In April 2021, the European Commission presented its proposal for harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (AI), dubbed the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). After the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament finalized their positions in December 2022 and June 2023, the legislative institutions entered a trilogue on the upcoming AI regulation.
The negotiations can be challenging due to the significant differences between the Parliament and the Council on specific issues such as biometric surveillance. In Germany, political groups and digital experts are also concerned about proposed changes to the AI Act.
Die Linke calls for stricter regulation and transparency
The German left party Die Linke highlighted significant gaps in European AI regulation, particularly regarding consumer protection, and obligations for AI providers and users.
It wants to require high-risk systems — including AI systems that pose a high risk to health, safety and the fundamental rights of natural persons — to be checked for compliance with the regulation by a supervisory authority before these AI systems are launched on the market. Die Linke has suggested that the German government appoint at least one national supervisory authority and provide sufficient financial resources to fulfill this task.
“Politics must ensure that a technology that is significant for everyone but controlled by only a few is supervised by a regulatory authority and proven trustworthy before its implementation,” said Petra Sitte, a politician from Die Linke, adding:
“Therefore, do not let yourself be blackmailed by lobbyists of big technology corporations. We can also strengthen an open-source approach in Europe […], meaning that a programming code is accessible to everyone.”
Die Linke also advocates an explicit ban on biometric identification and classification systems in public spaces, AI-driven election interference, and predictive policing systems.
According to the party, the exception for scientific AI systems specified in the AI Act should not apply if the system is used outside research institutions. Die Linke is already calling on the German government to develop training programs on the capabilities and limitations of AI systems, and to evaluate AI systems used in government operations annually “using a standardized risk classification model,” as well as registering them in an AI registry.
The Union prioritizes innovation and openness
Conversely, the center-right coalition of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria — also known as “the Union” — emphasized that AI should not be overly regulated. It advocates for the federal government to prioritize AI and an innovation-friendly environment in Europe.
Regarding the trilogue negotiations, the Union noted its position paper, claiming that generative AI will enable German and European companies to excel internationally. The party wants to avoid the establishment of a large supervisory authority in Brussels, as well as differences in the implementation of the AI law in EU member states. While advocating for sharper definitions, it also suggests ensuring legal certainty by aligning with the General Data Protection Regulation, the Data Act and the Digital Markets Act.
The Union also makes concrete proposals to secure Germany’s technological sovereignty in AI. Recognizing the challenges of building an entirely new infrastructure in a realistic timeframe, the party recommends expanding the existing supercomputing infrastructure of the Gauss Center for Supercomputing. It also proposes that German and European startups, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and open-source developers be given dedicated access to this infrastructure.
To encourage the growth of German AI startups, the Union suggested such small businesses be awarded government contracts.
In addition, the Union highlighted an investment gap in university spin-offs and open-source AI, and advocated for targeted support through national initiatives such as the Sovereign Tech Fund. Given the widespread use of AI in various educational institutions, organizations and companies, the Union highlighted the urgent need to establish local systems to prevent accidental information leakage.
The German AI Association requires practical solutions
The German AI Association (KI Bundesverband), Germany’s largest industry association for AI representing more than 400 innovative SMEs, startups and entrepreneurs, also advocates for openness to innovation.
It’s here! Our new position paper on the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (#AIAct) highlights the key issues that need to be addressed in the upcoming #trilogue negotiations. Thanks to all our contributors! ➡ https://t.co/kHR5cL5VJ0pic.twitter.com/MtbefMDlUO
“Europe must therefore be able to offer its own AI systems that can compete with their American or Chinese counterparts,” said Jörg Bienert, president of the KI Bundesverband. While the KI Bundesverband accepts the idea that a regulatory framework coupled with investment in AI can be a way to boost innovation, the association disagrees with the EU’s approach to this goal. Bienert believes any strategy must include three key components: mitigating potential risks, promoting domestic development, and protecting fundamental rights and European values.
According to Bienert, EU lawmakers have failed to create a regulatory framework focusing on real AI application threats and risks. He further stated that the AI Act risks becoming more of a regulation for advanced software rather than a risk-based approach. Introducing such extensive regulation after the dominance of United States and Chinese tech companies will hinder European AI companies’ chances of strengthening their position and create dependency on foreign technology.
