List of proposals for EuroDIG 2027

03-11-26 | 16:36 Access & literacy | Human rights & privacy | Media & content Child Online Safety (e.g. EU KIDS Act)

Submitted by: Torsten Krause

Affiliation: Stiftung Digitale Chancen

Stakeholder: Civil society

05-11-26 | 12:14 Security & crime | Technical & operational issues With shocking hacks occurring almost daily, is it time for a total reset of the Internet?

Submitted by: Wout de Natris - van der Borgh

Affiliation: De Natris Consult

Stakeholder: Private sector

05-11-26 | 12:39 Security & crime | Technical & operational issues The new security-related internet standards and ICT best practices are still adopted to slowly to provide the level of security they can, if only organisations would either deploy them or customers demand deployment when procuring ICTs. Despite some standards are part of NIS-2, it is clear this is not enough and/or move far too slowly. This leads to several questions that need to be addressed and answered. 1. Is the more or less voluntary deployment of standards and best practices enough to protect our online lives and activities? 2. Should governments lead actions towards deployment and of so how? 3. Should new ICT products be allowed to enter the market without rigorous testing? 4. Should governments set up testing programmes to protect the online environment pro-actively? 5. What is the role of industry in protecting society and privacy? These issues become ever more relevant now that A.I.has become a tool used for discovering threats to online activities and quantum computing is around the corner.

Submitted by: Wout de Natris - vd Borght

Affiliation: DC-IS3C

Stakeholder: Civil society

06-11-26 | 19:56 Human rights & privacy | Media & content | Security & crime Consent before cloning: protecting people's voices from AI copies An AI copy of a person's voice can now be made from a few recordings. For artists, the voice is their instrument, identity and living, and copies get released under their name without asking. For families, a cloned voice is a tool for fraud. I know a mother who went into debt after a caller used her son's cloned voice to beg for money to get him out of jail. This is a European issue now. The EU AI Act (Article 50) requires deep fakes to be disclosed and AI-generated audio to be marked in a machine-readable way. That is a good start, but a label is not permission. Denmark's bill L 49 goes further: it protects people against realistic digital imitations of their voice and appearance made without consent, and protects performers, while keeping room for parody and satire. Questions for EuroDIG 2027: 1. Should Europe have a common rule of consent before anyone's voice or likeness is cloned? 2. How can ordinary people, not only famous ones, get a fake taken down quickly across borders? 3. Can provenance and watermarking show listeners what is real, and who checks it? 4. How do we protect families and older people from voice-clone scams? This is part of a larger group of issues: AI and creators' rights, consent for training data, platform responsibility, fraud and online safety. It needs creators, platforms, regulators, consumer groups and technical experts together.

Submitted by: Michael Neely

Affiliation: XS10 Magazine

Stakeholder: Civil society

07-11-26 | 23:34 Development of IG ecosystem | Human rights & privacy | Innovation & economic issues The EU AI Act is moving from adoption to application, but for most SMEs the gap between the legal text and daily practice remains wide. Small businesses struggle with basic questions: whether a tool they use or build is in scope, whether they act as provider or deployer, what the AI literacy duty in Article 4 means for a small team, and how the Article 50 transparency rules apply to AI generated content in marketing and customer contact. Guidelines, codes of practice and the Digital Omnibus changes to the timeline add layers that SMEs rarely have the resources to follow. This matters for Europe because SMEs are the large majority of European companies. If compliance is only realistic for large firms with in house legal teams, the AI Act risks slowing SME uptake of AI or pushing it into informal, unchecked use. The issue is how guidance, support structures such as the AI Act Service Desk and national authorities, regulatory sandboxes and standards can become practical and proportionate for SMEs, without weakening the protection of fundamental rights the Act is meant to deliver.

Submitted by: Semanta Semanta Hoti

Affiliation: Archon Law

Stakeholder: Private sector

07-11-26 | 23:34 Development of IG ecosystem | Human rights & privacy | Innovation & economic issues EU candidate countries such as Albania are drafting their own AI laws, largely by transposing the EU AI Act as part of aligning with the EU acquis. This raises questions that get little attention in European debate. Copying the text of the AI Act is not the same as being able to apply it: candidate countries often lack independent supervisory authorities, notified bodies, technical expertise and the wider EU infrastructure the Act relies on. Alignment can look complete on paper while key annexes, penalty structures or governance safeguards are missing or weakened in practice. This matters for Europe because candidate countries are closely tied to the EU digital market, host growing tech and outsourcing sectors, and will eventually join the EU regulatory system. Weak or purely formal alignment creates risks for fundamental rights and for businesses operating across borders, and leaves a gap in the European AI framework. The issue is how the EU, candidate countries and civil society can move from formal transposition to effective implementation, including independent oversight, capacity building and real public consultation.