 Hello, everyone. My name is Urs Gaster. I'm with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society and they also have the pleasure currently to be involved in the Secretariat of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centres. And within that context, it's actually a real pleasure to welcome two wonderful brilliant European colleagues who are the heads and co-heads of the Department of Innovation and Digitalization Law at the University of Vienna. And this department is actually the latest addition to the growing network of centers. We have Professor Christiana Vendehorst and my old friend, if I may say, Professor Nikolaus Vorko, who are joining us for an informal chat about their department and the great work you're doing. So thanks so much for joining us. I know it's rather late in Vienna, so it's a pleasure to be in conversation even at this late hour. It's a bit more like a fireside chat. Absolutely. Great. So I checked out your website and realized that the department was, I think, launched in 2017. Both of you are world-renowned experts and have been in the field for much longer. And I was just so impressed to see the breadth and depth of activities at your department, at the Institute in German, and was wondering whether you can just share a few highlights, maybe some of the projects you're most excited about. And then we can also talk about, you know, the communities you've built. I know it's a very interdisciplinary place where you build bridges, not only across departments, but also across communities and do great work to inform policymaking. So I hope you can talk about that too. But first, what are you working on? What are you excited about these days? Well, first of all, it's great to be joining this network. So we were so excited when we received your message and it's wonderful to join this community. I already said our department was founded only in 2017. And in fact, it's Nicolaus, you know, who's the heart of this department and who's really the pillar of this. It's him here really who started this. And it was me then who joined. I'm a member of both departments, Department of Private Law and Department of Innovation and Digitalization and Law. So I think Nicolaus and I work in different areas, but there's also a great deal of overlap. So I, for example, have spent a lot of time recently advising national governments and EU institutions. You know, I was co-chair of the Data Ethics Commission advising the German government. You know, of course, because you're a member of the Digital Rat. So I've done a lot of work for the European Commission recently, a member of the expert group on liability and new technologies, just finished a study on software safety and liability. I also advised the European Parliament in the liability sphere. But I also do a lot together with the US. You may know that I'm the European head for the ALI project on a data economy. And we sometimes talk about this Nicolaus. So there's a lot of overlap with the work that's going on at the department. So today, for example, we had a meeting with ALI colleagues, with ULC colleagues to see how we can join forces and how we can align our work on both sides of the Atlantic. So that's really an important part of my work. And then, of course, you know, there are many individual projects, such as with the Academy of Sciences, such as a project I'm now starting on for algorithmic practices. And we work on consumer law enforcement, the digital age. So these are projects. And, you know, the wonderful thing is that Nicolaus and I and all the other members of the Institute, we work on different areas, but we come together, we meet regularly, we exchange views. And that is really so enriching for our work at the faculty and at the Institute. But Nicolaus, I'm sure you, because you're really the main person here, so you would like to present the Institute as such. So Christiana is too modest, I'm sure. Of course, of course she certainly, of course, as always. Actually, thank you so much for having us here and it's really a pleasure to see you again. I think we met for the first time somewhere in 2002 or so if I'm not mistaken, it's a really long time ago. And still being in Switzerland, I think, and me still being in Hannover then in Germany. And it's really great to see you again in person because we never lost track from each other but it's really, really nice to be in a closer contact now again. So thank you for having us here. Actually, I mean, Christiana already pointed out a lot of the interesting points of the department. In my view, my work after having spent almost 20 years of my career in Germany, my work at the department was very interesting from the very first day because I think not too many of my colleagues who kindly asked me to come back to Vienna had too much of an idea what I should do there. So the planning was, let's get someone who works with Christiana and then let's see what they are doing. And so there was a complete freedom, at least in my feeling at the beginning, what we could do. And so what I did and what Christiana and I did was that we really started from scratch something so how we thought or how we think that such a department could look like. And we do it in the way that we do things differently but still we cooperate closely. So that's the approach. My personal approach is probably more technology oriented. So my approach is more that I understand myself also in a way as someone who works closely with computer specialists. I always try to stress this a little bit that I understand more than average about the technology behind