well, a generation ago, the pioneers of the tech revolution told us they were unleashing a force for good, not evil. we believed them. but that was then. now, it's different. my guest is marietje schaake, a former member of the european parliament, now a cyber specialist at stanford university. she foresees a dystopian future if we don't reset our relationship with technology, but is it already too late?

marietje schaake, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. would it be right to call you a tech pessimist? yes, if you contrast it to democratic governance, which is lacking. right. but why do you juxtapose the two? because you don't necessarily have to think of democracy as the first thing you put against technological development and innovation. you're right. a lot of people think about economic opportunity or innovation orjust cool gadgets or new services, exciting things that they can do. and i think too few people look at what the impact of digitisation has been on democracy and the rule of law. and so i decided to focus on that with a fairly narrow lens to lift out what i think is a big problem, namely the gradual erosion of democratic governance over technology and the power grab by companies in that vacuum. right. and when you talk about your decision to focus, you're talking about the book you've written, the tech coup, subtitled how to save democracy

from silicon valley. i mean, rather dramatically, it has a bomb on the front cover with a sort of burning fuse. that's not so much tech pessimism as tech alarmism. i mean, are you trying to scare us all? well, i'm alarmed about the fact that democratic governance is not keeping up and that there's too little focus on where all democracy is at stake when we look at the power to make decisions that tech companies have. but should we not go back to sort of first principles and very basic thoughts at the beginning of this conversation? i mean, i talked about 25, 30 years ago, when people were so rose—tinted about the capacity of the internet to change all of our lives for the better, to be a genuine public good. i dare say you've got a smartphone in your pocket, haven't you? of course. and doesn't that improve your life in countless different ways ? isn't the fact that you can access all of the world's information at your fingertips

whenever you need to, for both the most trivial reasons and for huge reasons of your academic research, isn't that something unbelievably wonderful? oh, it's wonderful. i'm not writing or arguing against technology. i'm just arguing for better transparency, more independent oversight over what these companies are deciding about our lives, about the conflicts in our world, about whether to respect or not human rights and civil liberties, about what young people should be exposed to, and about whether governments are now in a position to actually know enough about the technology to make well—informed decisions about it. and when you say these companies, and again, i'm looking at the book title, you focus in on silicon valley. you are presumably looking with greatest concern at those giants of the tech sector which were born and raised in silicon valley. i'm thinking of companies like apple, google, amazon, all of these famous names that aren'tjust american corporates, they are globally significant transnational corporations.

is that where your concern is the greatest? well, the tech is definitely looking at big companies, but it's essentially looking at an ecosystem of companies that also includes smaller ones. so let me illustrate with an example. some of the most aggressive anti—democratic technology is spyware. it's the kind of technology that can enter in each of our devices without us having to do anything "wrong", quote unquote. we don't even have to click on a poisonous link or fall for some kind of phishing effort. it can just load onto our phones from a distance. and this spyware offers intelligence—grade technical capacities to whoever can afford them, and has been used against journalists, against opposition leaders, againstjustices, against civil society leaders, not only in authoritarian contexts where we might expect something like that, but also in the eu in countries like hungary, poland, spain, greece and, um, you know, that's a smaller tech problem. these are not as big as google

or amazon web services or microsoft, but nevertheless very, very impactful on those first principles of democracy, the right to privacy, the source protection ofjournalists and simply having some personal contacts and communications. you began your campaign to get, in a sense, civil society to wake up to the potential dangers that came with the digital revolution when you were a member of the european parliament and you actively campaigned on the issue of spyware and surveillance, which people weren't aware of and you said had to be outlawed and the export and import had to be controlled of this sort of software. right. you made a very interesting decision a few years ago

to leave europe and go to the united states, which seems odd in a way, because europe seems to have been listening to your messages in a way that the us doesn't seem to be inclined to listen. so why did you choose to go over there? well, i wanted to look at the power and the political impact of silicon valley. i don't think it's treated as a hub of power as much as it is seen as a hub of innovation, of capital. but really important decisions are being made by corporate leaders. and stanford university, where i work now, has educated a lot of the world's tech leaders, sits next door to their offices. and so i was very curious about understanding the culture better, about understanding the drivers of these people, the values that inform them, and to perhaps teach students that have ambitions to work in tech companies a little bit more about the rule of law, about democracy, and about why we have, you know, those principles enshrined in our societies in the first place.

