By Mark Bruno
Europe’s digital infrastructure was built by hackers: people who believed that technology was too consequential to be left to governments and corporations. From the Chaos Computer Club’s 1984 BTX hack to the drafting of the General Data Protection Regulation, European hacker culture developed a distinct ethos based on skepticism of centralized power, hostility to surveillance, and a conviction that technical expertise carries civic obligations. This article explains that this ethos, which produced Linux, the World Wide Web, and a legal architecture that treats personal data as an extension of individual autonomy, is now under siege on multiple fronts, subjected to both external and internal pressures, but that the grounds for non-despair remain, as various actors, such as Bits of Freedom, fight in court and investments in the open-source infrastructure the digital economy depends on are mobilized. The article further argues that Europe has the foundations to defend a genuinely different model of digital life and asks whether its institutions will defend it or trade it away as global digital norms flatten.
On the afternoon of December 28th, 2025, journalist and author Cory Doctorow took the stage in Hamburg at the Chaos Communications Congress—Europe’s oldest and largest annual hacker conference—and told an audience of 16,000 technologists, activists, and cybersecurity researchers something they were already beginning to suspect: “The Trump administration’s outrageous conduct and rhetoric has turned digital sovereignty from a nice-to-have to a must-have.”[1] The post-American internet, he asserted, was no longer a utopian aspiration but an operational necessity.
The evidence is damning. Earlier in 2025, Microsoft’s Anton Carniaux, the company’s French director of public and legal affairs, testified before the French Senate that the entirety of the French government’s cloud infrastructure may be vulnerable to American interference.[2] At the European level, it was reported that US President Trump pressured Microsoft to cut off the International Criminal Court’s email server and access to other services as retaliation for its position in the Gaza-Israel conflict.[3] Another example lies in a recent corporate acquisition that risks subjecting the entirety of the Netherlands’ secure online services authentication system, DigiD, to US legislation.[4] And last year, as fears over a US invasion of Greenland mounted, there was a substantive debate as to whether the US could potentially disable or cripple the F-35 aircraft it had sold to Europe.[5] While not all of these fears have materialized, there remain tangible risks—the concrete costs of a digital infrastructure built on platforms whose ultimate loyalty runs to American shareholders and, increasingly, American political power.
Doctorow has a name for the dynamics underlying this risk: “Enshittification,” a concept describing the lifecycle of platform capitalism.[6] First, services propose a value that improves users’ lives, until investor pressure demands extraction and commodification of users’ data. At this point, users are monetized, and their experience degrades, with the platforms even occasionally demanding payment for services or features that were once free. Eventually, this change is followed by a categorizing of users and the emergence of “business” customers, who are offered services that will similarly degrade, until the whole structure collapses. To exit this cycle, the platforms often tie themselves to US defense and surveillance sectors, where their growth is fueled exponentially.[7]
European governments are realizing now that they too are users caught in that cycle, and the looming specter of US dominance in the “artificial intelligence space” is presenting yet another front towards which they must be prepared to mobilize. For some Europeans, however, these fears about such a deeply compromised tech sector are nothing new. Digital rights activists from all over the continent have been describing this situation for decades. But Europe possesses the cultural foundations, legal architecture, and civil society networks to defend a genuinely different model of digital life, one that has been modeled by its hacker culture for decades. Whether European governments choose to lean into this direction or pursue a more cynical, anti-consumer approach is the question.
Those Who Came Before: The Hacker Roots
In 1984, members of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) exploited a vulnerability in the Bundespost’s Bildschirmtext (BTX) network, Germany’s nascent online videotext service, to transfer 134,000 Deutsche Marks from the Bundespost’s Hamburg bank account to the CCC’s account; then they returned the sum the following morning.[8] The hack was a shocking demonstration of how public infrastructure built without transparency or accountability could be turned against the public.[9] The CCC reported the hack to the press before the bank even noticed the transfer.[10] Exposing—rather than exploiting—the vulnerability to treat it as a civic problem rather than a financial opportunity established a principle that would define European hacker culture for the next four decades.[11]
The CCC, founded in 1981 in Hamburg, remains the organizational expression of that principle.[12] It must be acknowledged that the culture CCC represents is legible only against the specific historical context that produced it. Germany in the postwar decades was a society that had lived through two surveillance state systems: the Nazi apparatus, which turned bureaucratic data collection into an instrument of genocide, and the Stasi, which by the time of reunification had compiled files on roughly one in three East German citizens.[13] The CCC’s annual Chaos Communications Congress is unique among similar gatherings in that it draws tens of thousands of participants to engage in a vision of technology culture in a way that does not divorce the sheer joy of “hacking”—which in this parlance means something more akin to “tinkering” with technology—from politics or activism. At the annual Congress, participants are just as likely to attend a keynote speech delivered by industry professionals[14] as they are to learn about playing with washing machine hardware[15] or about the communications of mutual aid networks reaching eastern Ukraine and Palestine.[16]
For the hackers who built the CCC and the movements that followed, privacy in particular was far less of an abstract right and carried a lesson written in their recent history. This is the fault line that separates European hacker ethics from their American counterparts. Indeed, Silicon Valley’s foundational mythology is entrepreneurial: the garage, the disruption, the exit, i.e., the hacker as founder. While it is not the rule, there is an observed tendency for many hackers in the US, who start out as anti-authoritarian figures, to tie themselves progressively to the state for reasons financial, as well as ideological.[17] In contrast, European hacker culture, more influenced by the cultural memory of institutional violence, developed a different set of instincts: skepticism of centralized systems, hostility to surveillance, and a conviction that technical expertise carries civic obligations.[18] Public accountability has historically been the measure of success for hackers in Europe, rather than financial gain.[19]
That European hacker ethos found its clear institutional expression in the Netherlands with Hack-Tic, the Dutch hacker magazine founded in 1989 that later became XS4ALL, one of Europe’s earliest public internet service providers.[20] It was built explicitly to make network access available outside corporate and government control.[21] When XS4ALL’s operations were threatened by the Church of Scientology and the German government’s Internet Content Task Force in the nineties, its community fought back through the courts. From that lineage came Bits of Freedom, founded in 2000, which remains today one of Europe’s most effective digital rights organizations, translating hacker instincts into legal and legislative pressure.[22] The physical infrastructure supporting this culture has been the hackerspace, which encompasses community-owned workshops where people build things together, argue about technology’s social consequences, and train the next generation of contributors.[23] Berlin’s C-base, established in 1995, became a model replicated across the continent, and eventually the world. These are not incubators.[24] Attendees do not pitch to investors. Hackerspaces, still prominent through Europe and the rest of the world, provide safe spaces where technology, technological culture, and various home-brewed technological solutions can be practiced, refined, and passed on. These are the “third spaces” from which many of the civil society organizations that have impacted European digital policy drew their people.