“What is needed now are sensible and practical solutions to mitigate the real risks and threats posed by AI, not ideologically driven political quick fixes.”
Striking a balance
Germany’s government supports the AI Act but also sees further potential for improvements. Annika Einhorn, a spokesperson for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, told Cointelegraph, “We attach importance to striking a balance between regulation and openness to innovation, particularly in the German and European AI landscape.” The federal government will also advocate for this in the trilogue negotiations on the AI Act.
In addition to the negotiations, the federal government is already implementing numerous measures to promote German AI companies, including establishing high-performance and internationally visible research structures and, in particular, providing state-of-the-art AI and computing infrastructure at an internationally competitive level. Furthermore, during the negotiations on the AI Act, the federal government continues to advocate for “an ambitious approach” to AI testbeds. This enables innovation while also meeting the requirements of the AI Act, according to Einhorn.
Is Europe being left behind?
All these suggestions and ideas may sound promising, but the fact is that most big AI models are being developed in the U.S. and China. In light of this trend, digital experts are concerned that the German and European digital economies may fall behind. While Europe possesses significant AI expertise, the availability of computing power hinders further development.
To examine how Germany could catch up in AI, the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action commissioned a feasibility study titled “Large AI Models for Germany.”
In the study, experts argue that if Germany cannot independently develop and provide this foundational technology, German industry will have to rely on foreign services, which presents challenges regarding data protection, data security and ethical use of AI models.
The market dominance of U.S. companies in search engines, social media and cloud servers exemplifies the difficulties that can arise regarding data security and regulation. To address these difficulties, the study proposes the establishment of an AI supercomputing infrastructure in Germany, allowing for the development of large AI models and providing computing resources to smaller companies. However, specific details regarding funding and implementation remain to be determined.
“AI made in Europe”
In AI, Europe’s reliance on software and services from non-European countries is steadily increasing. According to Holger Hoos, an Alexander von Humboldt professor for AI, this poses a threat to its sovereignty, as regulation alone cannot adequately address the issue. Hoos emphasized the need for a substantial shift in the German and European AI strategies, accompanied by significant targeted public investments in the European AI landscape.
A key aspect of this proposal is the creation of a globally recognized “CERN for AI.” This center would possess the necessary computational power, data resources and skilled personnel to facilitate cutting-edge AI research. Such a center could attract talent, foster activities and drive projects in the field of AI on a global scale, making a noteworthy contribution to the success of “AI made in Europe.” Hoos added:
“We are at a critical juncture. It requires a clear change of course, a bold effort to make AI made in Europe a success — a success that will profoundly impact our economy, society and future.”
Collect this article as an NFT to preserve this moment in history and show your support for independent journalism in the crypto space.
Finnish police have seized more than $2.6 million worth of luxury watches from Hex founder Richard Heart, who is wanted on tax fraud and assault charges in the country.
Judge Katherine Failla granted Coinbase’s request for an interlocutory appeal, citing different courts’ interpretations of what constituted a security under the SEC’s purview.
The grooming gangs scandal is back in the headlines after Elon Musk attacked Sir Keir Starmer and minister Jess Phillips for failing children.
The tech billionaire has accused Sir Keir of being “complicit” in the failure of authorities to protect victims and prosecute abusers while the PM was director of public prosecutions from 2008-2013.
Sir Keir has hit back at Musk, saying his record shows how he tackled the issue head-on.
Sky News looks at a timeline of the grooming gangs scandal, inquiries and Sir Keir’s role.
How did the grooming gangs scandal unfold and what prosecutions have there been?
2001: Names of taxi drivers who allegedly picked up girls from care homes in Rotherham to abuse them are passed to the police and council from 2001. The first convictions were not until 2010, with the latest in 2024 – a total of 61.
2004: A Channel 4 documentary about claims young white girls in Bradford were being groomed for sex by Asian abusers is delayed as police forces warn it could inflame racial tensions. It was finally shown three months later.
2010: 11 men, predominantly of an Asian background, are convicted of offences connected with the sexual exploitation of children in Derbyshire.