to put it crudely, you seem to believe that such is the financial and indeed political clout of some of the biggest tech corporations in the united states today that they have, in ways, overwhelmed the capacity of the democratic system to control them. would that be a fair assessment of what you're saying? so i think indeed, capital and lobbying and that kind of power and influencing of politics is one aspect. the other aspect is really just the creation of the technologies as such, without consideration for what it might mean for geopolitics. so let me give an example of the satellite internet connectivity that elon musk offers through starlink, or the undersea cables through which the vast majority, almost 100% of our world's internet traffic travels. these are infrastructural creations that have deep impact on matters of national security and geopolitical tensions, while the legal context is very ambiguous.

so there's uncertainty about who ought to protect this infrastructure, who has access to data, what happens in the case of a breach or an attack, for that matter, and so the decisions by companies are sort of running ahead of where states are, with all the consequences thereof. in your view, is that because tech leaders like elon musk simply intimidate politicians so that politicians are not ready to enter the sort of field of regulation and confront musk? well, i think some have embraced the notion of fostering an innovative, successful sector as an advantage also for democracy, and they now have. that's exactly the way he posits it. indeed, because he's become so open in his support of donald trump, he says in the current presidential election that a vote for kamala harris would be a vote to censor information

flows across the united states of america, would, in his view, be a fundamental threat to democracy and the public�*s right to know and to open information. that's indeed what he's saying. i don't agree with him, and i think it's helpful if people also look at what elon musk is doing. he is suing ngos that challenge his business model, that inform advertisers about where their ads are placed next to extremist content on x, for example. so elon musk is selective in his use of the protection of freedom of expression. but it's not only the brazenness of people like elon musk that has discouraged lawmakers in the united states. it's also this long—held belief that market forces would render the best results, also in a democratic sense. and i think we now have to conclude that that promise of what digitisation and the open internet

would bring has not come out, and that it has been replaced by monopolistic behaviour, by a leaking of agency and insight and authority on the part of public institutions. those americans who listen to you but don't agree with you feel that there's just a fundamental clash of values here. i'm going to quote to you robert atkinson, who founded something called the information technology and innovation foundation. and he says of you, he says, "marietje schaake calls "what the eu is doing in terms of digital policy values—based. values—based." and she compares that with a us system which she says is based "on commercial interest and radical "individualism. "but this", says atkinson, "is misleading.

"the us system is deeply based on values. "these are the values of innovation, progress "and growth. "and in contrast, the eu system is based on values of stability "and protecting incumbent interests. " well, i don't agree with this assessment. i think the very popular contrasting between innovation and regulation... so, to suggest, this is a very popular lobbying phrase that regulation stifles innovation, doesn't hold up. i mean, we've seen a lot of innovation thanks to regulation. think about all the sustainability solutions because we're trying to reduce co2 emissions, for example, there would never have been so many investments in greener products if it wasn't for those targets. let's not go into green technologies. let's stick with big tech and the internet and the digital behemoths of the current world. five of the top six of those companies are american. the other one is chinese. none of them are european. and indeed, if we listen to people like mario draghi today, a very influential european voice in this sector, he's written a report and he now says that europe is suffering from, his word, a "tsunami" of regulation which is actually killing off innovation.

so it's very clear that the eu has a problem with scaling start—ups. the way that americans do access to capital is a really big barrier there. and there are other reasons why europe hasn't managed to scale the way the united states has. so, sure, it's not to suggest that the eu is perfect, but a lot of the tech regulations that are impacting the companies, big tech companies, social media platforms, the largest ones or the ones that are sharing content online, for example, have only been recently regulated. so to blame or link the lack of having similar scale companies in the us and in europe to those regulations simply doesn't hold up. i mean, this has been a problem for decades that is linked to a lack of harmonisation in the eu and a lack of access to capital much more than it is to very recent tech. sure.

but according to mario draghi's recent report, a lot of the smaller tech companies that arejust beginning exponential growth in europe are looking at the regulatory framework and are actually choosing to leave. 30% of these so—called unicorn companies are getting out of europe as fast as they can. so again, your notion that regulation is the key to a responsible digital future that works for us all has a problem that many of the innovators don't want to live in a world of high regulation. well, let me specify a few things that i'm suggesting. one, i'm notjust saying regulate. in fact, i'm saying invest. and i'm saying governments should use their purchasing power to better reflect the values that are in the public interest to make sure that there are better safety measures to software that gets used by public institutions like hospitals or schools or local government, for example. so, i just don't want

there to be any confusion that i'm just saying any regulation is the right idea. also, what mario draghi is saying is that indeed, start—ups and companies in europe lack the access to capital. that's often why they go to silicon valley. we have a lot of innovation in europe, but it's harder for them to scale in the eu. and that is certainly something i agree has to be addressed. just one thought on you personally. again, i am fascinated by your journey from being an mep at the heart of brussels, working with a commission which has worked on all sorts of legislation, you know, digital market legislation, digital service legislation, protection of individuals, data, legislation. you know, all of this has come from europe. it's world—leading, in that sense. but you chose to walk away from that to go to silicon valley. and then when you got to silicon valley, you started to be extremely critical of what you saw in the us. and then facebook invited you to join their advisory board, to actually be able to make a difference inside one of these tech giants you're so suspicious of. why did you refuse?

