Europe’s GDPR privacy law is headed for red tape bonfire within ‘weeks’

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ellen O’Regan: “Europe’s most famous technology law, the GDPR, is next on the hit list as the European Union pushes ahead with its regulatory killing spree to slash laws it reckons are weighing down its businesses.

The European Commission plans to present a proposal to cut back the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR for short, in the next couple of weeks. Slashing regulation is a key focus for Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as part of an attempt to make businesses in Europe more competitive with rivals in the United States, China and elsewhere. 

The EU’s executive arm has already unveiled packages to simplify rules around sustainability reporting and accessing EU investment. The aim is for companies to waste less time and money on complying with complex legal and regulatory requirements imposed by EU laws…Seven years later, Brussels is taking out the scissors to give its (in)famous privacy law a trim.

There are “a lot of good things about GDPR, [and] privacy is completely necessary. But we don’t need to regulate in a stupid way. We need to make it easy for businesses and for companies to comply,” Danish Digital Minister Caroline Stage Olsen told reporters last week. Denmark will chair the work in the EU Council in the second half of 2025 as part of its rotating presidency.

The criticism of the GDPR echoes the views of former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, who released a landmark economic report last September warning that Europe’s complex laws were preventing its economy from catching up with the United States and China. “The EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation,” Draghi wrote, singling out the Artificial Intelligence Act and the GDPR…(More)”.

DOGE comes for the data wonks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The Economist: “For nearly three decades the federal government has painstakingly surveyed tens of thousands of Americans each year about their health. Door-knockers collect data on the financial toll of chronic conditions like obesity and asthma, and probe the exact doses of medications sufferers take. The result, known as the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), is the single most comprehensive, nationally representative portrait of American health care, a balkanised and unwieldy $5trn industry that accounts for some 17% of GDP.

MEPS is part of a largely hidden infrastructure of government statistics collection now in the crosshairs of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In mid-March officials at a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that runs the survey told employees that DOGE had slated them for an 80-90% reduction in staff and that this would “not be a negotiation”. Since then scores of researchers have taken voluntary buyouts. Those left behind worry about the integrity of MEPS. “Very unclear whether or how we can put on MEPS” with roughly half of the staff leaving, one said. On March 27th, the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy junior, announced an overall reduction of 10,000 personnel at the department, in addition to those who took buyouts.

There are scores of underpublicised government surveys like MEPS that document trends in everything from house prices to the amount of lead in people’s blood. Many provide standard-setting datasets and insights into the world’s largest economy that the private sector has no incentive to replicate.

Even so, America’s system of statistics research is overly analogue and needs modernising. “Using surveys as the main source of information is just not working” because it is too slow and suffers from declining rates of participation, says Julia Lane, an economist at New York University. In a world where the economy shifts by the day, the lags in traditional surveys—whose results can take weeks or even years to refine and publish—are unsatisfactory. One practical reform DOGE might encourage is better integration of administrative data such as tax records and social-security filings which often capture the entire population and are collected as a matter of course.

As in so many other areas, however, DOGE’s sledgehammer is more likely to cause harm than to achieve improvements. And for all its clunkiness, America’s current system manages a spectacular feat. From Inuits in remote corners of Alaska to Spanish-speakers in the Bronx, it measures the country and its inhabitants remarkably well, given that the population is highly diverse and spread out over 4m square miles. Each month surveys from the federal government reach about 1.5m people, a number roughly equivalent to the population of Hawaii or West Virginia…(More)”.

How governments can move beyond bureaucracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Interview with Jorrit de Jong: “..Bureaucracy is not so much a system of rules, it is a system of values. It is an organizational form that governs how work gets done in accordance with principles that the sociologist Max Weber first codified: standardization, formalization, expert officialdom, specialization, hierarchy, and accountability. Add those up and you arrive at a system that values the written word; that is siloed because that’s what specialization does; that can sometimes be slow because there is a chain of command and an approval process. Standardization supports the value that it doesn’t matter who you are, who you know, what you look like when you’re applying for a permit, or who is issuing the permit: the case will be evaluated based on its merits. That is a good thing. Bureaucracy is a way to do business in a rational, impersonal, responsible and efficient way, at least in theory…

It becomes a problem when organizations start to violate their own values and lose connection with their purpose. If standardization turns into rigidity, doing justice to extenuating individual circumstances becomes hard. If formalization becomes pointless paper pushing, it defeats the purpose. And if accountability structures favor risk aversion over taking initiative, organizations can’t innovate.