2011: Times journalist Andrew Norfolk starts receiving tip-offs about child sexual exploitation by predominantly Asian men in Rotherham. It was his insistence on pursuing the story, despite being called racist and concerns the far-right would latch on to it, that eventually led to a national inquiry.
2011: A girl abused by a grooming gang in Huddersfield writes a letter to a judge about the abuse she had suffered. It was not until 2013 that another victim came forward to police to make formal allegations, then dozens of girls and men were interviewed over the next three years. Victims and their families said they repeatedly told police and authorities but nothing happened.
2011: Operation Bullfinch is launched by the police and council in Oxford to look into a child sex abuse ring in the city. The first convictions are secured in May 2013, then 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020.
May 2012: The first grooming gangs convictions of men from Rochdale and Oldham see nine found guilty of being part of a child sexual exploitation ring run out of two takeaways in Greater Manchester since 2008. A further five from the Rochdale area were jailed the following year.
May 2013: Seven men have been jailed, it emerges, at the conclusion of child sex abuse trials relating to offences in the Telford area.
2017: A total of 29 men from a Huddersfield grooming gang are charged but a reporting restriction prevents media from reporting on the case to avoid prejudicing other cases. The ban was criticised by far-right groups, with Tommy Robinson – also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – jailed for 13 months (later reduced to nine months) after admitting contempt for filming outside a court during the trial.
2018: Twenty men, mainly of Pakistani origin but the ringleader was Sikh, who were part of the Huddersfield child sex abuse ring are convicted of 120 rape and abuse offences against 15 girls, and sentenced to a total of 221 years.
Three separate trials had to be held as there were so many of them. More men have been convicted since then, bringing the total number to 41 by August 2021.
2023: A Grooming Gangs Taskforce is set up by Rishi Sunak’s government, with qualified officers from all 43 police forces in England and Wales, and data analysts. In May 2024, 550 suspects had been arrested and 4,000 victims identified.
2023: Nine further men are charged with sexual offences in Rotherham under Operation Stovewood. Most of the offences took place between 2003 and 2008.
2024: Operation Stovewood sees 11 more men from Rotherham convicted for the abuse of vulnerable girls.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:31
‘Lies’ over grooming gangs
What inquiries have there been?
There have been 10 inquiries and reports into the grooming gangs.
2013: The Home Affairs Select Committee publishes a report into the Rochdale cases, finding the failure to protect children fell to police, social workers and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutors.
2014: An inquiry into grooming gangs in Rotherham, led by Professor Alexis Jay and commissioned by the council in 2013, finds 1,400 children were sexually abused between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men.
Then home secretary Theresa May commissions the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales following the Jimmy Savile scandal. Professor Jay became the chair after three others resigned.
2015: A West Midlands Police report from 2010 is released publicly after a Freedom of Information request by the Birmingham Mail.
It shows police knew five years before that Asian grooming gangs were targeting children outside schools in Birmingham but were worried about community tensions if it was made public.
2015: A report into Rotherham Council’s handling of child sexual abuse, commissioned by the government and led by Baroness Casey, finds the council had a bullying, sexist culture of covering up information and silencing whistleblowers.
A new police inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham is launched, with 19 men and two women convicted in 2016 and 2017 of sexual offences dating back to the late 1980s.
2015: A serious case review by Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Partnership finds 373 children (including 50 boys) could have been groomed and sexually exploited in the city. It accused Thames Valley Police of not believing children when they complained.
2019: An independent review into historic child sexual exploitation in Oldham shisha bars from 2011 to 2014 is commissioned by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham after Oldham council requested it.
2020: The Home Office refuses to release research into grooming gangs as it said it is not in the public interest. Following public pressure it releases the report, which finds no credible evidence any one ethnic group is over represented in child sexual exploitation. It is branded a whitewash by critics.
2022: The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuseby Professor Jay is published after 12 years. It finds police and councils downplayed the scale of the problem and children were often blamed for their abuse.
It makes recommendations, including mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse by people working with children, the establishment of a national financial compensation scheme for victims “let down by institutions” and the creation of a child protection authority.
2022: Oldham councillors called for a government inquiry into grooming gangs in the town but the Conservative government rejected it and said the local authority should commission a review.
