Europe’s dream to wean off US tech gets reality check

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Pieter Haeck and Mathieu Pollet: “..As the U.S. continues to up the ante in questioning transatlantic ties, calls are growing in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on U.S. technology in critical areas such as cloud services, artificial intelligence and microchips, and to opt for European alternatives instead.

But the European Commission is preparing on Thursday to acknowledge publicly what many have said in private: Europe is nowhere near being able to wean itself off U.S. Big Tech.

In a new International Digital Strategy the EU will instead promote collaboration with the U.S., according to a draft seen by POLITICO, as well as with other tech players including China, Japan, India and South Korea. “Decoupling is unrealistic and cooperation will remain significant across the technological value chain,” the draft reads. 

It’s a reality check after a year that has seen calls for a technologically sovereign Europe gain significant traction. In December the Commission appointed Finland’s Henna Virkkunen as the first-ever commissioner in charge of tech sovereignty. After few months in office, European Parliament lawmakers embarked on an effort to draft a blueprint for tech sovereignty. 

Even more consequential has been the rapid rise of the so-called Eurostack movement, which advocates building out a European tech infrastructure and has brought together effective voices including competition economist Cristina Caffarra and Kai Zenner, an assistant to key European lawmaker Axel Voss.

There’s wide agreement on the problem: U.S. cloud giants capture over two-thirds of the European market, the U.S. outpaces the EU in nurturing companies for artificial intelligence, and Europe’s stake in the global microchips market has crumbled to around 10 percent. Thursday’s strategy will acknowledge the U.S.’s “superior ability to innovate” and “Europe’s failure to capitalise on the digital revolution.”

What’s missing are viable solutions to the complex problem of unwinding deep-rooted dependencies….(More)”

Scientific Publishing: Enough is Enough

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Seemay Chou: “In Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson make the case that the biggest barriers to progress today are institutional. They’re not because of physical limitations or intellectual scarcity. They’re the product of legacy systems — systems that were built with one logic in mind, but now operate under another. And until we go back and address them at the root, we won’t get the future we say we want.

I’m a scientist. Over the past five years, I’ve experimented with science outside traditional institutes. From this vantage point, one truth has become inescapable. The journal publishing system — the core of how science is currently shared, evaluated, and rewarded — is fundamentally broken. And I believe it’s one of the legacy systems that prevents science from meeting its true potential for society.

It’s an unpopular moment to critique the scientific enterprise given all the volatility around its funding. But we do have a public trust problem. The best way to increase trust and protect science’s future is for scientists to have the hard conversations about what needs improvement. And to do this transparently. In all my discussions with scientists across every sector, exactly zero think the journal system works well. Yet we all feel trapped in a system that is, by definition, us.

I no longer believe that incremental fixes are enough. Science publishing must be built anew. I help oversee billions of dollars in funding across several science and technology organizations. We are expanding our requirement that all scientific work we fund will not go towards traditional journal publications. Instead, research we support should be released and reviewed more openly, comprehensively, and frequently than the status quo.

This policy is already in effect at Arcadia Science and Astera Institute, and we’re actively funding efforts to build journal alternatives through both Astera and The Navigation Fund. We hope others cross this line with us, and below I explain why every scientist and science funder should strongly consider it…(More)”.

Surveillance pricing: How your data determines what you pay

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Douglas Crawford: “Surveillance pricing, also known as personalized or algorithmic pricing, is a practice where companies use your personal data, such as your location, the device you’re using, your browsing history, and even your income, to determine what price to show you. It’s not just about supply and demand — it’s about you as a consumer and how much the system thinks you’re able (or willing) to pay.

Have you ever shopped online for a flight(new window), only to find that the price mysteriously increased the second time you checked? Or have you and a friend searched for the same hotel room on your phones, only to find your friend sees a lower price? This isn’t a glitch — it’s surveillance pricing at work.

In the United States, surveillance pricing is becoming increasingly prevalent across various industries, including airlines, hotels, and e-commerce platforms. It exists elsewhere, but in other parts of the world, such as the European Union, there is a growing recognition of the danger this pricing model presents to citizens’ privacy, resulting in stricter data protection laws aimed at curbing it. The US appears to be moving in the opposite direction…(More)”.

Human rights centered global governance of quantum technologies: advancing information for all

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

UNESCO Brief: “The integration of quantum technologies into AI systems introduces greater complexity, requiring stronger policy and technical frameworks that uphold human rights protections. Ensuring that these advancements do not widen existing inequalities or cause environmental harm is crucial.

