ist wirklich gut. Und es scheint für mich den Spot zu schicken. Es gibt eine Dissertation von Jörg Pohle, der über die verschiedenen Sprachen spricht. Also, es gibt verschiedene Ideen, über was es braucht, was zu protectieren, und wie es geht. Und es gibt diese große Bedeutung, aber... Meine Meinung ist, dass in den deutschen Diskursen, in den europäischen Diskursen, eine bestimmte Schule der Meinung ist dominant. Also, es gibt verschiedene Ideen, die versuchen, die von der Law zurückzusehen, was das Problem ist, und versuchen, mehr individualisierte Fragen zu stellen. Und... Calculate... Was ist das Risiko für eine individuelle Person, um die Einzahl der Menschen zu effektieren? Sofern nicht. Und das dann... Das geht zu dem Risiko. Und das funktioniert nicht, weil, wie wir es gesehen haben, viele Menschen verabschieden, um das Dataprozess zu verabschieden. Also, ich denke, das verabschiedet. Also, in meiner Meinung, ist es sehr gut, diese Systeme zu wählen. Das Internet fragt, gibt es, beziehungsweise kennst du, eine politikerverständliche Übersicht von kaosnahen politischen Forderungen? Ein Liste von Dingen, dass die Menschen in der Chaos-Klub eine Forderung haben. Dinge, die sie für Politiker für wollen. Also, zwei Monate ago war die Bits & Trees-Konferenz in Berlin, und es gab eine Katalogung für die Menschen, die Dataprotektions- und Datasekurity und die FIFT-Konferenz und andere Gruppen und digitalen Gruppen. Und das war ein ziemlich brief, easy to understand, and that came from the context of chaos groups and chaos near groups. But I think different people and different politicians have different views on what's actually the problem. So I'm not sure that such a handout that would be comprehensible would really achieve because I think the consensus is missing. I understand the motivation of the question though, but my impression really is that this lack of understanding is more due to lack of courage than due to ... I mean, I don't think it's about understanding, but more about not wanting to understand, so we can fix that. And so the answers that would be necessary become ever more clear. But I think that's a political question and there, well ... I mean, that's one of the reasons why we're here, obviously. Ja, ich wollte nochmal einhaken. Du hast ja gerade auch bei dem Thema Algorithmen, so when you were talking about algorithm ethics, that this is ... this is a substitute debate. We don't want to talk about this, but the other stuff. I would accept that that this is diverting on how you don't know how to deal with technology. But the problem is that that they don't know what exactly they want to regulate. You have used terms like mass manipulation and election manipulation, but I think that no one in politics has any idea how to deal with that. So when they talk about bot regulation, I think that it's also complete bullshit. So, what do you think, how should we deal with that? I am working in politics also so how would you ... Algorithmen Ethik als irgendwie Ablenkungsthema redet, so how would you say Algorithm Ethics that we have not understanding technology, but we still have to talk about that. Again, that's a very interesting question. I think we need to invest some more work into turning these protection goal questions into actual questions that we can ask and into questions like can certain systems guarantee that our fundamental rights aren't being violated. I have a quote here about deep learning systems und ... ... wenn man einen Straßenschilder erkennen möchte. So, that sounds like a good system for sorting images, not so cool if you want to use it to analyze street images ... really concretizing what these protection goals would mean and sharing Ich denke, es gibt ein paar gute Arbeit, die fertig ist. Ich werde es später nachdenken, um die richtige Information an der richtigen Stelle zu verlassen, sodass die korrekte Information die richtige Information bekommt. Es gibt einige, die schon da sind, und ich denke, dass wir das besser teilen können. Ich sehe nicht so richtig, aber ich sehe nicht so richtig. Ich sehe nicht so richtig, aber ich sehe nicht so richtig. Ich sehe nicht so richtig, aber ich sehe nicht so richtig, dass die Leute das eigentlich willig sind, aber wenn es die Willigkeit ist, um das zu machen, dann müssen wir sicher sein, dass diese Papers, die existieren, sind mit diesen Leuten und verwendet sind, und verwendet sind. Aber das bedeutet auch, dass bestimmte Akteure, die es nicht mehr möglich sind, die es nicht mehr möglich sind, die es nicht mehr möglich sind, künftig zu geben, geben away das sie vom Politikiad gesHYUNen oder es da keine Möglichkeit gibt. Aber wenn Politiker das tun, со correlated haben, dann könnte das ja gearbeitet werden. Ich habe mich auch inàozั Woman Often we have these actions where people are writing letters like to write a letter about the problem to the organization. Wenn du dich für eine starke Regulierung aussprichst, hast du da schon irgendwie Vorstellungen? So, if you think about a strong regulation, how would you want to switch off the power asymmetry in the end? Well, I mean, that's the question that's right there, isn't it? Well, it's always about who is being asked, who has the possibilities there. Like, I understand, I've seen how depositions are made and expert questionings are done. And these corporations, they understand how they can, you know, maybe influence people. Like, I'm moving on thin ice here, maybe, but I think it's a kind of fundamental question about how does our democracy work. And I don't think that's... Look at the dieselgate thing or all the other things. This is not a question about data protection, it's a democracy question. And there's a lot of ideas from lobbying registration to lots of ideas. Maybe we should all of us involved in these digital law questions should think about long-lasting solutions. And maybe we should just all invest like 10% of what we have in lobby control or similar efforts to affect how these commissions and... ...Cancels are set up and get the right people involved there. That's a difficult question. I'm sorry I don't have anything better to say, but it's a democracy question. And I mean, that's frankly why it should interest us, right? All our work... A lot of our work may be for nothing because this broken system just eats it again. So I see that the discussion is burning. Unfortunately we are running out of time. So this is where you find me, this e-mail address or at the fifth association here on the CCC. Dann findet mir mich da. Danke schön. So, thank you very much.