[MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, everyone. Welcome at this episode of "Feb's Talks," the podcast of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies. We are a think tank in Brussels. My name is Gerard Oosterwijk. I'm the digital policy analyst of FEBS, so dealing with everything in the digital domain. And today, we have with us a great guest, the author of our book, "The Primer," a digital union based on European values, Ivana Bartoletti. Ivana, welcome today at this episode of "Feb's Talks."
I'll introduce you, and then we start the conversation. Ivana is a leader in the field of privacy, data protection, and responsible technology. Also an expert on AI and gender rights for the Council of Europe and the Cyber Security and Privacy Executive Fellow at Virginia Tech. And you work at the FIFPRO as the privacy officer. Ivana, welcome. So today, we will discuss a little bit your book that you wrote so people can read up on everything that we discussed today in the primer.
But let me start with a more personal question, because digital policy, it's an interesting field. It's a very specific field. But what led to your interest in this field? How did you end up to be an expert in digital policy? Because that's always interesting to learn. Well, thank you. So first, it's great to be with you. Well, my journey to this was quite simple, to be honest.
It comes from my interest in digital policy stems from politics, really, in the sense that I've always been interested and involved when I was in younger age in politics. And then you realize that there is nothing more political and related to not only politics, but geopolitics, than data, technology, innovation. And I also have a feminist background. So I got into the field of privacy law specifically, because to me, privacy is very much related to a quality.
So my background stems from there. And then, of course, I added a lot of other stuff, including the information security. And so it's really working at the intersection between the law, technology, in both academia, but also as the global chief privacy and governance for a company of 250,000 people delivering services in IT.
So I think all these things together, they all stem from an interest in what technology is, and in particular, artificial intelligence in recent times, which is, for me, far more than the technologies, because it has to do with so many things, from geopolitics to also the way that we want to imagine the world moving forward.
And is that also why you put value, César, because the name of the book that you wrote for us, a digital union based on European values, is that also why values for you are central in your work? Well, they are important, because we are at a watershed moment in the relationship between humanity and technology. And we really have to decide what a wall is technology for, what is technology for.
And in Europe, and we'll talk about it, but in Europe, there is a big drive, which I completely supported to ensure that the way that we develop market technologies, and in particular, when it comes to the most disruptive ones, they are in line with the values that bind us together as Europeans. Yeah, and I think that's a challenge, right? So how do we get to a value-based digital system?
And there's always values involved, and there's a certain dominant system, I think that we can discuss a bit later as well. I read, of course, the book with a lot of interest, and it's interesting how you start a little bit with the history, the history also of the internet. It's not a very old history, it's not very long, but still I think it's very good to also look a bit back. So how do you see that?
Like, so how do you see the history of the internet, and where did it bring us already in this short period? Yeah, I mean, it's interesting, I mean, some people say, for example, artificial intelligence is such a new thing, which is not. I mean, the big change in recent years has been around the computing capacity, and at the same time, the great availability of data, which underpins a lot of sort of the digital capitalism as we know it.
But I, so I went through in the book a little bit through sort of what happens from the creation to the web until now. And in recent years, especially as we said, for computing powers, the huge availability of data, we have seen a lot of innovation. And when it comes, for example, to artificial intelligence over the last couple of years, we have seen the explosion of generative AI and with the products coming into the market on a daily basis.
And I think it's important to drive a couple of insights from this journey over the last few years. So first of all, to me, it's really important to realise that technology is never neutral, right? So every technological tool is a sociotechnical tool that in reality reflects the intention of the creator. And this applies to all technological developments and underscores that the importance for our policy makers to guide this deployment. So to me, this is the first point.
So it's the role of policy that I wanted to look into. And we have seen that what happens when the role of policy is not there. So for example, if you think about the internet and how it was created as a space for democracy, as a space of solidarity, as a space where people from all over the world could get together, well, we have gone quite away from that. Now we know it's a space of disinformation. It's a space of harm for too many, especially the most vulnerable.
And this is a great lesson that we have to learn from the past. And the reason why you went through all the histories is to say exactly this, that these technologies, they need to be governed. And to me, there is really no dichotomy between regulation and innovation, as many of us, many people would want to make us believe. No, and it's also interesting, because you also then go into the assessment of the European approach.
