Is Israel’s surveillance technology blind?

As recently as August I wrote: Without a basis for popular decision-making, democracies will perish!

The war in Ukraine would not have been possible if democratic states had transferred their pre-digital achievements to digital democracy. The war in Israel could also have been prevented!

So far, the world’s intelligence services have agreed that only total digital surveillance can guarantee the security of society. But how do they explain that Israel, one of the world’s largest arms exporters and a leader in the surveillance industry, failed to notice Hamas‘ preparations for more than two years?

This attack is the bankruptcy of a centralised surveillance IT that thinks it can control everything. On the other hand, there are many lawless spaces, such as the dark web, that largely escape surveillance.

For years I have been calling for a Trusted WEB 4.0, in which no warrantless surveillance is possible on an infrastructure provided by the state for all citizens, but extensive forensic traces can be secured in individual cases and after a court order.

Israel ranks 29th on the 2022 Democracy Index, ahead of the United States. The future of democracies is being decided right now. This is not just about the privacy of citizens, but also about the systematic establishment of social controls and incentives for all citizens to contribute objectively and constructively to society and to prevent abuse. Such an understanding of democracy would destabilise autocracies from within. For the Internet knows no geographical boundaries. As surveillance states, however, democracies can only become second-best digital autocracies.

It’s quite simple: if in the pre-digital age we didn’t believe that strangers would intervene if we were attacked, then we would need a policeman on every street corner. But while policemen cost the state a lot of money, total digital surveillance is not only almost free, but a few monopolists like Google, Facebook and X are making a lot of money worldwide with today’s advertising and excitement driven ’social‘ media systems in a virtual boxing ring. Everyone is pitted against everyone else. All objectivity falls by the wayside. Students today are no longer able to learn due to constant sensory overload. Populism is increasingly replacing factual debate in politics.

Governments are withdrawing from a meaningful democratic infrastructure for all. Yes, the press even avoids reporting on technologies that preserve democracy. I have just submitted a request to the EU Commission to introduce an obligation for the media to report on democracy-enhancing technologies! If my manuscript, which was not published by SWR, had been filmed in 2014, citizens would have been able to lobby for appropriate measures. The war in Ukraine is not being fought here with democracy-preserving digital technology! But no publisher is likely to be found for fear of the gatekeepers.

Historically speaking, the constitutional order is disintegrating in our decade because politicians are actionistically sticking plasters on more and more crises instead of proactively taking care of a functioning concept of digital democracy.

Without a basis for decision-making by the people, democracies will sink!

I offered the following guest article to 70 newspapers in 35 countries. The deciding factor was the Democracy Index (The Economist), in which Germany ranks 14th in 2022. Even countries with a high index score are afraid to publish concrete recommendations for preserving democracy in the digital transformation. Angry gatekeepers could affect the reach of newspapers. Even the public broadcasters in Germany fear for their reach and do not publish.

Here is the article:

It is an indictment when democracies can only counter the Russian aggressor in Ukraine with the same means of warlike confrontation. Prigozhin’s current coup attempt shows how easy it would be to weaken Russia from within if there were an incentive system that every Russian citizen could understand as an alternative to autocracy. A defensible digital democracy would scare Putin and he would not have started the war. Because a digital social system does not stop at geographical borders!

If you look at the growth figures, there is no denying China’s economic success. A major factor is the successful digital transformation of the autocratic social system through the social credit system. As a former KGB officer, Putin uses this knowledge to manipulate his people, but also to destabilise democratic states.

In my life I have had the good fortune to be an entrepreneur, a humanities scholar, a technology developer with my own patent applications and, increasingly in recent years, a policy designer. Since 1999, the overall concept of Trusted WEB 4.0 has been developed and is now recognised by the EU Commission. My goal is to replace the autocracies of this world with a democratic digital concept in the medium term.

This is what the concept looks like:

Today, citizens have to collect their data keys from platform operators and trust them not to search their digital homes and steal anything. Alternatively, only the citizen digitally owns his keys and thus the real power of disposal over his data.

Each citizen is given 1,000 IP addresses to use at random. He receives the keys decentrally and offline from a lawyer.

Through globally standardised categories, the citizen is given the opportunity to specialise in a (new) field without hurdles and to be professionally successful. Through integrated translation with AI, he can find like-minded people in all languages without having to learn the language. This makes them available to a global, democratic labour market.

Using a search engine that analyses the input, the matching categories for the search results are displayed and a special AI is linked. Since the AI only learns within a category, it does not pose an omnipotent threat.