What European Hacker Culture Built: Open Source and Advocacy Groups
Many of the technologies that define the modern internet were not produced by well-funded American startups racing toward an IPO. Linux, the operating system that now runs the majority of the world’s servers, was started in 1991 by a Linus Torvalds, a Finnish student posting to a Usenet group.[25] The World Wide Web was developed at the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) by a British researcher working on a document-sharing protocol.[26] Advanced RISC Machine processor architecture (or ARM), Bluetooth, and Python are all derived from European research and development communities operating on the logic of open collaboration.[27] Widely known as the “Open Source” model, this collaborative principle guides developers in sharing the work, sharing their results, and improving their projects together in a process reminiscent of the scientific method.
While it may appear anti-capitalist at first glance, Open Source development has been immensely profitable and widespread. A recent market report has claimed that over 96 percent of commercial code has included Open Source components.[28] A 2024 Harvard Business School paper estimates the actual market value of all Open Source projects at nearly 9 trillion USD.[29] That is to say, the Open Source method of software development has touched nearly every facet of every single piece of software currently in use by individuals, governments, and private organizations.
Politically and legally, the European hacker ethos has taken a formidable seat at the table. Through the 1990s and 2000s, the organizations that had grown out of European hacker culture, such as the CCC, Bits of Freedom, EDRi (European Digital Rights), or France’s La Quadrature du Net, began translating their technical instincts into regulatory advocacy.[30] The argument they made was essentially the same one the CCC had demonstrated with the BTX hack in 1984, i.e., that the design of digital infrastructure is a political act and that citizens have both a right and an obligation to contest it.
When the European Commission began drafting what would become the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), these organizations were at the forefront.[31] The GDPR, which came into force in 2018, is the clearest example of hacker ethics becoming binding law.[32] CCC and Bits of Freedom provided technical expertise and public advocacy,[33] while La Quadrature du Net mobilized grassroots opposition to what it thought were weak draft proposals,[34] and Jan Philipp Albrecht, the Green member of the European parliament (MEP) who served as the European Parliament’s rapporteur for the regulation, translated those demands into legislative text that survived industry lobbying and member state resistance.[35] As many Europeans now understand, the regulation treats personal data as an extension of individual autonomy, a philosophical position that traces a straight line back to the hacker ethics of the 1980s. The GDPR currently stands as one of the most glaring and definitive rifts between the European business model and American or Chinese corporate principles, and one that blocks many of the most egregious attempts by “big tech” companies to impose on EU citizens’ rights.
The question of whether that model still works was tested in October 2025, when Bits of Freedom (BoF) took Meta (owners of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) to the Amsterdam District Court.[36] BoF’s complaint was that Meta violated the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which typically prohibits companies to target advertising and content based on sensitive data. The specific feature targeted in the lawsuit was Facebook’s and Instagram’s feeds, which had allegedly neglected users’ preference for a non-profiling, chronological timeline. Instead, their preference was automatically overridden each time they reopened the app. On October 2nd, the court ruled in BoF’s favor, finding that Meta’s design constituted a prohibited dark pattern under Article 25 of the DSA, and it ordered Meta to implement changes within two weeks or face a penalty of €100,000 per day, maxing out at €5 million. Meta appealed; but the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling and doubled the penalty ceiling to €10 million.[37]
The idea that digital infrastructure is a public good requiring public investment now has an institutional home in Germany’s Sovereign Tech Fund, established in 2022 under the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs.[38] The Fund operates on an explicit “public money, public code” principle, providing direct grants to the maintainers of Open Source-based technologies and Open Source development infrastructure. By 2024, the Fund had distributed over €24 million across more than sixty projects, globally. The model is being watched by other European governments and the European Commission, which has proposed an EU-level equivalent.[39]
Pressures From Within European Digital Culture
The threats to European digital culture do not arrive from a single direction, but treating them as separate problems misses their common structure. Pressures from within are exemplified by a current case that is particularly relevant in the discussion around what has been termed “Chat Control.” This is the European Commission’s proposed regulation requiring digital platforms to scan private communications for child sexual abuse material.[40] The goal is legitimate and seems based on an unalloyed desire to do good. However, the proposed realization methods are not so. Indeed, the Commission’s original 2022 proposal mandated client-side scanning of encrypted messages,[41] which security experts across the continent explained was technically indistinguishable from a general surveillance infrastructure.[42] It would involve a backdoor built into every device, operated by algorithms with significant false positive rates, exempted for government communications but mandatory for citizens.[43] The European Parliament commissioned its own complementary impact assessment, which found that no available technology could perform the required detection without unacceptable error rates and fundamental rights violations.[44] The Council’s own legal service reached similar conclusions. Consequently, Chat Control was blocked three times, but a revised version passed the Council in late 2025, with negotiations still ongoing.[45] Thus, the proposal never died.