Because I think if there is something that has been happening in recent times, there has been a lot of European legislation. Talk about the Brussels effect, the idea of competition as well, where there's also a lot of discussion. Is there still competition in these digital markets? How do you see it? Was it a big success so far of Europe? Or is it one thing that we should be proud of as the EU, as Europeans?
Well, so first of all, we have to bring a little bit of clarity, because there are two big misconceptions. So the first misconception here is that the regulation has been struggling the European Union so far. And the reason why we don't have Google, we don't have Alibaba, we don't have Amazon in Europe is because of regulation. Now, this is too simplistic. And I really challenge this in the book and encourage everyone to really try and understand that this is too simplistic.
And the reason this is simplistic is because the reason why the European Union is, to an extent, lagging behind in the big players, but in the ownership, more widely in the ownership of large enterprises in the technological sector, is because of reasons that go wide beyond that, including, for example, the intersection between private and public sector, the role of government in pushing for national infrastructure, the role of venture capitalism in the US,
and the ability of private sector to take on much more risks that have been elements that have been very strong in the US. And we haven't had this strong in Europe. But we can't be the US, so we can't be a copy of the United States. But at the same time, if we look at Europe as it is now, we have to say that private investment in the research and development, for example, in Europe stands quite tall.
If you look, for example, in 2023, the investment in research and development in the US was $100 million, and the research and investment in Europe was $110 million. So yes, of course, it's not the same, and arguably the US is bigger. But the investment has been there. And recently, there's been a lot of action by the European Union in putting together a series of measures to boost innovation, even in the areas which are more disruptive, and not just the middle sector.
So we have to challenge, I feel, a little bit these misconceptions. And most importantly to me-- and I come to the next step-- and is to decide where we want to go. Because I mean, I always feel everybody says, OK, a lot of people say, oh, Europe, we lack behind. And I challenge that a little bit. Yes, we lack behind in some areas. And I'm not blind to that.
I mean, I am not blind to the fact that we don't have the big companies, or that private investment in the US has reached much more in the US than in the EU. I'm not blind to that. Nevertheless, as I said, we do have investment in research and development. We do have a new investment in startups and new technologies. We don't limit that I cover in the book in great details and suggestions on how we could fix those limits.
But the most important thing that I want to drive through this book is the strategy moving forward. And what it means to be lagging behind or to outperforming the US in the context of the global scenario between the United States and China. And what does it mean if it's not the money, if it's not the investment? And of course, this is also with nuance, because there is more investment, I think, in the US, or in the past, there was more investment, and also maybe more strategy.
Because we had also the DARPA and there is clearly a link, I think, also with the developments, Matsukato to prove this as well with the iPhone. How much of this is coming from the investment in the defense sector and also in developing tools with the military construct in the US, which can also be a link now again with Europe, like really the Defense Union and everything around that, or cybersecurity.
I think there's more, I think, more also grounds for more public investments, perhaps in this field as well, and more mission-driven investment from the EU. But funding alone, and I agree with that, we have also strong companies in other traditional sectors, more legacy companies, big industry complexes, that were and are investing a lot in technology and innovation. But how do we channel that?
And what is then blocking as well, because we're lacking behind not because of the money, or partly because of the money, but what is it then to you? Like why is it then the dominance of the big tech companies? Is there a market failure, or how do you see that? That's a very complex question. But first of all, let's just put the building blocks here. So first of all, there is a robust trajectory over the last few years of research and development. So as we said before, that is there.
But there is an issue here, which you mentioned, which is that when we start to look at the specific sectors, the European Union seems to remain entrenched in the mid-tier technology specialization. So we don't have, I think, sufficiently pivoted towards the software research and development.
So I do think that we do have to have a better strategy for investment, more strategy of investment in groundbreaking and disruptive technologies, more strategy, better investment, for example, incentives for companies to take more risks than what they do now. The other trend that I think is important that pertains to regulation. With Europe emerging as the world's almost regulator, and in the current global climate, I don't think this is a disadvantage.
I mean, if you think about what is happening in California with the latest California safety bill on artificial intelligence, which is very different from the new approach for artificial intelligence, which I have some serious concerns about.