things. So that is one of my specific interests I would say. The second one is I'm very much interested in everything which comes with data protection, data security, intellectual property on data. So I do not really follow those typical German streams of legal domains. So I try to do it more in a horizontal or in a matrix structure I would say. And I try to do it outstandingly internationally I would say. So the team I'm working with consists of 20 people from all over the world literally, which is not very typical for a German speaking law school. And we work in European projects and we work in international projects in in our field of competence which is it and law. Yeah, I mean that's that's one thing that perhaps people who are not from a German speaking part of the world. I don't have fully inside and appreciation how hard it is actually in Europe to build interdisciplinary programs and build all these bridges across communities and I was just wondering what your feeling is also. And based on on your work that you mentioned, we're, it seems at the moment where, whether we wanted or not, whether we are organized in silos of disciplines or, or, you know, jurisdictions or whatever, we have to work across disciplines and that seems to me has always seemed super exciting and the great opportunity. And I was just wondering how you look at if you look reflect on the past couple of years. What's your assessment how far along have we come to build bridges. I mean, this is philosophy and computer science or, or, you know, behavioral science at all. What's what's your feeling I mean, at times also it looks we have made a lot of progress but at the same time, we all know I believe how difficult it is actually to find a common language across both disciplines and also as Nicholas pointed out, across cultures and different geographies so it's just wondering, what's your, what's the pulse like in, in, in, in Germany in Austria, in Europe, how do you feel about the disciplinarity and, and also the young people you're interacting with at the university. I think the attitude has changed a lot over the past years. So if I try to remember how things used to be like five or even 10 years ago, everybody was really working in their silos and when you suggested that you know you need to approach those topics from an interdisciplinary perspective. So what would you now say is this really necessary. I mean, what do these people have to tell us we're lawyers, we're self sufficient, but I think that has really changed. And in all the, the teams I've been working in recently interdisciplinarity was really key. I mean, just take for example the German data ethics Commission we wouldn't have achieved anything without so many disciplines working together. I think now in the global partnership on AI where I just led a project on data governance. I mean it's so wonderful you work together with people from all continents from all professions, and it's only by getting all these different perspectives that you manage to achieve something good at the end of the day. So I think this is being accepted now. And it's just what we haven't really managed and that is maybe something that is characteristic of the German speaking countries. We haven't really achieved to translate this insight into teaching into the way faculties are structured. So there we still have a long way to go, but otherwise I think it's pretty much accepted now that we need this. Because I was wondering, I realize you have a number of projects also focused on digital health specifically which is an area that I'm for many reasons personally very interested in. Just as you reflect on this interdisciplinarity and also the role your department plays, can you share a few insights how that works out in practice where you really bring together multiple disciplines and, you know, how do you build community around that and is it mostly projects as a starting point or do you start more with, I don't know colloquials or whatever. I have been working in this field of ICT for health and law now for the last 15 years or so, mainly on a European level. And as, as always, you know, there is a club of people knowing each other in a way right that you need to enter into the group sometime and if you enter the group and you behave properly people tend to ask you again, whether you need to work with them again. And those projects are typically funded by the European Union. The European Union is a very important funding source in Europe because they have as an average, clearly more money than national funding sources for inter-disciplinary projects. So it's about 10 times to 20 times more money that you receive with such a project than an average Austrian or German or Italian project might bring. And the typical project, I mean, of course there are differences, but the typical project tries to bring together computer scientists, medical experts, patient organizations, all of them having one goal, which is to make medical treatment and research work better than before by better sharing of data. So that is the typical project. And then if it's a well managed project, they find out quite quickly that if you start sharing data in Europe that is sensitive, you have to take care of the legal implications at the beginning of the project and not at the end. And our role then quite often is to try to, on the one hand try to keep the project on track in the sense that they don't break the law. But at the same time also to try to find out in how far the law needs to be extended, reformed, etc. and try to bring this knowledge then back into the legal community