The Digital Omnibus, the Commission’s 2025 package of regulatory simplifications, embodies the same problematic dynamic, but at a more fundamental level.[46] Where Chat Control adds surveillance dressed as protection, the Omnibus removes protections but dresses them as simplification, proposing to raise GDPR compliance thresholds in ways that would exempt tens of thousands of data processors from core record-keeping obligations. It would also introduce new grounds for processing personal data for AI training. The hacker ethic that led the European Union to the GDPR treated privacy as structurally non-negotiable. But the Omnibus treats it as a regulatory burden to be calibrated against economic efficiency. What the two proposals do have in common is that they both come from inside European institutions. And both use the language of uncontroversial values such as child safety, competitiveness, or simplification, to erode the substance of what Europe’s privacy advocates built.
The New Wave: European AI and the Values Question
However, there is concrete evidence that Europe’s ingenuity has not exhausted itself, and this can be seen in what infrastructure is currently being built. The question is whether what is being built still reflects the hacker values that came before. The current “AI race” holds numerous pitfalls for European values of privacy and data sovereignty, but the ethos is still very much alive in many of Europe’s most talked about AI projects. The clearest case is that of OpenEuroLLM. It is a consortium and public-funded program launched in early 2025 that gathers seventeen research institutions across thirteen EU member states and is backed by the European Commission. OpenEuroLLM has endeavored to build a large AI language model—akin to the model that powers ChatGPT—designed around European linguistic diversity and transparency requirements. Moreover, its underlying code is open for public inspection.[47]
Another program, ELLIOT, funded through Horizon Europe and running on the LUMI supercomputer in Finland, is developing AI systems capable of processing text, images, and audio together under public oversight.[48] EuroLLM,[49] which predates both ELLIOT and OpenEuroLLM and will serve as the technical foundation for OpenEuroLLM, has already released publicly available models trained on the European languages that commercial providers, who optimize for English and Mandarin, have systematically underserved. None of these projects will displace Google or OpenAI in the near term, but they represent something the market will not produce on its own: AI infrastructure built to European specifications, under European governance, and accountable to European law.
Commercial players complicate the picture, though. Aleph Alpha, the German company that positioned itself as Europe’s answer to OpenAI, announced what appeared to be a €500 million investment round in 2024.[50] However, the majority of these funds was constituted by a ten-year research grant from a private foundation rather than by the kind of equity investment that builds a competitive AI company. Aleph Alpha has since abandoned the race to build frontier AI models entirely, reorienting around business software.
Mistral AI presents a different kind of complication. The French company is genuinely technically competitive, its models performing comparably to American counterparts at a fraction of the cost, and it has become a symbol of European AI ambition that heads of state cite. But the list of its investors tells a different story: Andreessen Horowitz, General Catalyst, and Lightspeed Venture Partners are the same American venture capital firms that also fund Silicon Valley.[51] Moreover, its models are available through Microsoft Azure. While Mistral is certainly a potential success story, it is worth meditating on what sovereignty actually requires, and on whether the commercial market, left to its own incentives, will reliably produce it.
The sovereign alternatives that carry no such ambiguity are those that never tried to compete commercially. The Matrix protocol, deployed across French and German public institutions and under trial at the European Commission,[52] and Nextcloud, the German collaboration platform running in ministries and municipal governments across the continent, were built on Open Source principles with no ambition beyond making the infrastructure work.[53] They are derived from the same instinct that produced Linux, i.e., the idea that infrastructure this consequential should not be privately owned.
The Pressure From Without and Europe’s Dependency Problem
The external pressure operates differently from pressure from within but takes aim at the same targets. In December 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa bans on five Europeans, including former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, whom the State Department named the “mastermind” behind the DSA.[54] Rubio described the DSA’s architects and the anti-disinformation organizations that have supported its enforcement as a “global censorship-industrial complex.” He has attempted to frame European institutions that impose obligations on American platforms as committing acts of censorship against American speech rather than conducting regulatory sovereignty. Such a claim is a direct assertion that the institutional capacity Europe built to govern technology on its own terms is illegitimate.
Europe’s dependency issues explain why that pressure lands. In October 2025, the Dutch government invoked emergency powers to seize control of Nexperia,[55] a Netherlands-based semiconductor manufacturer owned by China’s Wingtech, acting under what multiple reports described as direct pressure from Washington, after Wingtech was added to the US’s sanctioned entities list.[56] Beijing responded by cutting Nexperia’s access to its Chinese assembly facilities, triggering supply shortages for European automakers and in turn a swift reversal.[57] By November, the Dutch government had suspended its control of Nexperia’s governance.[58] While there is an argument that China had outmaneuvered Washington, or that the Netherlands made the wrong call, the situation is demonstrative of the fact that the Netherlands had no independent position to defend. It acted on Washington’s timeline and retreated on Beijing’s. There was no European semiconductor policy built on specifically European strategic interests in the conversation.
Cloud computing infrastructure provides perhaps an even more dramatic example of external pressure on Europe’s digital policies. The majority of European public sector organizations continue to run on Amazon Web Services, Azure, or Google Cloud. These are American platforms subject to American law, including the CLOUD Act, which allows US authorities to compel data disclosure regardless of where the data is physically stored.[59] When Microsoft’s Anton Carniaux testified before the French Senate, he accurately described that most European governments chose this particular architecture over alternatives that European civil society had been building for decades.
These cases need to be examined holistically. In each one—Chat Control, the Omnibus, the Rubio visa bans, the Nexperia reversal—the pressure has been to treat European distinctiveness as a liability to be managed, even by Europe’s own businesses, rather than as a foundation to be defended.