But it will spur, I believe, a huge variety of investment in responsible and safety-related innovation in California, which is good because, again, that puts us in an alignment with the partner as the US in artificial intelligence, which is safe, robust, and human-centric. Why am I saying this? Because I think it's important to understand that, yes, we may not have the large technology company.
And I'm not one who believes that it's necessarily the priority for us to have the next Google, or for us to have the next Twitter. To me, that is not the key point. The key point for me is to have strong research and development, investment in destructive technologies, support for the reform of the investment structure itself, which is still too political, which is still not quick and fast enough.
But also, to me, a big priority for us in Europe is to invest in companies using artificial intelligence and increasing and enhancing the productivity using artificial intelligence. Sometimes I even argue, it's really important to develop in Europe as enlightened business leadership of people who can lead companies and transform using artificial intelligence. The reason that the Eastern R&B company is a separate matter. It is very much related to competition.
It's very much related to a stifled market, which we have. The reason why in the US the next Google cannot come up is because it wouldn't be able to, because these companies are so big that they are acting as walled gardens. They define the rules of the game. So we are talking about very complex issues of very different realms.
But I do believe that if we continue to focus on the fact that Europe doesn't have Google or doesn't have Twitter or doesn't have Amazon or any other, I don't think we're focusing on the right thing. No, and I can-- And I get that this is also you focus on the reality, on the symptoms rather than on what actually has to be done, or you don't have a roadmap just complaining about the situation or having the analysis. Because I think the analysis is shared and very clear.
Like I think the analysis has been done very thoroughly of the current situation with the big tech companies having a certain dominance, having a certain power, walled gardens, you mentioned it. But also just the firepower to invest and to keep their dominant role. It's very hard for a new entrant to come in even now with the DMA. There are certain limits to what they can do to do killer acquisitions and stuff like that. That's all of this.
But then only on the European level, how do you do that then with US firms? We don't have the power to control everything that's happening, and that also shouldn't be maybe also the objective. So I really like as well what you said. We need a more positive approach also to AI and a bit more, like searching also the strength or the reinvent perhaps European industry and European society. Because why are you saying this?
This is because you think and you believe that this AI development, it's coming. It's coming anyways. It's coming already now. And we can discuss about everything around algorithmic management and AI in the workplace. Something that's something that we are also researching here at VAPS. But this is coming anyways. And now we need to find a way to make this for the benefit of society and benefit of people.
Again, what you said, the values and the politics in this, because it's not neutral. Right now, the development is driven by certain really like Silicon Valley surveillance capitalist models. The companies have a certain ideological drive, and their leadership, and their billionaires behind. Again, also to strengthen their dominant position. They already have or keep their dominant position in this new wave of development. So is there a way to do it differently?
And is there a way to work with maybe also the big firms we have? We still have big firms in traditional sectors, whether it's the car industry, the banks, the insurance. There are so many sectors that we are strong, and we have a lot of good universities. So is there a way to do this? And do you have a vision also? Like something more, is it about capacity building, for example? Yeah, so I think you're totally right.
So as I said, as we discussed, so the primary challenge here is defining the direction. So we have a direction, which is, yes, we want to protect consumers. We want to uphold their values.
We, in my view, we shouldn't see our future as saying that we're striving to build the next Google or, but I think the, or for example, to, but our goal should be to say that we are nurturing the generation of industry leaders who are proficient in AI, the boost productivity and competitiveness in the industry, in the real world applications of technologies. And this is very important, as you say, because we do have industries.
We do have huge, important, hugely important, important universities across Europe. Research and development is crucial. And that is where a lot of emphasis needs to go in terms of reforming the way that we do research and development, the investing more, way beyond the 5% that we do at the moment, in disruptive technologies such as quantum. So that is to me the strategy.
So at the moment, the, from the banking sector to all the other sectors, the automotive sector, the automotive sector, it's really important that we invest in using and leveraging artificial intelligence in all these industries. Therefore, we can improve competitive competitors. We can boost productivity and therefore, we can be more competitive in the global scale. I don't wanna be fooled by this idea of competition with the US, I really don't want to be fooled.
