"There can certainly be and hopefully there will be a certain freedom in the digital age," Prof. Dr. Martin Eifert offers as a first answer to the forum’s thematic question: "Society 3.0+: Can Liberty Survive the Digital Age?” "But we have to consider how this freedom should be grasped in light of which dangers, and how we can secure it. To this end, an incredible number of variables must be taken into account." A few variables and concepts – albeit central ones – are reflected in the question that is the focus of this year's Princeton-Fung Global Forum on the 20th and 21st of March 2017 in Berlin.
International experts drawn from the sciences, politics and society will here discuss how the internet as a locus of freedom and unity relates to restrictions, such as government surveillance, and threats, such as cyber-attacks. Further topics of discussion include possibilities of regulation and the internet of things and, finally, the question of how free the digital age really is. As one of three Humboldt University scholars, Martin Eifert, since 2012 Professor of Public Law and, in particular, Administrative Law at the Law Faculty, will be taking part.
The Web Increases the Possibilities of Individual Development
"'Society 3.0+'", the jurist explains at first, "refers to the fact that digitalization leads to a comprehensive transformation of human coexistence." The counting follows the style of counting that is well-known for the Web. "Web 2.0" still relates to the interactivity of users, whereas "Web 3.0" is now a matter of "the semantic web, which reproduces natural language modes of behavior".
The "+" makes clear that technology is going further. With "society 3.0+", it becomes apparent that the transformation is based on technological and social innovations. The concept of freedom used in the forum's thematic question makes reference to, as Eifert puts it, "a normatively recognized concept about which liberal societies have come to agreement: the individual shapes his or her life autonomously." The Web increases here the possibilities of individual development. Think, for instance, of Facebook or YouTube: where you can take on different identities, present oneself and realize one's potentials. But these enormous freedoms are directly connected to equally enormous dangers. Prof. Eifert mentions, for instance, the traces that individuals leave on the Web and that can be analyzed in expanded monitoring operations. "Self-determination also threatens to implode, if the individual fails to take protective measures, because they are too laborious." The result would be a self-imposed dependence.
The Dilemma of Freedom and Restriction
Last but not least, freedom is being reduced by Big Data. "If people intelligently analyze collected data and thus know more about us than we do, then it turns out that the alternative paths of action available to us are being steered by powerful actors in the digital world," the legal scholar explains. "Our understanding of freedom is, however, based on the inalienability of the variety of options for individuals."
In the Fung Forum, he will be on Panel 1 on the topic "The 'World' Wide Web?", in which he will discuss with four other scholars and jurists, among other things, how particular countries deal with the dilemma of freedom and restriction in the digital world. As he explains, just like in the offline domain, here too constellations of interests must be subject to suitable regulation: for instance, on the levels of copyright or data protection.
A Task for Legal Studies
"No blanket response" is possible here, Eifert says, which is why regulations on the global level are not only difficult to bring about – they are also not necessarily desirable. "In different legal cultures, there are different arrangements, such that one could develop basic principles at a very highly aggregated level that will have to be broken down in each of the various regions into criteria that can be operationalized in it," the jurist reflects. "The advantage of this would be a high degree of uniformity; the disadvantage, decreasing flexibility, especially in the case of such a dynamic subject matter." For Eifert, compatibility is always important, but the challenge is to maintain it in the face of legitimate national particularities. He cites fascist symbols and items as an example. In Germany, trade in them is prohibited for historical reasons; but, understandably, it is treated with greater leniency in other cultures.
According to Martin Eifert, legal studies can make "a very important contribution" to the resolution of problems likes these. "We can think about appropriate procedures and institutions," the jurist suggests. "For this is how we approach challenges in modern societies: There is a claim for politics to shape the response, which, for the most part, results in legal rules."
Additional Information
The programm of the Princeton-Fung Global Forum
HU International
Podcast of the Princeton University featuring experts from the Fung Global Forums
Contact
Claudia Schmidt-Memmler
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
International Strategy Office