The Inflection Point
These mounting political pressures, vulnerabilities to US and Chinese policies, and pushes to emulate the Silicon Valley hyper-scaling model are still not indicative of inevitable decline. Europe is at an impasse, but the outcome is not predetermined. The grounds for non-despair are real, and they matter precisely because they are specific and measurable. As seen here, Bits of Freedom took Meta to the Amsterdam District Court with a complaint about feed design, won, survived an appeal in which Meta withdrew its substantive objections entirely, and forced changes to platforms used by hundreds of millions of people. This win occurred without a regulatory body initiating the case. Furthermore, Open Source projects continue to be at the forefront of European digital innovations. In fact, to sustain private communications, the open-source Matrix protocol is now deployed across the French public sector and the German armed forces and national healthcare system. It is also being trialed by the European Commission for its own internal communications.[60] Another example is the Sovereign Tech Fund, which has distributed over €33 million to the foundational Open Source infrastructure the digital economy runs on—a model governments across Europe and the Commission are watching.[61]
In defending their rights, Europeans have been adamant. Chat Control, a proposal that would have mandated mass surveillance of private communications across the EU, has been blocked three times over three years, despite significant institutional momentum supporting it. And the fight continues. None of these outcomes were structurally guaranteed. All of them required sustained effort by people who understood what was at stake technically and politically and chose to fight. Each of those victories was won against opponents with structural advantages such as larger legal budgets, superior institutional access, and the financial capacity to outlast plaintiffs. However, despite setting a powerful legal precedent, the BoF ruling applies only in the Netherlands and monetarily causes minimal harm to Meta. Chat Control’s latest iteration is still being debated, leaving room for continued pressure. And the Sovereign Tech Fund operates only at a fraction of the scale at which the infrastructure it maintains is exploited commercially.
The Digital Omnibus represents a category of instruments qualitatively different from the external pressures previously described. When the threat comes from Washington—for example in the form of visa bans—European institutions can respond with the language of regulatory sovereignty. But when it comes from inside the Commission itself, in the form of a “simplification package,” that language has nowhere to land. Hence, the Omnibus is not an attack on European values from the outside. The same institutional architecture that produced the GDPR is now proposing to loosen it in the name of “competitiveness.”[62] That is harder to resist, and harder to name. However, European projects such as the consortium AI models, the open infrastructure investments, and the sovereign alternatives already running in government ministries exist precisely because people inside European institutions made different choices. The question is whether those choices will be protected, or quietly reversed.
It is also worth noting that the pressure on American platforms is not unidirectional. In the US, the Electronic Frontier Foundation spent 2025 fighting federal preemption of state AI regulation, defending fair use against copyright expansions designed to entrench Big Tech dominance, and opposing surveillance mandates that echo the arguments European civil society has been making for decades.[63] In the US Congress, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced legislation in March 2026 to impose a moratorium on new AI data center construction until federal safeguards on energy, labor, and civil rights are in place.[64] These are minority positions in a Republican-controlled Congress, and they may not advance. However, they are evidence that the critique of platform power as a civic problem—which is the argument that European hacker culture has been making since the BTX hack—has not been contained to one side of the Atlantic.
Keeping Europe’s Soul For Those Who Come After
The culture that built Europe’s digital infrastructure was never primarily a culture of institutions. Instead, it has always been a culture of people who believed that technology was too consequential to be left to governments and corporations. A collective European voice emerged that treated every closed system as a civic problem and did the unglamorous work of maintaining the commons, because Europeans understood what happens when no one does. The GDPR did not spontaneously spring from a Commission working group. It resulted from two decades of arguments by people whose politics were shaped by the memory of the harm surveillance states do. The DSA did come out of a trade negotiation, but it was driven by civil society organizations that had been making these same technical and legal arguments before most of their opponents had a lobbyist in Brussels.
That inheritance is now contested on multiple fronts simultaneously, from outside by actors who have concluded that European regulatory autonomy is a threat to American platform power, and from inside by a logic of competitive necessity that treats the distinctiveness of European digital culture as a cost to be managed. But the Bits of Freedom ruling, the Matrix deployments, the Sovereign Tech Fund, and the three legal defeats of Chat Control are all evidence that the inheritance has not been surrendered.
As an American technologist, now transplanted to Europe, what I fear is that the people who built the infrastructure I have come to so deeply admire no longer retain any meaningful claim on how choices about digital technology get made. Europe has the foundations to build ethical and efficient digital models; it has the legal architecture; and it has demonstrated, repeatedly, despite any structural disadvantages, that its model works. Whether its institutions will choose to defend these models, or whether Europeans will trade their digital distinctiveness for a competitive position that was never really on offer, is a question that cannot be answered in advance.
However, I think that for any European who sees the current excesses of the American surveillance state, the reversal of any green energy production from AI data center build-out, and the ever-present spiral of Doctorow’s enshittification emanating from Silicon Valley, the value of Europe’s digital ethos is clear.
Mark Bruno is a cybersecurity specialist and former U.S. Army combat medic and public affairs representative. He holds a master of science in Cybersecurity and is currently completing a master of arts in international relations and security studies at Webster University Leiden. His work explores the intersection of emerging technologies and global conflict, with his recent research critically examining growing surveillance states. He also brings a background in digital communications, with experience in journalism, media production, and strategic communication. Blog: themoloch.com.
Notes
[1] Pluralistic: The Post-American Internet (01 Jan 2026) – Pluralistic: Daily Links from Cory Doctorow, November 27, 2025, https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/.
[2] “CE Commande publique : compte-rendu de la semaine du 9 juin 2025, ” Sénat, June 11, 2025, https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20250609/ce_commande_publique.html.