The  Brief  expands  on  the  “Quantum  technologies  and  their  global  impact:  discussion  paper ”published by UNESCO. The objective of this Brief is to unpack the multiple dimensions of the quantum ecosystem and broadly explore the human rights and policy implications of quantum technologies, with some key findings:

  • While quantum technologies promise advancements of human rights in the areas of encryption, privacy, and security,  they also pose risks to these very domains and related ones such as freedom of expression and access to information
  • Quantum  innovations  will  reshape security,  economic  growth,  and  science, but  without  a robust human  rights-based  framework,  they  risk  deepening  inequalities  and  destabilizing global governance.
  • The quantum  divide  is  emerging  as  a  critical  issue,  with  disparities  in  access  to  technology,  expertise, and infrastructure widening global inequalities. Unchecked, this gap could limit the benefits of quantum advancements for all.
  • The quantum gender divide remains stark—79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders, and only 1 in 54 quantum job applicants are women.

The Issue Brief provides broad recommendations and targeted actions for stakeholders,emphasizing

human  rights-centered  governance,  awareness,  capacity  building,  and  inclusivity  to  bridge global and gender divides. The key recommendations focus on a comprehensive governance model which must  ensure  a  multistakeholder  approach  that  facilitates,  state  duties,  corporate  accountability, effective remedies for human rights violations, and open standards for equitable access. Prioritizing human  rights  in  global  governance  will  ensure  quantum  innovation  serves  all  of  humanity  while safeguarding fundamental freedoms…(More)”.

Representants and International Orders

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Alena Drieschova: “Different units of international politics, such as states or the church, cannot be present in their entirety during international interactions. Political rule needs to be represented for international actors to coordinate their activities. Representants (i.e. maps, GDP, buildings, and diplomatic and warfare practices) establish collective understandings about the nature of authority and its configuration. Whilst representants are not exact replica, they highlight and omit certain features from the units they stand in for. In these inclusions and exclusions lies representants’ irreducible effect. This book studies how representants define the units of the international system and position them in relation to each other, thereby generating an international order. When existing representants change, the international order changes because the units are defined differently and stand in different relations to each other. Power is therefore defined differently. Spanning centuries of European history, Alena Drieschova traces the struggles between actors over these representations…(More)”.

Ethical implications related to processing of personal data and artificial intelligence in humanitarian crises: a scoping review

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Tino Kreutzer et al: “Humanitarian organizations are rapidly expanding their use of data in the pursuit of operational gains in effectiveness and efficiency. Ethical risks, particularly from artificial intelligence (AI) data processing, are increasingly recognized yet inadequately addressed by current humanitarian data protection guidelines. This study reports on a scoping review that maps the range of ethical issues that have been raised in the academic literature regarding data processing of people affected by humanitarian crises….

We identified 16,200 unique records and retained 218 relevant studies. Nearly one in three (n = 66) discussed technologies related to AI. Seventeen studies included an author from a lower-middle income country while four included an author from a low-income country. We identified 22 ethical issues which were then grouped along the four ethical value categories of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Slightly over half of included studies (n = 113) identified ethical issues based on real-world examples. The most-cited ethical issue (n = 134) was a concern for privacy in cases where personal or sensitive data might be inadvertently shared with third parties. Aside from AI, the technologies most frequently discussed in these studies included social media, crowdsourcing, and mapping tools.

Studies highlight significant concerns that data processing in humanitarian contexts can cause additional harm, may not provide direct benefits, may limit affected populations’ autonomy, and can lead to the unfair distribution of scarce resources. The increase in AI tool deployment for humanitarian assistance amplifies these concerns. Urgent development of specific, comprehensive guidelines, training, and auditing methods is required to address these ethical challenges. Moreover, empirical research from low and middle-income countries, disproportionally affected by humanitarian crises, is vital to ensure inclusive and diverse perspectives. This research should focus on the ethical implications of both emerging AI systems, as well as established humanitarian data management practices…(More)”.

The Global Data Barometer 2nd edition: A Shared Compass for Navigating the Data Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Global Data Barometer: “Across the globe, we’re at a turning point. From artificial intelligence and digital governance to public transparency and service delivery, data is now a fundamental force shaping how our societies function and who they serve. It holds tremendous promise to drive inclusive growth, foster accountability, and support urgent action on global challenges. And yet, access to high-quality, usable data is becoming increasingly constrained.

Some, like Verhulst (2024), have begun calling this moment a “data winter,” a period marked by shrinking openness, rising inequality in access, and growing fragmentation in how data is governed and used. This trend poses a risk not just to innovation but to the democratic values that underpin trust, participation, and accountability.

