When it comes to technology and law · Leipziger Zeitung

What do you expect when a law firm invites you to a conference and bar camp on the topic “Internet, Technology and Marketing Complies with the Law” at “Felix”? Both men and women are likely to be dressed in business attire and dry legal topics. Then those expectations were definitely dashed on April 19. A small, and not entirely serious, criticism from the author: it should have lasted three days, more on that under “Sessions”.

the OTMr format It is something special. Let's jump straight into the event, the keynote speech delivered by Dr. Joanna Sprundel in Artificial Intelligence, Thinking and Education explained where things are headed. Some important questions were: Do we want to put AI in charge? Do we believe in the capabilities and efficiency of artificial intelligence?

Conclusion: Examiner competence has become more important! What do we need for this?

Unreal surprise: We need education, including the classic method of source criticism.

Joanna Sprundel has explained a lot about this topic, some of which can be found in the book Slow Transformation. “What mistakes in thinking prevent digital change?”

Sessions

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing participants was: “Which session should I participate in?” Everyone was very interesting, but the problem was: there were always three sessions going on at the same time.

Session 1: With a heavy heart, I leave “Herzkampf – Project and Campaign” and “Introduction to Enterprise AI” and go to Thomas Bosch and “News in Platform Regulation.” Because of the topic, that is Digital Service Act (DSA), Very heavy law, but very interesting. Where does this system apply, to whom does it apply, and what is the benefit of it all? Even for legal laymen like me, it was presented well, and everyone seemed to feel the same way.

Second session: I chose “Crisis Communications and the Law” with Mark Lenzke, not “Political Communications via Instagram” and “How Artificial Intelligence Really Works.” I hope the dilemma of choice becomes clear, and not just for me.

And here the Barkamp effect began. Thanks to the questions asked by the participants, Mark barely transcended the concept of the crisis. A crazy discussion that everyone benefited from.

Session 3: The choices were “Human Rights Also Apply Digitally”, “Ethics of Cookie Banners” and “Geopolitical Leaks and Data Analysis”, the latter of which I participated in.

Johannes Wubbs demonstrated methods and tools for finding leaks, explained how to analyze them, and, with the support of Peter Haines, linked this to legal constraints. The discovery of deepfakes, that is, fake photos and videos, was very interesting, although it was somewhat short-lived due to the passage of time. I will discuss this topic in more detail with Johannes later.

Session 4: “Green Marketing for Blue Ocean”, “Public Bidding” and “Artificial Intelligence in People and Culture” were available to choose from. I chose the former and listened to Kai Thoer explain the history of priwatt, a solar technology company in Leipzig. I'll spare myself the explanations here, I've arranged to meet him and will report back specifically on that.

Session 5: “Instagram Judge for Jurisprudence”, “Google Tracking”, “Regulate RegInt Decoding AI”, why DSA again? Then I was interested and went there.

I was not disappointed, the first session talked about DSA, and here it was decoded. T Mustak showed us examples of how digital services law has a lot of ambiguity. The tagline is “AI law is like French grammar.” It seems that “at least 7 exceptions to every rule” have been confirmed. We can stay excited.

Breaks

Breaks are always a highlight at such occasions, not because of the food (although there is nothing to be desired), but because of the conversations, getting to know each other and connecting. It was clear that the group of participants was very diverse. People from companies in the digital economy, from departments, chambers of crafts, tourism associations, a fashion brand, local politics and many more people whom I could not get to know in such a short time.

The impression that 'they all already know each other' is deceptive, it was a camp atmosphere in the pub, everyone was friendly, people were quick to go on a first name basis and exchange opinions about what they had heard and contact details. Where were the “tough lawyers”? They were right in the middle and anything but “harsh”.

conclusion

Shortly before the end, I spoke with Dr. Jonas Kahl, from his point of view things went well. 130 participants, the sessions were well attended and shortly before the end most were still there. I can confirm that too.

My personal conclusion: Great format, you get to meet a lot of interesting people and listen to interesting and informative lectures – I cannot confirm the “men and women in business clothes and dry legal topics” that I initially feared. Hopefully it won't take another four years for the next OTMR to arrive.