[3] The White House, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,” The White House, February 6, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/; “Trump’s Sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Have Halted Tribunal’s Work,” AP News, May 15, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/icc-trump-sanctions-karim-khan-court-a4b4c02751ab84c09718b1b95cbd5db3.
[4] “Dutch Regulator Approves DigiD Takeover by U.S. Firm despite Geopolitical Concerns | NL Times,” February 26, 2026, https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/26/dutch-regulator-approves-digid-takeover-us-firm-despite-geopolitical-concerns.
[5] David Cenciotti D’Urso Stefano, “The F-35 ‘Kill Switch’: Separating Myth from Reality,” The Aviationist, March 10, 2025, https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/10/f-35-kill-switch-myth/.
[6] Cory Doctorow, Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do about It (Verso Books, 2025).
[7] “Elon Musk’s Controversial Grok AI Lands Contract with Pentagon,” Newsweek, July 14, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musks-controversial-grok-ai-lands-contract-pentagon-2098771.
[8] “Thomas von Randow, Btx System (1984),” German History Intersections, https://germanhistory-intersections.org/en/knowledge-and-education/ghis:document-22.
[9] heise online, “40 Years Ago: The Btx Hack Celebrates a Happy Birthday,” Heise Online, November 18, 2024, https://www.heise.de/en/news/40-years-ago-the-Btx-hack-celebrates-a-happy-birthday-10040281.html.
[10] Lothar Grust, “Computer-Fans Zapften Der Haspa 135000 Mark Vom Konto,” Bild, November 20, 1984.
[11] Andreas Hepp et al., eds., Communicative Figurations: Transforming Communications in Times of Deep Mediatization, Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research (Springer International Publishing, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0.
[12] Andreas Hepp et al., eds., Communicative Figurations: Transforming Communications in Times of Deep Mediatization, Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research (Springer International Publishing, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0.
[13] Cathrin Schaer, “Germany’s Surveillance Fears: Thirty Years on from the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Disbanding of the Stasi, Germans Worry about Who Is Watching Them,” Index on Censorship 48, no. 3 (2019): 52–53, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306422019875092.
[14] “Operation Triangulation: Talk on 37С3,” Kaspersky Official Blog, December 28, 2023, https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/triangulation-37c3-talk/50166/.
[15] “[39c3] Hacking Washing Machines,” 39c3, https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2025/fahrplan/event/hacking-washing-machines.
[16] Corinna Schaefer, “CADUS at 38c3 – Reports from the Field and a Very Special Job Center – Cadus.Org,” Cadus.Org – Humanitäre Nothilfe, 2024, https://www.cadus.org/en/blog-en/cadus-at-38c3-reports-from-the-field-and-a-very-special-job-center/.
[17] Joseph Menn, Cult of the Dead Cow: How the Original Hacking Supergroup Might Just Save the World, First trade paperback edition (PublicAffairs, 2020).
[18] Pekka Himanen, The Hacker Ethic And The Spirit Of The Information Age, n.d.
[19] Hepp et al., Communicative Figurations.
[20] “XS4ALL Beleef | KPN,” https://www.kpn.com/beleef-xs4all.
[21] “Xs4all.Nl/~felipe/WWW.Old/Press/Trouw.Html,” https://felipe.home.xs4all.nl/WWW.old/press/Trouw.html.
[22] “English,” Bits of Freedom, https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/english/.
[23] Hepp et al., Communicative Figurations.
[24] Elliot Williams, “Hackers And Heroes: Rise Of The CCC And Hackerspaces,” Hackaday, January 12, 2016, https://hackaday.com/2016/01/12/hackers-and-heroes-rise-of-ccc-and-hackerspaces/.
[25] Himanen, The Hacker Ethic And The Spirit Of The Information Age.
[26] “The Birth of the Web | CERN,” https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web.
[27] “Open Source Impact Study – OpenForum Europe,” December 8, 2025, https://openforumeurope.org/projects-and-initiatives/open-source-impact-study/.
[28] “Open Source Software Market Report | Forecast [2034],” https://www.marketreportsworld.com/market-reports/open-source-software-market-14722346.
[29] Manuel Hoffmann et al., “The Value of Open Source Software,” SSRN Electronic Journal, ahead of print, 2024, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4693148.
[30] “The Four Year Battle for the Protection of Your Data,” European Digital Rights (EDRi), 2018. https://edri.org/our-work/four-year-battle-protection-of-your-data-gdpr/.
[31] “Civil Rights Coalition Says EU Data Protection Bill Threatens Citizens’ Rights,” PCWorld, n.d., 2026, https://www.pcworld.com/article/451517/civil-rights-coalition-says-eu-data-protection-bill-threatens-citizens-rights.html.
[32] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA Relevance), 119 OJ L (2016), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.
[33] Hepp et al., Communicative Figurations.
[34] “Personal Data,” La Quadrature Du Net, https://www.laquadrature.net/en/personnal-data/.
[35] Jan Philipp Albrecht, “Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation) | A7-0402/2013 | European Parliament,” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0402_EN.html.
[36] “Judge in the Bits of Freedom vs. Meta lawsuit: Meta must respect users’ choice,” Bits of Freedom, October 2, 2025, https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2025/10/02/judge-in-the-bits-of-freedom-vs-meta-lawsuit-meta-must-respect-users-choice/.
[37] “Court Again Rules in Favour of Bits of Freedom,” European Digital Rights (EDRi), n.d., https://edri.org/our-work/court-again-rules-in-favour-of-bits-of-freedom-freedom-of-choice-for-instagram-and-facebook-users-remains-intact/.