The priority to me is to be clear about what is the role of public policy. And in Europe, of course, one of the key role of public policy is to say that the digital dividends must be shared by everyone. And this is what makes us different. Now, we have a partnership with the United States and this is why the geopolitical matters so much when it comes to artificial intelligence and technology.
As I said at the beginning, we are at a watershed moment in the relationship between the humanity and technology. Artificial intelligence, think about chips, think about the importance that they have on the military side, let alone the technology side. It's really important to review technology in this realm as well. I would like to see moving forward.
Countries that are aligned on the role of technology in bettering our life, increasing our well-being, in a way that is not detrimental to privacy or human rights and the fundamental rights that bind individuals together to be aligned in developing safe, robust technologies.
We can do this in Europe by investing in research and development, by boosting the wonderful universities that we have, by investing in disruptive technologies, by changing the way that we run our investment programs in Europe, by encouraging more and more firms to boost the demand by using artificial intelligence and other products, by ensuring that people trust these technologies so they use them more and more because the more people use them, the more we generate the map.
This is very, very important. So let's not just focus on how do we outperform, but let's focus on what are the key things that we need to do in the short and medium term to ensure that we can drive more AI, more technology, more destructive technologies across all the technological realm in both adoption and development.
- No, and I think so, it's interesting what you mentioned about the geopolitical aspect, because like it's now also been already a few years that war is back on the European continent with the terrible conflict and the terrible situation in Gaza in the Middle East and the war actually also kind of a war that's developing there.
- The dynamics between Russia and China and North Korea even and Iran, the access of evil, I wouldn't call China access of evil, but like, and then you yourself, you have a lot of experience in India, which is a totally different player and also has a different role to play perhaps also on the global stage, but the huge country with the huge potential, especially also in the digital realm, which is also there, we don't talk about that a lot,
and then the relationship between Europe and the US. So I am wondering as well, because what we've seen now, like you said, values, public policy, a bit more the public interest or the societal interest, right now if you ask me, I've seen mostly in the digital and that's mostly the big platforms, but the big dominant players, and they are also behind now the main AI development of AI models because it's so costly and takes a lot of capacity and a lot of money.
They are behind this and they are coming more from a really like a private, very private capitalist, hypercapitalist standpoint, which is not the European social model.
Again, like we are as FEPPS, we are of course aligned with the progressives and have a certain view on society, which is also we're not against the markets or against capitalist and per se, but we want to reform that in like you also very much mentioned and is mentioned in your book, reform maybe like we want to reform capitalism to serve the people, we want to reform the digital tools to or steer them in a direction that they benefit people and not just the shareholders.
And I see really attention between that, between the reality that we are like, we need to keep afloat and need to protect ourselves from the dangers outside. And at the same time, yeah, being aligned or being like our society is now, like I wouldn't say flooded, but like dominated like a lot of our digital life plays on certain platforms. And I'm not only talking social media, it's also how Google works or how Amazon works and how they treat their workers, things like that.
It's not in line and we need to align them. And you said a lot of like that we need to change this model. It still boils down if you ask me then to also create European alternatives. And I'm not just saying like competitors, like competition between the US, but either we need to steer the current platforms or make them also adhere to our values and to the European social model, or we should create alternatives next to it.
I'm not saying ban all the other, no, but like you create something that, you know, your school, like to name one example, a Google school, do we really want Google with their privacy approach and their way of taking our data, work with our kids? And then what I heard in the Netherlands that like it's a big percentage of school are working with Chromebooks and Google because it's easy, but then they're locked in, vendor lock in another problem.
And then so it was cheap and easy to start it up, but then you're locked in and you cannot really change it. Well, the data of our kids is being used to develop further education tools. It's for me a very big question Mark, if that's what we want from a public sector perspective, for example. So I don't know. - Of course, I mean, of course, the issue is, the issue there is, and it's that these technologies, they've taken us by convenience most of the worst cases, right?
They have surged to a role of being public utilities. During the pandemic, we have seen this in for stride. So we had everything, if you look, if you remember the sort of the contract tracing apps they were delivered by these large tech companies. Our food was delivered by Amazon at home. So these companies, they have, and it becomes the one who set the rules of the game. Now the whole world is recognized and this is a problem. The United States is recognized and this is a problem.