Bureaucratic dysfunction occurs when the system that we’ve created ceases to produce the value that we wanted out of it. But that does not mean we have to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Can we create organizations that have the benefits of accountability, standardization and specialization without the burdens of slowness, rigidity, and silos? My answer is yes. Research we did with the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative shows how organizations can improve performance by building capabilities that make them more nimble, responsive, and user-friendly. Cities that leverage data to better understand the communities they serve and measure performance learn and improve faster. Cities that use design thinking to reinvent resident services save time and money. And cities that collaborate across organizational and sector boundaries come up with more effective solutions to urban problems…(More)”

What Autocrats Want From Academics: Servility

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Anna Dumont: “Since Trump’s inauguration, the university community has received a good deal of “messaging” from academic leadership. We’ve received emails from our deans and university presidents; we’ve sat in department meetings regarding the “developing situation”; and we’ve seen the occasional official statement or op-ed or comment in the local newspaper. And the unfortunate takeaway from all this is that our leaders’ strategy rests on a disturbing and arbitrary distinction. The public-facing language of the university — mission statements, programming, administrative structures, and so on — has nothing at all to do with the autonomy of our teaching and research, which, they assure us, they hold sacrosanct. Recent concessions — say, the disappearance of the website of the Women’s Center — are concerning, they admit, but ultimately inconsequential to our overall working lives as students and scholars.

History, however, shows that public-facing statements are deeply consequential, and one episode from the 20-year march of Italian fascism strikes me as especially instructive. On October 8, 1931, a law went into effect requiring, as a condition of their employment, every Italian university professor to sign an oath pledging their loyalty to the government of Benito Mussolini. Out of over 1,200 professors in the country, only 12 refused.

Today, those who refused are known simply as “I Dodici”: the Twelve. They were a scholar of Middle Eastern languages, an organic chemist, a doctor of forensic medicine, three lawyers, a mathematician, a theologian, a surgeon, a historian of ancient Rome, a philosopher of Kantian ethics, and one art historian. Two, Francesco Ruffini and Edoardo Ruffini Avondo, were father and son. Four were Jewish. All of them were immediately fired…(More)”

Global population data is in crisis – here’s why that matters

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Andrew J Tatem and Jessica Espey: “Every day, decisions that affect our lives depend on knowing how many people live where. For example, how many vaccines are needed in a community, where polling stations should be placed for elections or who might be in danger as a hurricane approaches. The answers rely on population data.

But counting people is getting harder.

For centuries, census and household surveys have been the backbone of population knowledge. But we’ve just returned from the UN’s statistical commission meetings in New York, where experts reported that something alarming is happening to population data systems globally.

Census response rates are declining in many countries, resulting in large margins of error. The 2020 US census undercounted America’s Latino population by more than three times the rate of the 2010 census. In Paraguay, the latest census revealed a population one-fifth smaller than previously thought.

South Africa’s 2022 census post-enumeration survey revealed a likely undercount of more than 30%. According to the UN Economic Commission for Africa, undercounts and census delays due to COVID-19, conflict or financial limitations have resulted in an estimated one in three Africans not being counted in the 2020 census round.

When people vanish from data, they vanish from policy. When certain groups are systematically undercounted – often minorities, rural communities or poorer people – they become invisible to policymakers. This translates directly into political underrepresentation and inadequate resource allocation…(More)”.

How social media and online communities influence climate change beliefs

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by James Rice: “Psychological, social, and political forces all shape beliefs about climate change. Climate scientists bear a responsibility — not only as researchers and educators, but as public communicators — to guard against climate misinformation. This responsibility should be foundational, supported by economists, sociologists, and industry leaders.