so facebook has set up something that they consider an independent oversight board, which kind of works as an appeals board, where decisions that the company has made about content moderation, for example, to take down an account or a message because it is harmful can be appealed, and where users of facebook can also bring cases that are controversial for an extra assessment by this board. surely it's an opportunity for extremely respected independent media and academic analysts to play a role inside facebook, looking at the decisions they make on content and whether content is legitimate or not. you were offered a chance to sit there and be inside the tent, and others took that chance. i'm thinking of the former danish prime minister helle thorning—schmidt, or the former guardian editor alan rusbridger, they took the opportunity. you could have, and you didn't, and ijust still don't quite know why.

well, i didn't, because i think it is actually not as independent as it seems. and the remit of this board is quite limited. so i wanted to make sure that we could address all the aspects of what facebook�*s business model looks like. and content moderation, even if it's very visible, is only part of that, and then having the pipeline that is selected by the company to assess cases to me was too limited, and i didn't want the impression to exist that i would not be free from being steered by facebook. people are being paid also that are on this board, which i think helps them to spend time on their work for the facebook oversight board, but also does mean that there is a dependence on the company. so, just to be very basic about this, you know, again, at the very beginning, i referred to those slogans like google�*s don't be evil and others that said

essentially the same thing. we are all about delivering a public good. you just today don't believe that, don't you? you know, if you think about, you've mentioned elon musk already, if you think about mark zuckerberg and other tech leaders, you have very deep suspicion of their motives. well, i just don't think that companies operate in the interest of the public because they're essentially profit—driven, and when there are trade—offs to be made between the protection of human rights or investing in protecting minorities or people in very small language, um, countries or other areas, we just see over and over again that, for example, cost is a consideration over saving people or that discriminatory ai models are pushed onto the market even if they violate the non—discrimination principle. so it's not so much that they don't also make interesting products, but they ultimately are interested in creating shareholder value, in scaling, blitzscaling and capturing markets, in being faster than the competitor, whereas what i've done in this book is to put myself

in the position of democratic governments and asked, through a number of examples, how do we see that democracy is squeezed? the decisions are no longer in the hands of democratically elected and accountable leaders. and how is there ultimately an accountability gap about what these companies are deciding for all of us? yeah. and again, you posit that many of the threats come from silicon valley. but i would suggest that actually, many of the greatest threats to the functioning of democracies, and what the internet can do to undermine the freedoms, the rights that come with democracies, many of the greatest threats don't come from silicon valley. they come from authoritarian regimes who are harnessing the internet to the state in a way that isn't happening in the united states, where arguably, there's too much of a free—for—all. but in china, in russia, the digital era is all about state control.

it is. shouldn't you have spent more time looking at that? well, i do. i know you do, but it's not... i mean, in the very title of your book, it's not the focus of your book, is it? it's how to save democracy from silicon valley, not from authoritarian regimes like china and russia. well, what you're sketching is really that, indeed, democratic governments have done too little to appreciate the power dynamics of how this technology impacts our lives, our geopolitics, and the competition between authoritarianism and rule of law—based societies, and that the challenge is really, will companies help democracy survive on their own? we have to conclude they won't. so there need to be guardrails, and there need to be more clear rules about what the proper role of these companies is in democratic

societies and globally. so, actually, the argument that you're highlighting with regard to the instrumentalising of technology on the part of authoritarian states, vis a vis what democratic states are doing, are two sides of the same coin. i'm actually making that point in the tech coup as well. yeah, but i suppose in the real world, one then has to consider how one gets to a place where we can see global collaboration, because in a sense, you know, controlling the digital future is a little bit like discussing climate change or nuclear proliferation. this is a problem that can only really be addressed effectively with international collaboration and cooperation, right? because if some parties are not prepared to play ball, they can undermine the very system itself. so how do you bring, for example, china on board when you know much better than i do that they have so many different ways in which they have harnessed the state to spying, to surveillance, to the collection of unbelievable amounts of data about their entire population, in ways that gives them