and also back to the policymaking process. I mean, just building up on that. And also what Cristiano mentioned before, like the emphasis also on values and you just pointed to it as well in the data flow context and data protection context. And, you know, I'm curious to hear your thoughts about about the European trajectory obviously there and people stereotype and say, well, there's China with the surveillance approach there is the US, you know, with a hands off less severe let innovation take care of things approach. And then there is Europe with kind of a third way when it comes to digital technologies and, and regulation and, and sometimes there is this mantra that, you know, in Europe we use law and or look at law more as a constraining force to say what's not allowed and, and, and yet in your department's title is the word innovation. And I know you, you, you approach it the way that you see law as also an enabler of innovation. I'm just curious what your reflections are whether it's in within health or in any of the other areas whether there is some sort of a larger awareness change, not only in Europe, also in other parts of the world to maybe reconsider the old fashioned view on law where law is just seen as a hammer or as a constraint or something that, you know, is against innovation, and maybe a new appreciation that well if we have safeguards in place people trust more and they may also share more and collaborate in different ways. Is that still just hope wishful thinking on my part or would you say we see some sort of a different. Yeah, really a third way how to look at law and innovation and technology as sort of a triangle. Well, well, first of all, I couldn't agree more with you that you know we need to have a new perspective on the law and see law as an enabling framework. My experience time and again is that I sit on a panel and people ask me about you know what is your view on regulation, and I hate the R word, I don't use it, I say no I'm not going to talk about regulation because once I use the term regulation. You know, there are so many connotations and emotions that come with it so I prefer talking about legal frameworks or enabling frameworks, but I have to confess, I think that this perspective is not the mainstream perspective yet. I think still I experience like two camps, the camp that you know calls for regulation in terms of something you know having more law more restrictions, and then the other camp calling for more liberty and this is not how we will make Europe a success. I would add that I mean if you read the official policy papers of the European Commission in some way they they they follow your argument saying that Europe needs to find a third way between the libertarian US approach and the Chinese authoritarian approach. So you can read quite a lot on this. I think the problem with this is that we are in in Europe urgently needing the industry that could be regulated so so we have a lot of issues when it comes to innovative approaches in in Europe and in my view, one of the reasons that is the case might be that law is seen or was seen as a hindering factor bringing all kinds of complexities which doesn't make it too attractive to stay in Europe for some. And, and therefore it's urgently needed that we need a new and and and and and different approach about what what law can and can't do when it comes to setting the scene for innovations. I talked already a little bit about change and you know how interdisciplinarity has made an entry into legal institutions like law schools, or universities. I also realized that your your department is doing quite some work and has as members in the community with focus on legal tech and essentially turning the innovation question around not so much how does law regulate the innovation of the technology in the society that's out there but vice versa now well how should we rethink law at the moment where the same technologies and dynamics also start to, you know, put pressure frankly on on the legal system. And I'm just wondering again. You know where, where do you see things going is, is, I mean, there is a version where digital transformation is some sort of seen as a pattern where one industry comes after the next, you know we started with the entertainment industry the good old times of peer to peer file sharing. You know through publishing and transportation with Uber and so forth. Do you think something like that will happen to law or would you say well, there's actually a real opportunity picking up on on this conversation that we not just move towards a law and have whatever legal tech in a 1.0 or 2.0 sense, but that we go through kind of a renaissance moment of law where we start to reconsider more fundamentally what its role is as, you know, I, I maybe one of the few remaining forces. that protect human dignity but also enable people to live their lives and to flourish. So, how do you see some sort of the inbound effect technology means law and somehow law has to anyway. Are you more optimistic or are you more like pessimistic. Now maybe from a lawyer's perspective. So should I reply. Okay, so, actually, I may, if I may, very briefly, I think the first answer would be, this is not really, it's not really new right so I mean, when when I started in Hanover 20 years ago. There was called department for legal informatics and there was a reason behind this which is that the very beginning of the discipline I tried to stand for somewhere in the 70s and 80s of the of the 20th century in Europe. And I wanted to cover both right so the legal issues of information technology and