China is recognized and this is a problem. And in Europe, we know that this is a problem. We are trying with the Digital Services Act, with the Digital Markets Act, with the Data Governance Act. The whole package aimed to try and curb this power. They have become regulators themselves. So for example, if you ask me about privacy, I mean, in most cases, they've been setting some of the rules up. No regulation. We've seen what it brought to the finance sector with the financial crisis.
There's some time already, but the self-regulation is not always the best. And I think it's clear to everyone that we do not want to repeat the same mistake that we made with the internet, where everything has grown wild and the internet has completely changed from a role of peace to a role of harm. So without regulation, obviously, we can't go anywhere on this. So to me, I do believe in the role of regulation in this space. In the US, they call it antitrust.
Of course, the role of competition law is very different from, for example, privacy law. Privacy law is a human rights competition. It's about the function of the market. But these two things are more and more entrenched. So I don't think we really need to think about competition law and we really need to think about how we curb the power of these companies.
And you can see what is happening now when Europe tries and says, well, actually, this company, you need to open up, you need to let users, for example, use other apps too, not just yours. So this is important. But there was also other space to create alternatives, as you say, and also to empower citizens to have a voice and to have a say in the way that we use this development and we use this technology.
So I mean, the way that, for example, the way that, for example, we use, we create our smart cities, the way, for example, that we leverage data, the way that we-- but it's also very important to understand that, for example, when it comes to the leveraging of data, you mentioned Google and privacy, right? Yes, but at the same time, we need to rethink the role of privacy as well.
Because we live in a context where, whether it is because of convenience, whether you think because it's easy, people are quite happy-- I'm not saying that they're OK with it. They're quite happy to give up personal data in return of something else. I'm not saying that they do it because there's no alternative. They would do it. They accepted it. That's the practice now. That's the common practice. Everybody accepted it.
And now, like, there was also, I think, also, it was the commission that didn't agree with this pay for consent or was it? We didn't agree with it, and that's correct. But I also don't see everybody flooding to pay for Facebook from now on. No, but there's something else. There's something else. I would like, for example, to rethink in Europe entirely the consent model for two reasons. First, because the way that we view privacy at the moment is detrimental to the most vulnerable.
The collection of data happens mostly around the most vulnerable in our societies. Privacy is becoming a luxury. So if we don't see privacy as related to equality, we are going nowhere. We will continue to see privacy as this horrible, tricksy privacy noticed that nobody reads. And they only see it as something that stops you from having an enjoyable experience on the web.
And second thing, the consent model is not equal, again, because this is related to competition, because it is related to the way the privacy is presented to people. So what am I trying to say here? That we need to think about a way in Europe where we look at privacy and data as a common good. That we, as Europeans, we change. The fact that privacy law is based on the concept that you cannot share data unless you have a basis for doing so is flooded. It's completely flooded.
My view is that data should be seen as a public good in Europe that we want to administer in Europe, not because of sovereignty as nationalism, but sovereignty as the ability to stand tall in a global competition by creating trust and safety within our own place. So the idea that we use data, we leverage data within Europe with our citizens, with people in our cities, in our schools. And this is where innovation can happen. This is where innovation can happen.
I don't think we should only focus on, I don't want to be tech. But we should focus in how can we create alternatives and ways of using even these applications in a way that is better for us and in a way that really cherishes data as a public good that we have in the European Union. I think it's very interesting. And I think we could talk also for hours about this because there are some hooks already now in the legislation. You mentioned also the Data Act and the Data Governance Act.
When it comes to data spaces, data intermediation, and to split the data from the platforms, it's a direction that's being developed right now as well by several experts and several NGOs. We have the SOLID project also from Tim Berners-Lee that didn't deliver as much as maybe as she wanted so far. But Tim Berners-Lee is the founder of the internet. He's mentioned as well in your book, one of the people that you mentioned in the book to bring him back to also to the digital primer.
But this whole idea of data, it's a real thing. And I don't think that we should indeed see data as the new oil. And it's the new goal, it's something else. It's also a social aspect because data is always in relation to something else. And we can do a lot of good things with it. And I think that's where we should put our efforts.