By integrating each individual into the digital society concept, the state gains a high level of resilience against social disruption and increases overall social productivity. In this way, government expenditure can be significantly reduced in the long term and government revenues increased.
To this end, every citizen must be provided with a one-off technical infrastructure for digital services of general interest. In addition, it makes sense to create an incentive for everyone to actively participate in improving data quality through a conditional digital citizen’s income.

All new data put on the Internet will be evaluated in a democratic process

By removing trade barriers and developing democratic digital standards, a global association of states can emerge in the form of a Democratic Digital Union. By making citizens unrecognisable as targets for attackers and enabling crime by quickly identifying a perpetrator, pre-digital security will be significantly surpassed and billions in cyber damage avoided.

The lawyer who allocates the keys negotiates with a judge in each case which keys he will make available for a digital house search. When the smartphone was loaded, automatic backups of the keys were stored decentrally in the home.

A global democratic ecosystem approach encourages healthy competition. Products can be quickly scaled globally.

Unfortunately, the prognosis is not for a quick end to the war. A proxy war between autocracies and democracies is raging in Ukraine. In the long run, Ukraine will only win if it can point to a better democratic digital approach.

Digital Right Ruin – Without a Roof and a Door, the Most Beautiful View Doesn’t Help!

The most beautiful view has been promised to us for years by the digital transformation. Working in a home office would be unthinkable without digitalisation. However, the open door and the missing roof of our digital dwelling threaten to outweigh the advantages.

According to Article 13 (1) of the German Basic Law, the home is inviolable. It is precisely regulated that a search may only take place in individual cases and after a court order. We keep our data in our digital home. But in very few cases do we have a key to our own home. We have to get a password from a third party so that we can enter our home, which is in someone else’s possession. Where we might think we have a door, it is not there for others, when in 2022 more than 5.4 million records stolen from Twitter were for sale and a record of more than 530 million Facebook users could be found on the internet. The helplessness of the legislation is shown by the fact that, for example, adolescents who pubescently try out and exchange nude photos via social media now have to expect criminal charges for child pornography. Even if chat programmes want to guarantee encrypted communication, the user is never safe from the state, manufacturer or a hacker ignoring the secure door and simply opening the roof to secretly look in from above.

It is astonishing that citizens from all social classes do not see this digital legal ruin as a bad thing.
After all, in the pre-digital world, self-designed privacy is considered a measure of prosperity. It starts in the room for subletting, the flat that one then wants to own oneself because one cannot afford a house of one’s own. But homeowners also differ, with terraced houses, detached houses and even villas with a park.
So far, users lack the digital understanding that their social position will be differentiated in the future by how well they guard their privacy and how well they can individually benefit from freely available data.

So are Google, Facebook and Co. secretly communists who want to make everyone the same?
Well, with their products they are probably aiming at certain behavioural patterns that can be found in all social strata and are happy that everyone freely lets them evaluate the valuable data.

Even if it is only a few trendsetters who push this development, a silent majority must suffer from it and is even forced to go along with it.
Today’s emails are not encrypted and can be intercepted at any time. Nevertheless, they have replaced letters even in confidential communication with authorities.
The state must finally ensure that the pre-digital achievements in the digital society are preserved for those who are not used to fighting back. To this end, I call for the introduction of WAN anonymity. Similar to a car registration number, the data owner must be identified in the event of misuse. Otherwise, anonymity can only be lifted in individual cases to be regulated by the legislator. It is also possible to communicate, shop and pay anonymously via WAN. For this to work, the state must provide every smartphone owner with a PDS (Personal Digital System) USB stick. The citizen pays for web space in the cloud in addition to his internet flat rate. Each record is encrypted and decrypted via the PDS on the smartphone. Only the citizen has access to the keys. He can enjoy his data with the door locked and the roof intact, without having to reckon with unauthorised access.

You can find statements on my more than 100 EU initiatives.

It costs the state a lot of money to be able to guarantee a roof over everyone’s head in the pre-digital world. If the state wants to transfer this security to a functioning digital society, it can only do so with a digital, WAN-anonymous communication infrastructure that is free of charge for everyone. For this, the state spends a fraction of today’s costs arising from cyber attacks.

States are increasingly competing for skilled workers. Most people will prefer a digitally secure society to a nice view without a roof and door. Digital security for everyone determines success or decline!

The US needs Europe’s help by a new Marshall Plan!

Families stick together. A “We feeling” unites us. If things go particularly well, this will result in family businesses that expand over many generations. Families sometimes argue, but ultimately they support each other when it comes to threats from the outside. We transfer the feeling in the small to the society on the big. Here, too, we act, shaped by our ancestors and with the desire to leave something to our descendants.