[38] “Establishing STF as an Independent, Permanent Organization |…,” Sovereign Tech Agency, November 21, 2023, https://www.sovereign.tech/news/stf-becomes-independent-permanent-organization.
[39] “Funding Open Source: Case Study on the Sovereign Tech Fund | Interoperable Europe Portal,” https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/document/funding-open-source-case-study-sovereign-tech-fund.
[40] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying down Rules to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse (2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0209.
[41] European Parliament. Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services., Proposal for a Regulation Laying down the Rules to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse: Complementary Impact Assessment. (Publications Office, 2023), https://doi.org/10.2861/016876.
[42] “CSA Academia Open Letter,” Google Docs, https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Aeex72MtFBjKhExRTooVMWN9TC-pbH-5LEaAbMF91Y/mobilebasic?usp=embed_facebook.
[43] “Eu-Council-Cls-Opinion-Csam-Proposal-8787-23.Pdf,” n.d. https://www.statewatch.org/media/3901/eu-council-cls-opinion-csam-proposal-8787-23.pdf.
[44] European Parliament. Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services., Proposal for a Regulation Laying down the Rules to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse.
[45] European Parliament, “New Legislation to Fight Child Sexual Abuse Online | Legislative Train Schedule,” European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/spotlight-JD22/file-combating-child-sexual-abuse-online.
[46] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as Regards Certain Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Due Diligence Requirements (2025), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0081.
[47] “OpenEuroLLM,” https://openeurollm.eu/launch-press-release.
[48] “New EU Project ELLIOT Aims to Advance Multimodal Generalist Foundation Models | European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems,” https://ellis.eu/news/new-eu-project-elliot-aims-to-advance-multimodal-generalist-foundation-models.
[49] Pedro Henrique Martins et al., “EuroLLM: Multilingual Language Models for Europe,” arXiv:2409.16235, preprint, arXiv, September 24, 2024, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.16235.
[50] Madita Lege, “Aufgeblasene Finanzierung? Aleph Alpha nennt Details,” Business Insider, July 9, 2024, https://www.gruenderszene.de/business/exklusiv-aleph-alpha-reagiert-auf-vorwurfe/.
[51] Ingrid Lunden, “France’s Mistral AI Blows in with a $113M Seed Round at a $260M Valuation to Take on OpenAI,” TechCrunch, June 13, 2023, https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/13/frances-mistral-ai-blows-in-with-a-113m-seed-round-at-a-260m-valuation-to-take-on-openai/.
[52] “European Governments Opt for Open Source Alternatives to Big Tech Encrypted Communications | Computer Weekly,” ComputerWeekly.Com, https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366633894/European-governments-opt-for-open-source-alternatives-to-Big-Tech-encrypted-communications.
[53] Jos Poortvliet, “Digital Sovereignty in Europe: What Still Lies Ahead,” Nextcloud, January 8, 2026, https://nextcloud.com/blog/digital-sovereignty-in-europe-what-still-lies-ahead/.
[54] Ramsha Jahangir, “EU Parliament Committee Confronts US Visa Bans Over DSA, Urges Commission Action,” Tech Policy Press, February 25, 2026, https://techpolicy.press/eu-parliament-committee-confronts-us-visa-bans-over-dsa-urges-commission-action; Rebecca Falconer, “Trump Admin Bars 5 Europeans Its Says Pressed Tech Platforms to ‘Censor’ U.S. Views,” Axios, December 24, 2025, https://www.axios.com/2025/12/24/trump-immigration-us-state-department-visa-ban-european-tech; Zaheena Rasheed, “US Bars Five Europeans over Alleged Efforts to ‘Censor American Viewpoints,’” Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/24/us-bars-five-europeans-over-efforts-to-censor-american-viewpoints.
[55] Toby Sterling, “In Rare Move, Dutch Government Takes Control of China-Owned Chipmaker Nexperia,” China, Reuters, October 13, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/dutch-government-intervenes-chinese-owned-computer-chip-firm-nexperia-2025-10-12/.
[56] “Additions and Modifications to the Entity List; Removals From the Validated End-User (VEU) Program,” Federal Register, December 5, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/05/2024-28267/additions-and-modifications-to-the-entity-list-removals-from-the-validated-end-user-veu-program.
[57] Michael Mariani, How the Nexperia Crisis Is Shaping the Semiconductor Market, 2025.
[58] Toby Sterling et al., “Dutch Government Steps Back from Nexperia Intervention to Pursue Talks with China,” Retail & Consumer, Reuters, November 19, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/dutch-government-suspends-state-intervention-chipmaker-nexperia-statement-2025-11-19/.
[59] Doug [R-GA-9. Rep. Collins, “H.R.4943 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): CLOUD Act,” legislation, February 6, 2018, 2018-02-06, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4943.
[60] ComputerWeekly.Com, “European Governments Opt for Open Source Alternatives to Big Tech Encrypted Communications | Computer Weekly.”
[61] “Newsletter: The Sovereign Tech Fund’s 3rd Anniversary, EDIC Digital…,” Sovereign Tech Agency, November 18, 2025, https://www.sovereign.tech/news/newsletter-november-2025.
[62] “Simpler EU Digital Rules and New Digital Wallets to Save Billions for Businesses,” Text, European Commission – European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2718.
[63] Hayley Tsukayama, “Stopping States From Passing AI Laws for the Next Decade Is a Terrible Idea,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, May 14, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/stopping-states-passing-ai-laws-next-decade-terrible-idea; Tori Noble, “Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Fight for User Rights: 2025 in Review,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, December 25, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/artificial-intelligence-copyright-and-fight-user-rights-2025-review.
[64] Allison Mollenkamp, “Data Center Moratorium Pitched as Counter to AI Impacts,” Technology, Roll Call, March 25, 2026, https://rollcall.com/2026/03/25/data-center-moratorium-pitched-as-counter-to-ai-impacts/.
