Barbara Lenk, July 6, 2023, Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, p. 14257. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Valued colleagues. 

We today discuss a motion of the Linke delegation for the debate on the EU legislation for generative artificial intelligence. As usual, the Linke’s petitioners hunt after the phantom of an alleged discrimination by means of algorithms. As usual, they see the cure for saving the situation in an unbounded regulation of AI which is adapted to nip in the bud every creative impulse in regards start-ups as well as small and Mittlestand businesses. Their motion is thereby not approvable; since it prevents a future-oriented alignment of Germany’s policy with the goal of a digital sovereignty. 

As examples of generative AI, you name ChatGPT, Dall-E and Midjourney. These generators for pictures and text of U.S. American businesses determine the perception of larger AI models for the end user. 

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, we should not forget: There are also generative AI made in Germany; for instance, the open source software Stable Diffusion or the chatbot Luminous of Aleph Alpha. 

The demands in the motion put forward by the Linke delegation hide the danger of throttling the creative dynamic of the German AI landscape in research and business. It is senseless to categorize generative AI per se as high-risk and thereby force it under the yoke of examinations and obligations. An AI is a neutral tool. Its potential for use or harm evolves as a result of the intentions of its users. A drone-borne camera can, for example, take spectacular photos of climbers on a cliff. Yet such a camera can also pursue a citizen in a city and brand his behavior as “socially undesirable”. 

In brief: The motion put forward by the Linke delegation we can only reject. The actual risk which threatens Germany in the matter of AI is the growing economic divide between Germany and the U.S.A. or China. So that the digital divide does not deepen into an AI canyon, Germany needs to finally invest in AI suitable data centers. This should also be intelligible to the Herr Federal Finance Minister! The door of digital sovereignty in regards AI is still open. The Linke’s motion however leads into an impassable labyrinth without return. This way we do not follow. 

Many thanks for the attention. Shortly before the close, I wish all colleagues a nice time off. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Barbara Lenk, January 27, 2023, Digital Identity

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/83, pp. 9934-9935.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Valued colleagues.

The Union demands in the motion put forward that secure digital identities be introduced in Germany as soon as possible, a proposal which indeed over ten years ago was started, yet was only half-heartedly implemented. Already in November 2010 was the personal certificate [Personalausweis] with its online function introduced in Germany. Yet this form of a digital identity was scarcely used in this country, with at one time just 10 percent. The reasons are at hand: Noteworthy applications are lacking. The online function is plainly and simply scarcely recognized by the people. It is thus no wonder that trust is lacking. And who is responsible for this digital obstruction? That delegation which today demands the introduction of secure digital identities in Germany.

            Stefan Müller (CDU/CSU): Did you actually copy the speech of the Ampel?

Yet the Ampel’s sad digital policy can also be criticized. That unfortunately is still bitterly necessary.

I come now to your motion. Your motion’s first demand is practically hollow. By the end of the first quarter of 2023, you demand a strategy for digital identities. As if we still hadn’t enough strategies!

            Markus Reichel (CDU/CSU): We don’t!

There are already national strategies for artificial intelligence, for data, for Open Source, ja, for digital in general. Valued ladies and gentlemen, we have no conception problem, but an implementation problem.

            Markus Reichel (CDU/CSU): We also have a conception problem!

To here write an additional strategy paper would be the same as a digital insolvency delay.

The people in Germany self-evidently expect a secure solution for their digital identities. That refers not only to the claim to digital services but also to purchase and financial transactions on the net. Valued colleagues, that is an urgent theme. That is indicated by the frantically growing number of internet frauds based on misuse of available identities.

Valued colleagues of the Union, your motion rightly criticizes that the Ampel for long has not realized the so-called Smart eID and only holds out a prospect of rapid realization, without saying where actually is the catch. In the presented form, your delegation’s motion is scarcely capable of consent. Some aspects are not addressed in your motion. For one, the question of a possibly obligatory use of a digital identity is not presented. For another, the question of an analog fallback option is lacking. Further, there follows no theme development of the technical possibilities in foreign states of selecting without contact the personal certificate over the eID function. For this problematic, the AfD delegation first needs to put a minor inquiry.

Valued ladies and gentlemen, a goal of a secure digital identity is, for example, to spare the citizens from dealing with officials, or simplifying everyday living. We should however not lose sight of the risks of an all-around surveillance.

Valued colleagues of the Union delegation, we invite you in the future to bring in parliamentary initiatives for digital policy themes in common with us as opposition in the German Bundestag.

            Josef Oster (CDU/CSU): Oje!

            Markus Reichel (CDU/CSU): Nay. That, I believe, will not happen!

That might promise more prospect of success – for goodness sake.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]