It was probably also the family ties of descent, which after the Second World War led to the fact that the mostly European-rooted American did not want to suppress their relatives, but in a Marshall plan made a decisive contribution to post-war construction.

In recent years, the children of Europe have increasingly embarked on a disruptive path. They have not only destroyed companies in the scope of digitalisation, but have increasingly divided their families, divided them into political camps to the point that they could no longer talk to each other. This divide Biden will not be able to lift without the help of Europe.

It is not least thanks to the great success of the Marshall Plan that we Europeans do not question the American path but continue to seek orientation in the USA until today. This became very vivid in the “Deutsches Wirtschaftsforum digital” on three days in the first week of November. Outstanding contributions analysed the actual differences between the US and Europe: “Half of Americans want to carry weapons and feel health insurance is a restriction of freedom. The individual is more important than the family. The high inheritance tax is not geared to the preservation of family businesses.”

The theme of the event was: “Democracy and the digital economy – the European path.” I found it incomprehensible why there were invited a majority of non-European speakers to the topic of AI. For example, the Radboud University Nijmegen has been teaching AI for 30 years. All Global Player contributions were out of place. Regardless of whether it was a Chinese, American or European international technology company, the answers were similar: “You make the rules and we build them in”. Such a result is then a little authoritarian Chinese, disruptively American and contains only the absolute necessary European guidelines. The Economic Forum has correctly presented the problems, but has not been able to show the prospect of its own European path.

To make rules for all those involved in the digital economy is to make the third step before the first step. In the beginning it is necessary to define how pre-digital democratic achievements can be transferred to a digital society for an own European infrastructure in solid craftsmanship and not destructively. For this I wrote a draft for a Marshall Plan and focused on three goals:

  1. The optimal processing and easy utilisation of digital data, while maintaining diversity and performance-adopted integration of all parties involved in the value creation.
  2. The stigmatisation-free, lifelong digital involvement of all citizens with incentives for self-development.
  3. Digitally guaranteeing the necessary state tasks to preserve the security of citizens, the economy and the state, while maintaining pre-digital democratic achievements.

In a second step, these goals must be adapted to the current challenges of the Western world. The Marshall Plan has to answer three questions:

  1. How can Europe take responsibility for its own security?
  2. How can a division between families, between social groups, and in the Western world be avoided or even lifted?
  3. How do we use the Corona crisis as an opportunity to build a Western digital economy?

At present, the security debate is mainly about the expansion of classic weapon systems. For someone like me who has been fighting unfair measures by the data-users for 20 years, it is very unlikely that we will go to a conventional war again. Who would do that and what advantage would it have? It is much easier and, above all, undetectable to attack people, groups or even industries by a virus. We can stand up for Europe’s security by introducing an infrastructure in which every citizen can protect himself and his or her data. I have proposed such an infrastructure in the form of an EU-D-S (European digital system) of the European Commission. Since primarily defined open standards and some technical procedures are introduced, the EU-D-S would be transferable to the US. This own contribution to security would not cost Europe a cent if we were to bring back the digital value ceation, in particular from American companies. I have given detailed statements on the further synergy effects at http: //

Europe has just agreed on a procedure for respecting the rule of law. It can speak with one voice. Now Europe must respond quickly to the challenge of the Corona crisis. Even if a quick vaccination succeeds, we will not be able to return to our old habits before Christmas 2021. Many new habits and changes will remain. The next year will suffice to divide Europe too, unless there is a new perspective for all Europeans quickly. The social fabric is changing. While so far a relatively steadily growing prosperity offered the social cement, Corona reshuffled the cards. On the one hand, there are winners who can sit out the crisis in the home office and others who are now forced daily to expose themselves to the risk of contagion. There are entire industries receiving artificial respiration by state support, but with a longer-lasting pandemic, they have no chance of recovery. A state can compensate for losses resulting from the pandemic, but not for social distortions caused by people losing their social frame of reference through the pandemic. Short-time worker money works for a few weeks. However, where work cannot be outsourced to the home office, the daily routine disappears. There is a lack of the task by which one has defined oneself. Frustration and fear of an indefinite future are increasing.

The pandemic intensifies digital misdevelopments. Social media programs have not been developed to increase democratic, social cohesion. The content generated by the users has the only purpose to serve as a carrier for advertising. Thus, phenomena such as fake news were not taken into account in business models. They do not attach importance to self-determined users. These false digitalisation concepts support the natural laziness of people. (I found no equivalent for the German word “Bequemlichkeit”. “comfort”, “amenity”, “ease”, “accommodativeness” and “convenience” are too positively occupied, “laziness” too negative. So I will use laziness.)

