Tessera
Folgen

michael veale

@michae.lv

prof @laws.ucl.ac.uk, technology, law, policy, society, whimsical latvian top level domain names. michae.lv and fediverse https://someone.elses.computer/@mikarv 🏳️‍🌈

1524 Posts8912 Follower1792 Folgt
michael veale@michae.lv · 2h ago

UCL Massively Crossreferenced Digital Laws now includes *pending preliminary references & AG Opinions* for all EU laws. Currently updates weekly. Based on Eurlex data which is a bit later to update than CURIA data (if you can even find it on the new website...) homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucqnmve/law...

List of 'before the court' and which preliminary references are before them, clickable, relating to the GDPR, 24 visibleLists 'before the court' and which preliminary references are before them, clickable
michael veale@michae.lv · 2d ago

You can now access many more digital laws, not just the GDPR, at the UCL Massively Crossreferenced Digital Laws page: EU: GDPR, DSA, DMA, AI Act, UCPD, NIS2 UK: OSA, DPA18, ...+ Each article/para/recital, links to what-cites-it in int'l cases/statutes/guidance homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucqnmve/law...

michael veale@michae.lv · 6h ago

so much talk about the EU AI Act, but so little talk about the California AI watermarking provisions, SB 942, (extremely similar to the AIA) which became enforceable on the 2nd August

Marijn Sax@marijnsax.bsky.social · 3w ago

Aan de KU Leuven lijken specifieke onderzoekslijnen te koop. Future of Life Institute – bruidschat van Musk en vooral Buterin à $660 miljoen – financieert een AI lab via een donatie en plaatst de *eigen policy director* aan het hoofd van het lab aan de KU Leuven. www.demorgen.be/niet-te-miss...

Geld van Elon Musk en crypto-ondernemers voor KU Leuven: waarom het Future of Life Institute vragen oproept

Het kreeg miljoenendonaties van Elon Musk en crypto-ondernemers en luidt al jaren de alarmklok over de existentiële gevaren van AI. Wat is het Future of Life Institute, dat een nieuw AI-veiligheidslab...

demorgen.be

michael veale@michae.lv · 2d ago

You can now access many more digital laws, not just the GDPR, at the UCL Massively Crossreferenced Digital Laws page: EU: GDPR, DSA, DMA, AI Act, UCPD, NIS2 UK: OSA, DPA18, ...+ Each article/para/recital, links to what-cites-it in int'l cases/statutes/guidance homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucqnmve/law...

UCL Massively Crossreferenced Digital Laws Varying digital legal instruments across jurisdictions, each able to be clicked on a section/article/paragraph basis to find the hard and soft law instruments that cite and interpret each specific part (or substantively very similar parts of previous/neighbouring laws.) Snippets provided for each citing source along with original links to that source. Typically thousands of citations for each. Citing documents can be ordered by date, citation numbers, or 'authority/influence' (PageRank algorithm). Database of citing documents maintained and updated daily/weekly; the below documents intended to be updated weekly. Last update 3 August 2026. Document coverage and national grammar for document detection is strongest and best tested for UK, Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, EU and ECHR, but the database contains and attempts to link administrative decisions and guidance from other jurisdictions. Unlike Westlaw or other providers, this is not only free, with links to the originals, and incorporates a large amount of guidance and secondary material. Documents generated from a dataset held and maintained by Michael Veale, Professor of Technology Law and Policy, Faculty of Laws, University College London. If you wish to study these instruments and the tech and practices that interact with them, consider learning about it at UCL Laws: on our LLM in Law and Technology, or our week-long executive education on AI for Lawyers: Technological Understanding for Compliance and Litigation.
michael veale@michae.lv · 6d ago

Parts of the GDPR are cited and interpreted by thousands of pieces of case law and guidance, but there's no easy and free way to find out what. We've made a tool which makes it super easy, for 13,000 citing documents, all in one place. More regulations to come! homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucqnmve/law...