In this complex landscape, evidence matters more than ever. That is why we are proud to launch the Second Edition of the Global Data Barometer (GDB), a collaborative and comparative study that tracks the state of data for the public good across 43 countries, with a focused lens on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and Africa…

The Barometer tracks countries across four dimensions: governance, capabilities, and availability, while also exploring key cross-cutting areas like AI readiness, inclusion, and data use. Here are some of the key takeaways:

  • The Implementation Gap

Many countries have adopted laws and frameworks for data governance, but there is a stark gap between policy and practice. Without strong institutions and dedicated capacity, even well-designed frameworks fall short.

  • The Role of Skills and Infrastructure

Data does not flow or translate into value without people and systems in place. Across both Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa, we see underinvestment in public sector skills, training, and the infrastructure needed to manage and reuse data effectively.

  • AI Is Moving Faster Than Governance

AI is increasingly present in national strategies, but very few countries have clear policies to guide its ethical use. Governance frameworks rarely address issues like algorithmic bias, data quality, or the accountability of AI-driven decision-making.

  • Open Data Needs Reinvestment

Many countries once seen as open data champions are struggling to sustain their efforts. Legal mandates are not always matched by technical implementation or resources. As a result, open data initiatives risk losing momentum.

  • Transparency Tools Are Missing

Key datasets that support transparency and anti-corruption, such as lobbying registers, beneficial ownership data, and political finance records, are often missing or fragmented. This makes it hard to follow the money or hold institutions to account.

  • Inclusion Is Still Largely Symbolic

Despite commitments to equity, inclusive data governance remains the exception. Data is rarely published in Indigenous or widely spoken non-official languages. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is often treated as a recommendation rather than a requirement.

  • Interoperability Remains a Barrier

Efforts to connect datasets across government, such as on procurement, company data, or political integrity, are rare. Without common standards or identifiers, it is difficult to track influence or evaluate policy impact holistically…(More)”.

How Canada Needs to Respond to the US Data Crisis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Danielle Goldfarb: “The United States is cutting and undermining official US data across a wide range of domains, eroding the foundations of evidence-based policy making. This is happening mostly under the radar here in Canada, buried by news about US President Donald Trump’s barrage of tariffs and many other alarming actions. Doing nothing in response means Canada accepts blind spots in critical areas. Instead, this country should respond by investing in essential data and building the next generation of trusted public intelligence.

The United States has cut or altered more than 2,000 official data sets across the science, health, climate and development sectors, according to the National Security Archive. Deep staff cuts across all program areas effectively cancel or deeply erode many other statistical programs….

Even before this data purge, official US data methods were becoming less relevant and reliable. Traditional government surveys lag by weeks or months and face declining participation. This lag proved particularly problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic and also now, when economic data with a one- or two-month lag is largely irrelevant for tracking the real-time impact of constantly shifting Trump tariffs….

With deep ties to the United States, Canada needs to take action to reduce these critical blind spots. This challenge brings a major strength into the picture: Canada’s statistical agencies have strong reputations as trusted, transparent information sources.

First, Canada should strengthen its data infrastructure. Official Canadian data suffers from similar delays and declining response rates as in the United States. Statistics Canada needs a renewed mandate and stable resources to produce policy-relevant indicators, especially in a timelier way, and in areas where US data has been cut or compromised.

Second, Canada could also act as a trusted place to store vulnerable indicators — inventorying missing data sets, archiving those at risk and coordinating global efforts to reconstruct essential metrics.

Third, Canada has an opportunity to lead in shaping the next generation of trusted and better public-interest intelligence…(More)”.

Making the case for collaborative digital infrastructure to scale regenerative food supply networks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Briefing paper from the Food Data Collaboration: “…a call to action to collaborate and invest in data infrastructure that will enable shorter, relational, regenerative food supply networks to scale.

These food supply networks play a vital role in achieving a truly sustainable and resilient food system. By embracing data technology that fosters commons ownership models, collaboration and interdependence we can build a more inclusive and dynamic food ecosystem in which collaborative efforts, as opposed to competitive businesses operating in silos, can achieve transformative scale.

Since 2022, the Food Data Collaboration has been exploring the potential for open data standards to enable shorter, relational, regenerative food supply networks to scale and pave the way towards a healthier, more equitable, and more resilient food future. This paper explores the high level rationale for our approach and is essential reading for anyone keen to know more about the project’s aims, achievements and future development…(More)”.

The Agentic State: How Agentic AI Will Revamp 10 Functional Layers of Public Administration

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Whitepaper by the Global Government Technology Centre Berlin: “…explores how agentic AI will transform ten functional layers of government and public administration. The Agentic State signifies a fundamental shift in governance, where AI systems can perceive, reason, and act with minimal human intervention to deliver public value. Its impact on  key functional layers of government will be as follows…(More)”.