What happens when only the third step of regulation has been made without making the first two steps, a 80-year-old relative has once again impressively demonstrated to me at the weekend. For several years she has been reading her e-mails on her tablet. Now it was about a PDF attachment for which the corresponding PDF reader was missing. Supervised by me via phone, multiple attempts to get an app ended on pressing advertising instead of the installation process. There are also problems with the feed reader I had installed just before. For most posts, you first have to accept cookies in popups. Advertisements are positioned in such a way that you accidentally click on them. That’s a total overload for someone who’s been reading from top to bottom all his life. The GDPR has only contributed to the user’s data protection to the extent that my relative has now completely renounced digital newspaper reading and has subscribed to a print newspaper again. Integration of old people looks different.

The digital echo chambers aim at the convenience of people. Those who were never expected to participate in decisions do not see any sense in the critical reflection of information. They are looking for like-minded people on social media that they are perceived by. For example, continued support for Republicans depends substantially on socially forgotten groups, which Trump has given the feeling of representing their interests.

An EU-D-S must not only provide security to people, but must integrate them into a permanent democratic process. This integration must be so simple and self-evident that everyone can participate in it. My relative lives alone. Together with others, she could make valuable contributions to the digital society if she could contribute according to her capability. That would help her, too. Everyone wants to be a valuable part of society. If we have an EU-D-S with such an integration possibility, we will achieve such a high proportion of society, which can be built on this basis of numerous new value creation concepts. Then the users will also pay monthly contributions for information. However, I think individual newspaper subscriptions are outdated. If you have learned to evaluate different media via a feed reader, you won’t pay to restrict yourself to only one medium. Alternatively, an EU-D-S would allow an author levy per read article, which could be paid by the user over a staggered monthly price. Anyone who has exceeded a certain monthly reading quantity, adds further contributions, advertising-free of course. Advertising should work in the pull principle. In a global category standard, each user could determine to which categories he wants to receive advertising. It is important that advertising becomes a user-controlled process. Our goal must be to take everyone into the digitalisation process. If everyone were to participate in the EU-D-S, there would also be solutions for financing artistic digital offerings. The current social media structures are directed against diversity. Sick information is suitable for a Shitstorm or for getting acquainted with only some influencers. This is due to processes that lead all users to the first result of a page and thus prefer those who made it to the first page. If all content is randomly presented and condensed digitally to a group of evaluators, all content has the same chance of being perceived. If every European city can recommend a regionally based and successful startup bottom-up to other cities, startups in Europe also have a real chance. Startups don’t need money in the first place, they need perception. It is difficult to achieve this at a time when the focus is exclusively on the US and China. How are new concepts to prevail if information structures of competition need to be used for dissemination? For a successful Europe, the basic structure for disseminating information must be general good.

The EU-D-S must provide an overall societal approach in which critical citizen participation in the evaluation of content is an integral part of a lifelong integration strategy for all EU citizens.

Even if this civil rights infrastructure is provided free of charge to every EU citizen, it will only be successful if there are incentive systems to leave the path of habit. There must be a social promise of integration for all those who participate. Society should expect a (small) digital return for any crisis support from the state.

An EU-D-S cannot be introduced overnight. Today it is about a realistic vision of the future against pandemic depression, which offers a perspective for those who are particularly affected by Corona. Tremendous forces can be released if all EU citizens move in the same direction!

Digital Society – The Strength of German Politics Leads to the Decline of Europe

Exponentially increasing dependencies on Software and hardware manufacturers outside the EU were ignored by politicians. The citizens had no say in the resulting restrictions on their freedom rights.

At the press conference, Angela Merkel once again demonstrated why she is Chancellor in TV „Tagesthemen“ of 22.45 a.m. on 15 October 2020. A pile of paper lay in front of her and was intended to help explain the new rules drawn up jointly at the Corona Summit. Merkel began to read from the notes. However, after a few notes, she confused the papers or found no relevant information in it. In real multitasking, one did notice in the lecture not for a second that at the same time she flipped through her papers in search of something relevant to find. Rather, she spoke without a point or comma, stylistically impeccable. No one was stigmatized. Everyone was integrated and exhorted. Content that could not be agreed on at this time – probably most of them – were avoided.