Image of the interface, featuring Article 5 with citation counts per article and per paragraph.
Rachel Coldicutt@rachelcoldicutt.bsky.social · 5d ago

My boiling hot take on this is that, if tech companies are going to fund this kind of research (looking at Schmidt too), then the money needs to be given *no strings* to an independent arm's length research body, pooled with other funding, and treated as a donation not as direct funding.

Hetan Shah@hetanshah.bsky.social · 5d ago

Anthropic AI research fund offers $5m - $30m for social science research on themes of AI impact on workers; transition initiatives; income support; building worker stakes; and wider evidence on public investments. Total fund of $200m available www.anthropic.com/news/economi...

michael veale@michae.lv · 2w ago

now the AI Omnibus has been published, if you want to read a version with redline or a total consolidated version (not just the list of what has been deleted and added, which is what the omnibus is), i've published both recast and track-change versions on my website michae.lv/ai-act-as-am...

An illustration of the recast text at the available link showing that it has green text for new introduced text and red strikethrough text for that which has been removed. The link contains the machine readable text; strikethrough text cannot be put into an alt text on bluesky.
michael veale@michae.lv · last mo.

in the legislative proposal to expand the supreme court, could you please also tell them to publish HTML versions of their judgments? (you can still paginate them precisely, technology is amazing!). section 508 of the rehabilitation act called and it wants the judicial branch in scope.

michael veale@michae.lv · last mo.

genuine q: if ai coding is massively increasing engineers’ productivity why does software either feel the same or worse? where is this productivity actually going?

michael veale@michae.lv · last mo.

Information Compliance team at the House of Commons managed to send an incorrect email to 120,000 recipients (me included), ironically intended as an internal puff piece about how good their information compliance is www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/inco...

Incorrect email recipients May 2026 - a Freedom of Information request to House of Commons

On May 28 2026 an email entitled “Information Compliance - FPP” was sent in error from the Finance, Portfolio and Performance Communications group. Please write back (FOI Act 2000) to tell me how ma...

whatdotheyknow.com

Jennifer Cobbe@jennifercobbe.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Relying on Google Translate for this as the official translation isn't up yet - so this could be wrong - but the Court's position here (left) seems to be essentially what we argued in *2019* (right): ejlt.org/index.php/ej... If so, nice to see the Court catch up

CJEU judgment: 111 As the Advocate General observed, in essence, in point 239 of his Opinion, it is in particular by means of the algorithm used that such an operator exercises control over the information stored. As long as it has predetermined, by means of that algorithm, the conditions for the dissemination or not of such information, it is irrelevant that that operator does not itself carry out additional interventions having the effect of promoting, modifying or deleting information stored with a view to its dissemination. 112 In that regard, it must be stated that if, in addition to merely categorising and indexing the information with a view to making it more accessible, the algorithm used determines, in the interest of the operator or its service, under what conditions, in what manner and in what order of priority that information is or is not disseminated, That operator exercises control over those services, with the result that the service which it offers cannot be classified as an 'information society service consisting in the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service' within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31 (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 March 2010, Google France and Google, C-236/08 to C-238/08, EU:C:2010:159, paragraphs 115 and 117; of 12 July 2011, L'Oréal and Others, C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474, paragraph 116, and of 22 June 2021, YouTube and Cyando, C-682/18 and C-683/18, EU:C:2021:503, paragraph 114).Extract from paper: The situation is somewhat different in relation to open recommending of user-generated content, as service providers are unlikely, in most cases, to have knowledge of the content itself. Rather, they will have knowledge of metadata about the content – for example, information about which users have viewed or provided feedback or indications of its general ‘popularity’ (e.g. ‘likes’ or ‘shares’). However, in open recommending, service providers do exercise control over content. Indeed, control over content is the very point of recommending; service providers exercise such control in order to show people what they want them to see in order to drive engagement, profit, and market position. The normative nature of recommender systems – the fact that they enable platforms to exercise control over content distribution in pursuit of their own goals – is the reason for their use. In open recommending, service providers are not simply storing user content and displaying it neutrally in a merely technical or passive way. They control the criteria for recommending and thus they determine what is recommended in line with the outcomes that they desire. According to the CJEU, simply providing general information to users cannot itself be sufficient to deprive a service provider of the protection afforded to hosts . But, in recommending content, service providers do not provide general information – they provide and promote specifically selected information, determined by the service provider (by way of their algorithmic processes) on the basis of predicted relevance, interest, and so on to the user or groups of users in question. They therefore do not take a neutral position between the uploader of the content and the potential viewers ; rather, they are actively involved in selecting content for distribution and promotion according to their own criteria, in selecting the audience for that content according to their own determination, and, as a result, in s…
Steve Peers@stevepeers.bsky.social · 2mo ago