a form of control that, at least as far as we know, is unknown in the west today. yes. and so it is important that there is a proactive, much more comprehensive governance vision that is democratically inspired and also democratically designed to offer against this authoritarian model, which is also, you know, being sold and marketed around the world with success. and so you have to start within democratic societies, between democratic societies, to create that critical mass on the basis of a rule of law—based system, but without having an explicit model of how you want to govern technology with that democratic earmark. you cannot organise globally. and that leaves a lot of room for the authoritarian states. now, i don't have the illusion that it's going to be easy to come to global agreements in today's deeply polarised, heavily competitive

and sometimes warring world. but it is important, especially as democracy is under pressure, that nations work together when they share the same worldview. and at the moment, there's actually a lot of difference and lack of collaboration, even between the eu and the us. and aren't the latest developments in artificial intelligence going to exacerbate those differences? because the potentiality of this technology is so vast that, you know, in this era of rising nationalism, geopolitical rivalry, whether it be in washington or beijing, or new delhi or moscow, there is a desire to be at the forefront, to be the leader, to gain a competitive advantage in this. yes. but let's ask ourselves who is gaining a competitive advantage?

so it is still companies that are developing this technology with a lack of transparency, with a lot of risk—taking in society, not so much about what kind of ultimate risk there might be to national security or, you know, breakaway ai, but also in the here and now, you know, exacerbated and more, more convincing disinformation, more specific targeting of audiences with messages on social media, more crime, big issues with discrimination and bias that are just happening, you know, as we speak. and so the whole idea that the competition. vis a vis, um, an alternative model, such as the chinese model, would best be put in the hands of unregulated ai companies, ijust think is a false dichotomy. i think we need, uh, to be much more explicit about the public interest and democratic values that should inform how ai develops going forward. marietje schaake, we have to end there. but thank you very much

forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. hello, there. for the past few days, we've had colder air across the uk with the rest of some frost, but over the sweet things are going to be very different, because that cold air is getting pushed away, the wind direction is changing and in the next few days will have a strengthening southerly wind. that will bring some milder air all the way up from spain but it will also bring cloud and rain, and we've got that around mainly through the midlands and eastern england early on monday morning. that should tend to move away, leaving cloudy skies

behind and a little bit of dampness, too. the far north of england, much of scotland and northern ireland though having a good day with some sunshine, and temperatures reaching widely i2 and temperatures reaching widely 12 or 13 degrees in the afternoon, so a little bit higher than what it was on sunday. now, if we look out in the atlantic here it is all dominated by a big area of low pressure, with some cloud and rain that eventually is going to hedge our way. notjust that yet, because ahead of that on tuesday we see the southerly wind returning, on tuesday, so it will bring a bit of cloud, not much sunshine, the best of it in northern scotland. later in the day some rain in the western areas, particularly towards the south—west, certainly a riskier but temperatures widely reaching 1a or 15 degrees, perhaps 16 or 17 in southern parts of england and wales, and those temperatures could get a little bit higher, as we head into wednesday, but at the same time we got these weather fronts and this area of rain pushing in from the atlantic, with a strong wind is welcome and that wind is pushing the rain

northwards across scotland and then gradually across england and wales eastwards. it will be quite a strong wind i think on wednesday, but of course it is still a southerly wind, that's bringing in the mild air, so even where you have the rain, it is mild for the time of the year but ahead of the rain they could be a bit of sunshine across east anglia, perhaps the south—east of england, said temperatures could reach 21 celsius, itjust depends how mild, 16 to 18 celsius. goodbyt itjust depends how quickly the rain moves in and how widespread it is as well but we are expecting that rain to move eastwards overnight. a bit of a clearance by thursday, but we have to keep an eye on this rain in france. that could hit its way northwards into southern areas during the afternoon, ratherthan southern areas during the afternoon, rather than the shower is coming in from the atlantic, but ahead of that many places will be dry with some sunshine for a while, and those temperatures in a south—westerly wind still very mild, 16 to 18 celsius. goodbye.

solar they are making us think, why are they doing it? spacex successfully catches a rocket booster for first time ever — as it returns to earth after the launch of its starship craft. hello, i'm helena humphries. the israeli military says four of its soldiers have been killed and seven others severely injured in a drone strike by hezbollah. they say an investigation is now under way. it follows earlier reports that around 60 people were injured in a drone attack by hezbollah. the armed group said it launched "a swarm of attack drones" at an israeli military training camp in binyamina, just south of haifa.