Like Mrs Merkel, one must act as a majority-capable politician. But increasingly missing those who identify unambiguous truths. When someone has found truth, he should not deviate a millimetre from the demands resulting from these truths. I see myself in such a position with regard to the demands for a digital society. I’ve been searching for truths for 25 years. As a politician, I’m completely unsuitable. I can get irritate myself in a short lecture when I realise that I thought one or the other not to an end. That’s why I prefer to post in writing or in videos that I can edit at will, until there are no questions left unanswered. For that, when I have thought something to the end, I am only very seldom mistaken.

The German government can score points in the pandemic because every citizen can directly notice the personal consequences of a measure and can be traced in the hospitals of Europe, what it means when the virus escalates. Above all, every citizen can participate in a common goal.

But it is precisely the strength of a Merkel-styled Germany with influencing the EU, which finds a compromise for everything and everyone, why i fear, will lead to Europe’s dissolution in the next ten years. Germany is doing well within Europe because we Germans are particularly good at sticking to rules. But if we compare Europe with Asia, we suddenly realise that even democratic countries such as South Korea survive with much fewer deaths and much less consequences for the Corona economy. In this way, they will become stronger in competition with Europe.

In Europe, it is argued that our freedom rights are a very high asset for us and that such a hard lockdown, as usual in Asia, is therefore out of the question. We also reject a complete tracking of infected people. The truth is, it has been so good for us for many years with a diplomacy of mediating that we have been able to afford freedom rights without having to do much for it. Politics has failed to take citizens along in a change that has now taken place without and against the citizens.

Not only is the Corona pandemic growing exponentially, but also global digitalisation is rapidly changing the world accordingly. Digitalisation relentlessly exposes the weaknesses of our policies. Today, the reference to our freedoms rights is often hypocritical because we have let decades pass unused without worrying about a digital strategy that preserves freedom.

As a downside of eternal mediation, Europe’s strategic vacuum has emerged in terms of preserving pre-digital democratic achievements. Diversity must not become the opposite of a social concept. But this is exactly what happens when, for example, a Belgian initiative against terrorism no longer dynamically wants to associate IP addresses but with groups of up to 16, then identifiable users, or Germany is constantly thinking about retention of personalised data and on the other hand, laws such as the GDPR or e-Privacy arise.

We can learn from Corona and dictatorships that a piece of dictatorship can be necessary in democracy. It is the dictatorship of truth. Ultimately, all Europeans have subjected themselves to the predictions of virologists in the pandemic. These predictions are nothing more than a scientific knowledge condensed to the truth. If, after many hundred years of social development, we in Europe have at least a majority understanding of the rule of law, civil rights and diversity, then these are truths that must be enforced without ifs and but also in digitalisation.

We can and must use Corona together with digitalisation to be better positioned in future pandemics than authoritarian states can do in their system limitations. We must take advantage of the opportunity to take every citizen on the digital journey. Together we are much stronger than a single dictator.

Unfortunately, the challengesare much higher and more complex than the Corona pandemic. Because digitisation doesn’t come suddenly. In a creeping process, over the past two decades, citizens have learned that they have to exchange their personal data and have to give up many civil rights if they want to participate in the digital society. Companies and states have understood too late what fundamental dependencies they have gone into. In order to understand the complexity of created dependencies, I recommend a podcast from the FAZ: “Why modern wars are waged with semiconductors”, see  a href=““ 
So many steps have been taken without the citizens in the wrong direction, so that only with democratic processes the missed can no longer be made up.

One can certainly speak of the fact that digital Europe is an occupied zone that needs a Marshall Plan to get back on its own feet at all. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has called for such a Marshall Plan. I wrote a draft for a Marshall Plan and made it available to the European Commission. I have also participated in various consultations, see .

As a prerequisite, I have assumed several truths which, in my view, have been scientifically proven to be acceptable without further democratic discussions:

  1. Digitalisation supports the natural laziness of people. Laziness is the enemy of self-empowerment. Democracies need to develop incentive systems to maintain or even further develop people’s self-empowerment in a digital society.
  2. Optimised (well-processed) data are a prerequisite for a successful European digital economy.
  3. The majority of people do not like to receive alms, but want to return something when receiving social benefits, as long as this stigmatisation-free is possible.
  4. The state needs digital tools to ensure security. In a digital society, these tools must not restrict citizens’ rights more than in a pre-digital society.

There are three objectives for the Marshall Plan, to which all other EU measures on digitisation have to be subordinated:

  1. The optimal processing and easy utilisation of digital data, while maintaining diversity and performance-adopted integration of all parties involved in the value creation.
  2. The stigmatisation-free, lifelong digital involvement of all citizens with incentives for self-development.
  3. Digitally guaranteeing the necessary state tasks to preserve the security of citizens, the economy and the state, while maintaining pre-digital democratic achievements.