information technology in the legal system so that that is not really new the problem, however, is that the second stream which is legal technology within the legal system. So, I think it's very well survived very well, somewhere in the early 21st century because of all these you know all these information lawyers appearing. And interestingly now when it when when the empire strikes back and and and legal tech suddenly is a buzzword that appears also in law schools. There's a lack of people in law schools having the necessary technical understanding and the technical skills that are needed to to to understand what the technology means. And at the same time they are not too many computer scientists who are really interested in in law because it's for them it's just you know it's an obscure field it's not the most attractive one at all. And that makes it very difficult in my view for an average law school to teach this field because you can't I mean to have the competence within the teaching body to cover that. So that's a huge opportunity for people who try to have a technological understanding would be my first answer. And second since I have been working in law, the amount of work and the complexity of the whole infrastructure has significantly increased so it's the opposite is true from everything is getting easier and will be done by machines. It's getting more and more complicated. Third, there is a lot of change, obviously, and you need to understand this if you're young today that most probably some of the things that the older generation has been doing for a living will no longer be there will be replaced by machines and it's good that it will be replaced by machines because it will give you more time to do the interesting work, which is the human argument on the legal issue and I'm quite confident that the next generation, at least the next will have plenty of work to to be done there so I think there are plenty of opportunities. The main issue that we have in law schools at least in Europe is we need to get the competence on really covering what's going on here. It's very easy to tell a 20 year old law student artificial intelligence will replace everything in in the law it's very difficult to teach them what AI really is and what it can or can't do. That rings true to me from personal experience and observation so I'm cognizant of time. It's so fascinating to to not only learn more about your work, but also really to to reflect on some of these big questions and get your insights so so deeply grateful. The global network brings together many centers also in parts of the world where capacity building is at earlier stages. Because you pointed out and also Christiane, some of us have been in this field for for quite a while and we've had the privilege to work with early organizations and academic centers in this space. And so I'm just wondering whether you have any advice to, you know, smaller, maybe research groups or units or sometimes it's not even a centered area or a department for people who share an interest in this intersectionality and particularly also often feel a passion that they want to help policymakers in particular to make better decisions companies as well of course and so Christiane given your extensive work in in working with governments and policymakers. Reflecting on some of these interfaces what will be your recommendation how even to think about building these relationships that then lead to all these great things that we talked about where what would you recommend. Well, I think it's important for a new research groups that want to, you know, bring their ideas to the fore and they want to see their ideas implemented to find the right channels. And I think this is why networks such as the one which which you're leading are so important because these networks can provide platforms can provide channels, also for smaller research groups to make their ideas heard. And there are also other platforms, for example, the European Law Institute which I happen to be leading at the moment this is also something like a platform for ideas but I think your network is an ideal channel for new and innovative ideas to be submitted to policymakers so I think we have to think about these structures and make use of these structures and enhance these structures and this is why we're so happy also to to be joining. Thank you it is the wealth of networks and clearly it's been such a demonstration of the wealth of experience with them and inside and also kindness and because maybe last word over to you. What your hopes are maybe for the coming year in terms of also collaborations or where you see some of the opportunities. So I think that the most important opportunity for me is to learn from everyone who is in this group because I think as far as I see it so far it's a very diverse it's a very international international and a very interdisciplinary group so it's exactly what I'm looking for. And this is also what I hope that we will be able to give here and also be able to receive which is input from other jurisdictions input from other understandings how the law works and input from other disciplines apart from the law. And if this, if only half of my expectations become true it will be a very successful year, I'm very sure. Thank you for such an opening mutation to continue the conversation over many different channels. This was a fantastic starting point and again deeply appreciate that you took the time even late in the evening. We're talking to you. Thank you so much and we'll be in touch. Thank you for having us. Thank you. Be well. Thank you.