I totally agree that we should put our efforts to finding a way, partly perhaps through regulations, split that data or make it available to make it available for other applications. And then work with civil society or with researchers or with the smaller developers that develop then to take this opportunity to develop something new, something that adds value to the people, to the companies, also to efficiency, like you mentioned before.
And I think that's where also AI again becomes very interesting because the quality of AI, it's not only the models, it's also the data sets. So if you would get to like a really trustworthy data set, it's also a different game than if you just scratch, you scrape the internet with all the racism and all the crazy stuff and you train it on that. So I see things coming together also in the coming years. We don't have a vision, we don't know where it's going.
And I think the digital developments are going so quickly that also your book, it's ending, I think, also on these different avenues and these different ideas. And I don't know if you have any closing remarks, like anything that you would want to say that you haven't said before about this relationship between society and technology, anything to close on because we discussed a lot of interesting topics.
Yeah, I mean, I wanted to make a point on the fact that if you, and it's not about this point in particular, but it's about how interested it is that the California legislation just been approved in the US. Defines, it's very different from the European AI Act, right? The European AI Act is very horizontal and it's based on basically the IPOSIS. And it basically says regardless, regardless, if the risk is high, then you have to determine controls around this product.
California legislation only focuses on foundational models. But interestingly it says if the company puts, or either foundational models, or companies or products where the company's put more than 100 million in billion investments. So if you think about this, it's really interesting because if you think about how far reaching the approach, the European approach is, which is not dependent on the investment that a company makes on a foundation, on a model.
That is based on the risk that that model may pose, either on the health and safety of citizens or the fundamental rights and freedoms that bind us together in the European Union. Our model is incredibly more far reaching. But the reason I mentioned this to you is because Elon Musk has endorsed the California legislation. Because obviously they've always advocated for, he's advocated for regulation.
But the reason why he's endorsed it is because probably, one of the reasons why some big companies have endorsed this legislation, because it does favor the big players, obviously. So the reason why I'm saying this to you is to an extent by looking at this, it's not Europe that has been on to innovation here. Actually, Europe is being quite innovative with the European area.
So I think we need to be very clear when it comes to analyzing the European approach and not being too simplistic and really look at the bigger picture here. And we have enormous opportunities, especially in the areas of research and development. We need to make some bold decisions, but we do have incredible opportunities to work on. And also, we mentioned in the book, I talked about the Brussels effect, but that is not a big thing, a bad thing to have the Brussels effect.
It's not a bad thing to be the super regulator in the world, to set the standards more important. And we did it a little bit with the GDPR, overly criticized, overly criticized. And now in the age of AI, we do need to rethink artificial intelligence. But the role of Europe in this is really, really important. We don't have to be a copy of the US. We don't have to be, of course, a copy of China.
We can find our own way to harness the value of these technologies, ensuring that businesses use them, ensuring that the digital dividends are shared more equally. And we can find our own way of doing this. And by doing so also, trying to reshape the relationship with technology. Because at the moment, we are adapting to technology, but technology is not adapting to us. And this is where Europe, European Union has to be different. The role of public policy is to make these choices.
Not because something is technologically possible, then we have to follow it or do it. This is where the role of public policy is. I'll give you an example. I'm a big, I mean, a working privacy law. I believe in artificial intelligence on device, because that means that it's more private, more secure, and it happens here on device. But I am fully aware that not everybody has got power for mobile phones.
This is where politics comes in and says, "Well, actually, this trade-off is not good enough." So I would like to see much public policy in shaping and steering where technology is going. And I think this is very important at the time where we are adapting to tech, rather than tech adapting to a vision of where we as a society want to be in 2030 or 50 years. Now, we've done the line. Thank you, Ivana. I think we can talk for hours about this, and I think we will in another occasion.
So thank you very much for being here today with this on our podcast, "Feb Stalks." Once again, I also want to promote the book you wrote, which is very much inspiring and also very much a background work when it comes to digital policy in Europe, a digital union based on European values. So please, you can find a PDF also on our website, and you can also order the book in hard copy. So Ivana, thank you very much. This was Gerard Ostweg.
I'm the Digital Policy Analyst at FEBs, and please tune in for future episodes. Thank you very much. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)