Against the background of the above-mentioned truths, European countries are currently making the following mistakes:

  1. Simple data processing is hindered by the mix of personal data with information important to the general public. A civil rights infrastructure in an EU-D-S (European digital system) would remove obstacles and put Europe at the forefront of competition for the best data.
  2. Corona forces many people to work short-time or become unemployed. Many companies receive bridging aids and are not fully utilised. Here, at the expense of taxpayers, more money is given away than ever before. The unique opportunity is wasted to obtain high-quality data for Europe’s economy and citizens in return for the subventions that are then used in a meaningful way. At the same time, the wrong incentives are placed on the comfort of the citizens and against their self-development.
  3. Instead of creating an optimal infrastructure for citizens, the economy and the state, there is a constant struggle between the state and the economy for sovereignty over citizens’ personal digital data.

In the first quarter of 2021, the Commission will deal with all the submissions. It remains to be hoped that in the EU institutions the decision-makers will have the power to adopt against a policy of compromises shaped by Germany in favour of a European overall strategy of a Marshall Plan, which ultimately makes sense for all EU citizens. Through a smart digital citizen participation must be ensured that such a long lasting avoid development of the citizen rights can never be repeated.

Olaf Berberich

Web 4.0 coming from europe?

As early as 2005, France and Germany recognized ( that the future of the world economy will be decided on the Internet. These efforts were well intended. Policy must be fair to all. Innovative policy decisions often reflect neither the will of the people nor the interests of mostly medium-sized German companies. Thus the first attempt (Quaero) failed as a joint initiative with France because they could not agree on common goals.
The attempt to make a separate German project with Theseus, see, was to develop the next generation of the Internet, WEB 3.0.
The final conference of Theseus in February 2012, ( shows a remarkable example of the solutions to the company intranet or for the medical field. Large companies will optimize their processes with Semantic Web and become more competitive. However, it is questionable whether even the Web 2.0 standards can be achieved to integrate all users.
„A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community“ (Source
The major social media networks have now largely abolished the separation between Intranet and Internet networks and between professional and amateur networks. Almost all students are on Facebook, nearly all managers at Linkedin and almost every one searches in Google. A network that links all special applications with the already established successful networks is required. To create such a network requires Web 3.0 functionalities.
„Das Semantische Web (englisch Semantic Web) ist ein neues Konzept bei der Weiterentwicklung des World Wide Webs und des Internets.“
In English „The Semantic Web is a novel concept in the development of the World Wide Web and the Internet”.
American Wikipedia wants to put only partially synonymous Semantic Web and Web 3.0. It says at the beginning: “Definitions of Web 3.0 vary greatly. Some[63] believe its most important features are the Semantic Web and personalization. Focusing on the computer elements, Conrad Wolfram has argued that Web 3.0 is where „the computer is generating new information“, rather than humans.[64]
Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, considers the Semantic Web an „unrealisable abstraction“ and sees Web 3.0 as the return of experts and authorities to the Web. For example, he points to Bertelsmann’s deal with the German Wikipedia to produce an edited print version of that encyclopedia.[65] CNN Money’s Jessi Hempel expects Web 3.0 to emerge from new and innovative Web 2.0 services with a profitable business model.”(Source
If you read further in the German Wikipedia entry, so you come to a workable definition of Web 3.0: „All die in menschlicher Sprache ausgedrückten Informationen im Internet sollen mit einer eindeutigen Beschreibung ihrer Bedeutung (Semantik)
versehen werden, die auch von Computern „verstanden“ oder zumindest verarbeitet werden kann“ (Quelle
In English: “All human language should be provided with a clear description of their meaning (semantics) known and understood by the computer and can be processed or at least understood.”
This definition corresponds to the finder technology that was developed and introduced to the market by GmbH which has never claimed to work with artificial intelligence (such as the Semantic Web) and is at least by a simple and workable solution five years ahead of the market. The finder technology reduces the computer entries in a search box depending on the specific meaning of a word. The foundation was laid for a Web 4.0.
Web 4.0 is the integration of all available resources over the Web in an overall system that is user-configurable. Information reaches the user at the right moment. In each category, different actions are performed, such as the triggering of complex processes or the switching of devices.
With all the resources, not only the technical resources are meant. Task is to adapt the global value chains in the online age. Over the Internet, everyone is adequately integrated to his performance in the value creation process. The classical models organize themselves into large companies and individuals are only included about the shareholder value, and this older model is not up to date “ (Source GmbH ©2010 -2012).
Trusted Web 4.0 means that all possibilities are exhausted to ensure optimal data protection for all parties (Source GmbH ©2008 -2012).
The first Social Media project, which works with Trusted Web 4.0 is The completion of Trusted Web 4.0 with all functionality is planned in a period between 12 and 36 months at time of this post. Depending on the keyword the user can choose whether he wants to receive messages anonymously or not. will not replace existing platforms, but integrate networks. More than 1,000 so-called Primus sponsors and approximately 2,500 getmysense agencies are responsible for individual areas and an independent panel of judges ensures that a monopoly is avoided.