While fake news manifests in various forms, not all forms of misinformation are created with the intent to deceive. Regardless of intent, climate misinformation threatens policy integrity. Strengthening environmental communication is thus crucial to counteract ideological divides that distort scientific discourse and weaken public trust.

Political polarisation, misinformation, and the erosion of scientific authority pose challenges demanding rigorous scholarship and proactive public engagement. Climate scientists, policymakers, and climate justice advocates must ensure scientific integrity while recognising that climate science operates in a politically charged landscape. Agnosticism and resignation, rather than resisting climate misinformation, are as dangerous as outright denial of climate science. Combating this extends beyond scientific accuracy. It requires strategic communication, engagement with advocacy groups, and the reinforcement of public trust in environmental expertise…(More)”.

Trump Admin Plans to Cut Team Responsible for Critical Atomic Measurement Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Louise Matsakis and Will Knight: “The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is discussing plans to eliminate an entire team responsible for publishing and maintaining critical atomic measurement data in the coming weeks, as the Trump administration continues its efforts to reduce the US federal workforce, according to a March 18 email sent to dozens of outside scientists. The data in question underpins advanced scientific research around the world in areas like semiconductor manufacturing and nuclear fusion…(More)”.

Bubble Trouble

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Bryan McMahon: “…Venture capital (VC) funds, drunk on a decade of “growth at all costs,” have poured about $200 billion into generative AI. Making matters worse, the stock market’s bull run is deeply dependent on the growth of the Big Tech companies fueling the AI bubble. In 2023, 71 percent of the total gains in the S&P 500 were attributable to the “Magnificent Seven”—Apple, Nvidia, Tesla, Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft—all of which are among the biggest spenders on AI. Just four—Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta—combined for $246 billion of capital expenditure in 2024 to support the AI build-out. Goldman Sachs expects Big Tech to spend over $1 trillion on chips and data centers to power AI over the next five years. Yet OpenAI, the current market leader, expects to lose $5 billion this year, and its annual losses to swell to $11 billion by 2026. If the AI bubble bursts, it not only threatens to wipe out VC firms in the Valley but also blow a gaping hole in the public markets and cause an economy-wide meltdown…(More)”.

Integrating Social Media into Biodiversity Databases: The Next Big Step?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Muhammad Osama: “Digital technologies and social media have transformed ecology and conservation biology data collection. Traditional biodiversity monitoring often relies on field surveys, which can be time-consuming and biased toward rural habitats.

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) serves as a key repository for biodiversity data, but it faces challenges such as delayed data availability and underrepresentation of urban habitats.

Social media platforms have become valuable tools for rapid data collection, enabling users to share georeferenced observations instantly, reducing time lags associated with traditional methods. The widespread use of smartphones with cameras allows individuals to document wildlife sightings in real-time, enhancing biodiversity monitoring. Integrating social media data with traditional ecological datasets offers significant advancements, particularly in tracking species distributions in urban areas.

In this paper, the authors evaluated the Jersey tiger moth’s habitat usage by comparing occurrence data from social media platforms (Instagram and Flickr) with traditional records from GBIF and iNaturalist. They hypothesized that social media data would reveal significant JTM occurrences in urban environments, which may be underrepresented in traditional datasets…(More)”.

Panels giving scientific advice to Census Bureau disbanded by Trump administration

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jeffrey Mervis: “…U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has disbanded five outside panels that provide scientific and community advice to the U.S. Census Bureau and other federal statistical agencies just as preparations are ramping up for the country’s next decennial census, in 2030.

The dozens of demographers, statisticians, and public members on the five panels received nearly identical letters this week telling them that “the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the purposes for which the [committee] was established have been fulfilled, and the committee has been terminated effective February 28, 2025. Thank you for your service.”

Statistician Robert Santos, who last month resigned as Census Bureau director 3 years into his 5-year term, says he’s “terribly disappointed but not surprised” by the move, noting how a recent directive by President Donald Trump on gender identity has disrupted data collection for a host of federal surveys…(More)”.