References
39c3. 2025. “[39c3] Hacking Washing Machines.” https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2025/fahrplan/event/hacking-washing-machines.
Albrecht, Jan Philipp. 2013. “Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation) | A7-0402/2013 | European Parliament.” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0402_EN.html.
AP News. 2025. “Trump’s Sanctions on ICC Prosecutor Have Halted Tribunal’s Work.” May 15. https://apnews.com/article/icc-trump-sanctions-karim-khan-court-a4b4c02751ab84c09718b1b95cbd5db3.
Bits of Freedom. N.d. “English.” https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/english/.
Bits of Freedom. 2025. “Judge in the Bits of Freedom vs. Meta lawsuit: Meta must respect users’ choice.” October 2. https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2025/10/02/judge-in-the-bits-of-freedom-vs-meta-lawsuit-meta-must-respect-users-choice/.
“Civil Rights Coalition Says EU Data Protection Bill Threatens Citizens’ Rights.” PCWorld, n.d. https://www.pcworld.com/article/451517/civil-rights-coalition-says-eu-data-protection-bill-threatens-citizens-rights.html.
ComputerWeekly.Com. “European Governments Opt for Open Source Alternatives to Big Tech Encrypted Communications | Computer Weekly.” https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366633894/European-governments-opt-for-open-source-alternatives-to-Big-Tech-encrypted-communications.
“Court Again Rules in Favour of Bits of Freedom.” European Digital Rights (EDRi), n.d. https://edri.org/our-work/court-again-rules-in-favour-of-bits-of-freedom-freedom-of-choice-for-instagram-and-facebook-users-remains-intact/.
Doctorow, Cory. 2025. Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do about It. Verso Books.
D’Urso, David Cenciotti, Stefano. 2025. “The F-35 ‘Kill Switch’: Separating Myth from Reality.” The Aviationist, March 10. https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/10/f-35-kill-switch-myth/.
“Dutch Regulator Approves DigiD Takeover by U.S. Firm despite Geopolitical Concerns | NL Times.” February 26, 2026. https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/26/dutch-regulator-approves-digid-takeover-us-firm-despite-geopolitical-concerns.
“Eu-Council-Cls-Opinion-Csam-Proposal-8787-23.Pdf.” n.d. https://www.statewatch.org/media/3901/eu-council-cls-opinion-csam-proposal-8787-23.pdf.
European Commission – European Commission. “Simpler EU Digital Rules and New Digital Wallets to Save Billions for Businesses.” Text. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2718.
European Parliament. Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services. 2023. Proposal for a Regulation Laying down the Rules to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse: Complementary Impact Assessment. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2861/016876.
Falconer, Rebecca. 2025. “Trump Admin Bars 5 Europeans Its Says Pressed Tech Platforms to ‘Censor’ U.S. Views.” Axios, December 24. https://www.axios.com/2025/12/24/trump-immigration-us-state-department-visa-ban-european-tech.
Federal Register. 2024. “Additions and Modifications to the Entity List; Removals From the Validated End-User (VEU) Program.” December 5. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/05/2024-28267/additions-and-modifications-to-the-entity-list-removals-from-the-validated-end-user-veu-program.
“Funding Open Source: Case Study on the Sovereign Tech Fund | Interoperable Europe Portal.” https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/document/funding-open-source-case-study-sovereign-tech-fund.
German History Intersections. “Thomas von Randow, Btx System (1984).” https://germanhistory-intersections.org/en/knowledge-and-education/ghis:document-22.
Google Docs. “CSA Academia Open Letter.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Aeex72MtFBjKhExRTooVMWN9TC-pbH-5LEaAbMF91Y.
Grust, Lothar. 1984. “Computer-Fans Zapften Der Haspa 135000 Mark Vom Konto.” Bild, November 20.
Hepp, Andreas, Andreas Breiter, and Uwe Hasebrink (eds.). 2018. Communicative Figurations: Transforming Communications in Times of Deep Mediatization. Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0.
Himanen, Pekka. 2001. The Hacker Ethic And The Spirit Of The Information Age.
Hoffmann, Manuel, Frank Nagle, and Yanuo Zhou. 2024. “The Value of Open Source Software.” SSRN Electronic Journal, ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4693148.
Jahangir, Ramsha. 2026. “EU Parliament Committee Confronts US Visa Bans Over DSA, Urges Commission Action.” Tech Policy Press, February 25. https://techpolicy.press/eu-parliament-committee-confronts-us-visa-bans-over-dsa-urges-commission-action.
Kaspersky Official Blog. 2023. “Operation Triangulation: Talk on 37С3.” December 28. https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/triangulation-37c3-talk/50166/.
La Quadrature Du Net. “Personal Data.” https://www.laquadrature.net/en/personnal-data/.
Lege, Madita. 2024. “Aufgeblasene Finanzierung? Aleph Alpha nennt Details.” Business Insider, July 9. https://www.gruenderszene.de/business/exklusiv-aleph-alpha-reagiert-auf-vorwurfe/.
Lunden, Ingrid. 2023. “France’s Mistral AI Blows in with a $113M Seed Round at a $260M Valuation to Take on OpenAI.” TechCrunch, June 13. https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/13/frances-mistral-ai-blows-in-with-a-113m-seed-round-at-a-260m-valuation-to-take-on-openai/.
Mariani, Michael. 2025. How the Nexperia Crisis Is Shaping the Semiconductor Market. A Z2 Data Analysis Report. https://www.z2data.com/insights/how-the-nexperia-crisis-is-shaping-the-semiconductor-market-a-z2data-report (accessed 6/5/2006).