Haben Sie schon von Theseus oder Quaero gehört?

Haben Sie nicht? Das sollten Sie aber. Beide Projekte sind die europäische Antwort auf die von Amerika dominierten Onlinenetzwerke.

Bereits 2005 hat die Politik erkannt (, dass die Zukunft der Weltwirtschaft im Internet entschieden wird. Diese Anstrengungen waren gut gemeint, aber eben durch Politik nicht umsetzbar. Politik muss allen ihr gegenüber – meist durch Besitzstandwahrer – artikulierten Interessen gerecht werden. Politische Innovationsentscheidungen spiegeln oft weder den Willen des Volkes noch die Interessen einer meist mittelständigen deutschen Wirtschaft wieder. So scheiterte der erste Anlauf (Quaero) als Gemeinschaftsinitiative mit Frankreich daran, dass man sich nicht auf gemeinsame Ziele einigen konnte.
Entsprechend verhalten reagierte die Fachpresse auf den Versuch, mit Theseus ein eigenes deutsches Projekt auf die Beine zu stellen siehe
Ziel war es, die nächste Generation des Internets, also Web 3.0, zu entwickeln.

Im Februar 2012 findet nun die Abschlusskonferenz von Theseus statt ( Betrachtet man sich die Forschungsergebnisse, so findet man durchaus beachtliche Lösungen zum Beispiel für die Intranets der Unternehmen oder für den medizinischen Bereich.
Große Unternehmen werden mit Semantic Web Ihre Prozesse optimieren und wettbewerbsfähiger werden. Allerdings ist es fraglich, ob auch nur der Web 2.0 Standard hierdurch erreicht werden kann.

Web 2.0 ist ein Schlagwort, das für eine Reihe interaktiver und kollaborativer Elemente des Internets, speziell des World Wide Webs, verwendet wird. Hierbei konsumiert der Nutzer nicht nur den Inhalt, er stellt als Prosument selbst Inhalt zur Verfügung“ (Quelle

Die großen Social Media Netzwerke haben heute weitgehend die Trennung zwischen Intranet und Internet und zwischen professionellen Netzwerken und Laiennetzwerken aufgehoben. Fast alle heutigen Schüler sind bei Facebook, fast alle Manager bei Xing. Fast jeder sucht über Google.
Was offensichtlich bei Theseus fehlt, ist eine Klammer über viele gute Einzellösungen. Ein Netzwerk, welches alle Spezialanwendungen mit den bereits erfolgreich etablierten Netzen verknüpft, ist gefordert.
Um ein solches Netzwerk zu erstellen, bedarf es Web 3.0 Funktionalitäten.

„Das Semantische Web (englisch Semantic Web) ist ein neues Konzept bei der Weiterentwicklung des World Wide Webs und des Internets.“
So beginnt die deutsche Definition von Web 3.0 bei Wikipedia (Quelle
Hat hier etwa Theseus Pate gestanden?

Im amerikanischen Wikipedia möchte man nur bedingt Semantic Web und Web 3.0 synonym setzen. Hier heißt es zu Beginn: “Definitions of Web 3.0 vary greatly. Some[63] believe its most important features are the Semantic Web and personalization. Focusing on the computer elements, Conrad Wolfram has argued that Web 3.0 is where „the computer is generating new information“, rather than humans.[64]
Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, considers the Semantic Web an „unrealisable abstraction“ and sees Web 3.0 as the return of experts and authorities to the Web. For example, he points to Bertelsmann’s deal with the German Wikipedia to produce an edited print version of that encyclopedia.[65] CNN Money’s Jessi Hempel expects Web 3.0 to emerge from new and innovative Web 2.0 services with a profitable business model.”(Quelle:

Liest man im deutschen Wikipedia Eintrag weiter, so kommt man zu einer handhabbaren Definition von Web 3.0:
„All die in menschlicher Sprache ausgedrückten Informationen im Internet sollen mit einer eindeutigen Beschreibung ihrer Bedeutung (Semantik) versehen werden, die auch von Computern „verstanden“ oder zumindest verarbeitet werden kann“ Quelle
Dieser Definition entspricht die von der GmbH entwickelte und auf dem Markt eingeführte finder-Technologie, welche sich nie den Anspruch gesetzt hat, mit künstlicher Intelligenz zu arbeiten (wie Semantic Web) und durch eine einfache und praktikable Lösung mindestens 5 Jahre Marktvorsprung besitzt. Die finder-Technologie reduziert ihren Anspruch darauf, Eingaben in ein Suchfeld für den Computer so aufzuarbeiten, dass dieser abhängig von der jeweiligen Bedeutung eines Wortes Aktionen ausführen kann.
Damit wurde bereits der Grundstock für ein Web 4.0 gelegt.

Web 4.0 ist die Integration aller über das Web verfügbaren Ressourcen in einem Gesamtsystem, welches vom Nutzer individuell konfigurierbar ist. Informationen erreichen den Nutzer im richtigen Moment. Je Kategorie können unterschiedliche Aktionen durchgeführt werden, wie z.B. das Auslösen von komplexen Prozessen oder das Schalten von Geräten.
Mit Ressourcen sind alle, nicht nur die technischen Ressourcen gemeint. Aufgabe ist es, die globalen Wertschöpfungsketten an das Onlinezeitalter anzupassen. Über das Internet ist jeder adäquat zu seiner Leistung in den Wertschöpfungsprozess integrierbar. Die klassischen Modelle sich in Großkonzernen zu organisieren und den Einzelnen über den Shareholder Value einzubinden, sind nicht mehr zeitgemäß (Quelle GmbH ©2010 -2012).

Trusted Web 4.0 bedeutet, dass alle Möglichkeiten ausgeschöpft werden, um einen optimalen Datenschutz für alle Beteiligten zu gewährleisten (Quelle GmbH ©2008 -2012).

Ein erstes Social Media Projekt, welches mit Trusted Web 4.0 arbeitet, ist Die Fertigstellung von Tusted Web 4.0 ist mit allen Funktionalitäten in einem Zeitraum zwischen 12 und 36 Monaten geplant. Je Schlüsselwort kann der Nutzer entscheiden, ob er anonym Nachrichten erhalten will oder nicht. will nicht vorhandene Plattformen ersetzen, sondern verzichtet bewusst auf eigene Foren und Gruppen zu Gunsten einer Integration vorhandener Netzwerke. Über 1.000 sogenannter Primus Sponsoren und ca. 2.500 getmysense agencies als Verantwortliche für einzelne Teilbereiche sowie eine unabhängige Jury stellen in Zukunft weltweit sicher, dass eine Monopolisierung vermieden wird.

Have arrived happy in the online world?

The Internet is a wonderful thing.
More and more my thinking becomes adopted by the internet. Previously, I had only an opinion about quite a few things.
Today, when I want to have an opinion on anything, I just look in the internet and can construct an argument. For instance, I asked myself ‘what interested me yesterday’? Today I will get new opinions from new experiences.
Who I am? I look at the feedback to my timeline on Facebook and then I know what others think of who I am. That’s much more objective.
Do I have no goals?
Clearly, I have goals; I’ve always wanted to be successful. Today, I am.
Others have such stupid things in their head like „my wife“, „my children“, „my vision“, „my house“, „my eco car“ and toil themselves lifetime. I have over 1000 virtual friends and do not need this crap with family and material things. Even social welfare does not take me away from my computer and internet.
Am I accepted?
Of course. Just adjust a slanted picture on Facebook and when others find it good, and then I’m in.
Do I have time to think about me?
No, I have no more time. I cannot imagine that there are people who still go to work. Every day up to 8 hours! One needs to imagine this! Getting up early. But, most people are online at night! But I’m sure that will change.
Honestly, if I had time, I would first think about what to think – a terrible idea.
Can I imagine how it all goes on in the future?
Honestly, I still see a need for optimization. That’s the thing with the basic needs: food, sex and stuff. This keeps me away from the essential things in life. But I’m sure in 10 years I can live entirely in cyberspace. Uuuuuh, I thought my presence is entirely in cyberspace.
If you find yourself in this article, you need no tip from me. You are well networked and have found your destiny.
But if you are surprisingly different then join the Trusted Internet Initiative of

Olaf Berberich