“[You] possess superior knowledge and skills that uniquely qualify [you] to act independently and make decisions on behalf of [your] fellow citizens, without any oversight or review.”

Today’s decision is the continuation of long legal battle between European privacy law and United States surveillance law. The scope of the verdict is narrowed to personal data that is being voluntarily outsourced to the US from the European Union. Nonetheless, today’s ruling will have consequences for EU businesses and will change the transfer of vast amounts of personal European data outside of its legal protection and thus provide safeguards against misuse.

Monday, January 24, seemed to be unexceptional for many journalists and news readers. Updates on coronavirus continued, and mostly local problems were mentioned across the world. Few have written about London that day; at most in connection with Brexit. Yet one of the most important international hearings for journalists – and freedom of speech – began in Courtroom 2 of the Woolwich Crown Court. The United Kingdom has begun to negotiate if WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States.

The battle around Huawei and 5G isn’t just about one huge technology company and it isn’t just about the infrastructure for the 4th industrial revolution. It is about geopolitics and the battle between the incumbent sole US superpower versus a rising China under the Chinese Communist one-Party dictatorship. Huawei is an extension of the Chinese state. China’s National Intelligence Law, which came into effect in July 2017, stipulates in Article 7 that: “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.” Combined with Article 14, this support is not voluntary: “state intelligence work organs, when legally carrying forth intelligence work, may demand that concerned organs, organizations, or citizens provide needed support, assistance, and cooperation.”

When talking about cyber and hybrid threats, disinformation campaigns or even the impact of artificial intelligence on the future of warfare – in short, my core passion as a politician and human being – one cannot really avoid mentioning the Kremlin’s involvement. Yet a lot of this talk is being done from the distant shelter of Brussels. Which is reasonable on the one hand, as one needs a base of operations, be it for legislation, scrutiny or oversight. However, combining office work with ‘field work’ appeals to me as a more effective approach, so that I won’t get stuck both physically and mentally – within the (in)famous EU bubble. That is why I am writing these words in an airplane seat, heading to Moscow. Why? And how did I prepare in line with my core topics?