2022:Greater Manchester’s inquiry into Oldham grooming gangs was released. It found the police and council failed to protect vulnerable children and covered up their failings.
2022: The Telford independent inquiry was published and found more than 1,000 children in the town were sexually exploited and the abuse was allowed to continue for years, with children often blamed.
The inquiry found issues were not investigated because of nervousness about race, with teachers and youth workers discouraged from reporting child sexual exploitation.
2024: Oldham councillors again called for a government inquiry but safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said the council had to carry it out.
What is Sir Keir Starmer’s involvement?
2008-2013: Sir Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions (DPP), head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which conducts criminal prosecutions in England and Wales, for five years.
2009: The CPS was criticised for not prosecuting Rochdale grooming gang suspects in 2008 and 2009. It said the main victim was “unreliable” so dropped the case.
2010-2011: In that financial year, child sexual abuse prosecutions reached 4,794 – the highest during Sir Keir’s time as DPP. In 2016/17, nearly there were nearly 7,200 prosecutions.
2011: The decision to not prosecute in Rochdale was overturned by Nazir Afzal, chief prosecutor for northwest England, appointed by Sir Keir.
2013: A Home Affairs Committee report said unlike other agencies, the CPS had “readily admitted victims had been let down by them and have attempted both to discover the cause of this systemic failure and to improve the way things are done so as to avoid a repetition of such events”.
The report added: “Mr Starmer has striven to improve the treatment of victims of sexual assault within the criminal justice system throughout his term as DPP.”
Maggie Oliver, a former Manchester detective and whistleblower, told the BBC the CPS “bears a great deal of responsibility for the failures around this issue”, including bringing inadequate charges and blaming victims.
2013: Sir Keir revised guidance on child sexual exploitation to make future prosecutions easier. Before, victims may not have been viewed as credible if they had not complained immediately, if they had used drugs or alcohol, or dressed and acted in particular ways.
2013: The Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel was created by Sir Keir to review CPS decisions not to bring charges or terminate proceedings after 5 June 2013.
What has Elon Musk said?
The billionaire, who posts on X, which he owns, many times every day, has also given a series of interviews, and has commented on the grooming gangs and child sex exploitation cases in the past. He has shown support for both Reform and Tommy Robinson and began to post about the grooming gangs scandal regularly, in response to others, in late December and early January.
31 December: In response to an X post referencing the grooming gangs and claiming “out of political correctness, the government did everything it could to cover up the crimes”, Mr Musk replied: “The government officials responsible, including those in the judiciary, need to fired in shame over this”
In response to a post that claimed that “Parents who attempted to rescue their children were arrested when the police arrived”, he said on X: “So many people at all levels of power in the UK need to be in prison for this.”
1 January: Then, after a series of other posts responding to people expressing similar views, including sympathy for Tommy Robinson and support for Reform, he responded to a post saying “Labour’s Jess Phillips, Minister for Safeguarding, refused to back a public inquiry into child exploitation in Oldham” by saying: “Shameful conduct by Jess Phillips. Throw her out.”
2 January: He responds to a poster by calling for a new election, then…
He posts: “In the UK, serious crimes such as rape require the Crown Prosecution Service’s approval for the police to charge suspects. Who was the head of the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice? Keir Starmer, 2008 -2013
“Who is the boss of Jess Phillips right now? Keir Stamer. The real reason she’s refusing to investigate the rape gangs is that it would obviously lead to the blaming of Keir Stamer (head of the CPS at the time).”
Responding to a post criticising what someone called the legacy media, he said: “This is the same media that hid the fact that a quarter million little girls were – still are – being systematically raped by migrant gangs in Britain. They are beneath contempt. Despicable human beings.”
3 January: In response to a post talking about the cost of another public inquiry, he says: “No UK government inquiry for the gang rape of innocent little girls, but £22M spent on an obviously violent lunatic. Shame, shame, shame.”
He went on to accuse Keir Starmer of being “guilty of complicity” and accusing Jess Phillips of being a “rape genocide apologist”.
4 January: He responded to an article in The Daily Telegraph, which claimed to show how the grooming scandal was “covered up”, by saying “How the rape of Britain was covered up” and then later added: “The sniveling cowards who allowed the mass rape of little girls in Britain are still in power … for now”.