Martins, Pedro Henrique, Patrick Fernandes, João Alves, et al. 2024. “EuroLLM: Multilingual Language Models for Europe.” arXiv:2409.16235. Preprint, arXiv, September 24. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.16235.
Menn, Joseph. 2020. Cult of the Dead Cow: How the Original Hacking Supergroup Might Just Save the World. First trade paperback edition. PublicAffairs.
Mollenkamp, Allison. 2026. “Data Center Moratorium Pitched as Counter to AI Impacts.” Technology. Roll Call, March 25. https://rollcall.com/2026/03/25/data-center-moratorium-pitched-as-counter-to-ai-impacts/.
“New EU Project ELLIOT Aims to Advance Multimodal Generalist Foundation Models | European Laboratory for Learning and Intelligent Systems.” 2026. https://ellis.eu/news/new-eu-project-elliot-aims-to-advance-multimodal-generalist-foundation-models.
Newsweek. 2025. “Elon Musk’s Controversial Grok AI Lands Contract with Pentagon.” July 14. https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musks-controversial-grok-ai-lands-contract-pentagon-2098771.
Noble, Tori. 2025. “Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Fight for User Rights: 2025 in Review.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, December 25. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/artificial-intelligence-copyright-and-fight-user-rights-2025-review.
online, heise. 2024. “40 Years Ago: The Btx Hack Celebrates a Happy Birthday.” Heise Online, November 18. https://www.heise.de/en/news/40-years-ago-the-Btx-hack-celebrates-a-happy-birthday-10040281.html.
“Open Source Impact Study – OpenForum Europe.” December 8, 2025. https://openforumeurope.org/projects-and-initiatives/open-source-impact-study/.
“Open Source Software Market Report | Forecast [2034].” https://www.marketreportsworld.com/market-reports/open-source-software-market-14722346.
“OpenEuroLLM.” https://openeurollm.eu/launch-press-release.
Parliament, European. “New Legislation to Fight Child Sexual Abuse Online | Legislative Train Schedule.” European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/spotlight-JD22/file-combating-child-sexual-abuse-online.
Pluralistic: The Post-American Internet (01 Jan 2026) – Pluralistic: Daily Links from Cory Doctorow. November 27, 2025. https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/01/39c3/.
Poortvliet, Jos. 2026. “Digital Sovereignty in Europe: What Still Lies Ahead.” Nextcloud, January 8. https://nextcloud.com/blog/digital-sovereignty-in-europe-what-still-lies-ahead/.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as Regards Certain Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Due Diligence Requirements (2025). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/txt/?uri=celex:52025PC0081.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying down Rules to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse. 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0209.
Rasheed, Zaheena. 2025. “US Bars Five Europeans over Alleged Efforts to ‘Censor American Viewpoints.’” Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/24/us-bars-five-europeans-over-efforts-to-censor-american-viewpoints.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA Relevance), 119 OJ L (2016). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA-9. “H.R.4943 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): CLOUD Act.” Legislation. February 6, 2018. 2018-02-06. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4943.
Schaefer, Corinna. “CADUS at 38c3 – Reports from the Field and a Very Special Job Center – Cadus.Org.” Cadus.Org – Humanitäre Nothilfe, n.d.. https://www.cadus.org/en/blog-en/cadus-at-38c3-reports-from-the-field-and-a-very-special-job-center/.
Schaer, Cathrin. “Germany’s Surveillance Fears: Thirty Years on from the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Disbanding of the Stasi, Germans Worry about Who Is Watching Them.” Index on Censorship 48, no. 3 (2019): 52–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306422019875092.
Sénat. “CE Commande publique : compte rendu de la semaine du 9 juin 2025.” June 11, 2025. https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20250609/ce_commande_publique.html.
Sovereign Tech Agency. 2023. “Establishing STF as an Independent, Permanent Organization |….” November 21. https://www.sovereign.tech/news/stf-becomes-independent-permanent-organization.
Sovereign Tech Agency. 2025. “Newsletter: The Sovereign Tech Fund’s 3rd Anniversary, EDIC Digital….” November 18. https://www.sovereign.tech/news/newsletter-november-2025.
Sterling, Toby. 2025. “In Rare Move, Dutch Government Takes Control of China-Owned Chipmaker Nexperia.” China. Reuters, October 13. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/dutch-government-intervenes-chinese-owned-computer-chip-firm-nexperia-2025-10-12/.
Sterling, Toby, Eduardo Baptista, and Eduardo Baptista. 2025. “Dutch Government Steps Back from Nexperia Intervention to Pursue Talks with China.” Retail & Consumer. Reuters, November 19. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/dutch-government-suspends-state-intervention-chipmaker-nexperia-statement-2025-11-19/.
“The Birth of the Web | CERN.” https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web.
“The Four Year Battle for the Protection of Your Data.” European Digital Rights (EDRi), n.d. https://edri.org/our-work/four-year-battle-protection-of-your-data-gdpr/.
The White House. 2025. “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” The White House, February 6. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
Tsukayama, Hayley. 2025. “Stopping States From Passing AI Laws for the Next Decade Is a Terrible Idea.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, May 14. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/stopping-states-passing-ai-laws-next-decade-terrible-idea.
Williams, Elliot. 2016. “Hackers And Heroes: Rise Of The CCC And Hackerspaces.” Hackaday, January 12. https://hackaday.com/2016/01/12/hackers-and-heroes-rise-of-ccc-and-hackerspaces/.
“XS4ALL Beleef | KPN.” https://www.kpn.com/beleef-xs4all.
“Xs4all.Nl/~felipe/WWW.Old/Press/Trouw.Html.” https://felipe.home.xs4all.nl/WWW.old/press/Trouw.html.
Photo: Alexander Pfeiffenberger from Auburn, Alabama, United States of America, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