EU, tech law CJEU: Member States can require age verification for porn, and ban rebroadcast of traffic cop information also ***a website that controls what viewers see via an algorithm is liable for the content*** curia.europa.eu/site/upload/...

TJ McIntyre@tjmcintyre.com · 2mo ago

The age verification aspect might be misleading - this seems to be just a restatement of the position under the e-commerce directive. But the decision on liability for algorithmic recommendation is *explosive*.

Steve Peers@stevepeers.bsky.social · 2mo ago

EU, tech law CJEU: Member States can require age verification for porn, and ban rebroadcast of traffic cop information also ***a website that controls what viewers see via an algorithm is liable for the content*** curia.europa.eu/site/upload/...

michael veale@michae.lv · 2mo ago

This case brought by @awo.agency will have to deal with a few big questions: 1. how much platform input in content negates the user-to-user dimension that might usually grant intermediary shielding? 2. will English courts apply the logic of the CJEU in Russmedia or come to a different conclusion?

Jess Asato MP@jessasatomp.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Today, I’m launching a High Court claim against xAI, the company behind Grok. I am just one of thousands of women and even children who have been the victim of abusive and sexualised AI deepfakes. This should never have happened – and xAI must be held accountable. www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...

michael veale@michae.lv · 2mo ago

after Brexit, any of the pan-European PLC type company, the ‘Societas Europaea’, were converted into ‘UK Societas’. This is now a highly endangered species of legal person, with only seven active, and no way to form new ones.

michael veale@michae.lv · 2mo ago

wow, save energy by not saying please or thank you to your AI. the individualistic ‘turn of the lights’ moment for LLMs. models use tools and hidden thinking that expend thousands of tokens in seconds. two or three tokens of nicety isn’t going to move the needle. www.newscientist.com/article/2529...

Ditch the niceties in AI prompts to save energy use, say researchers | New Scientist

A UN report warns of the rapid growth in AI energy consumption, but suggests users can improve efficiency by making prompts more concise

newscientist.com

Follow the Money EU@ftm.eu · 2mo ago

Cloudflare protects a quarter of the internet from cyberattacks, including Follow the Money. The downside? The US tech giant needs access to an enormous amount of sensitive data to do so. That’s why we’re switching to a European alternative.

FTM ditches US cybersecurity firm over surveillance and privacy fears

Follow the Money has parted ways with tech giant Cloudflare. The US company protects a quarter of the internet from cyberattacks. The downside: to do so, it needs access to sensitive data. FTM is now switching to a European alternative.

ftm.eu

UCL Faculty of Laws@laws.ucl.ac.uk · 3mo ago

Can law stop criminals misusing #AI? 🤔 Join us for a free online open event with Prof Michael Veale (@michae.lv) exploring AI, technology law and digital regulation - followed by an intro to our new LLM Law and Technology specialism and Q&A. 📅 10 June, 12:00–13:00 BST 🔗 Register: shorturl.at/pEHAH

‘Can Law Stop Criminals Misusing AI?’ – UCL Master of Laws (LLM) online open event

Join UCL Laws for an online LLM open event with Professor Michael Veale exploring AI, technology law and digital regulation, followed by a UCL Master of Laws (LLM) introduction and Q&A

ucl.ac.uk