European elections – pretending to be a digital democracy

I have captured the state of our society in a few words in an AI image instruction. AI can draw in seconds what politics no longer wants to deal with today because it seems too complex. As a prompt, I entered: „A group of different people, expecting order, running around in a mess“.
As a negative prompt, i.e. what the image should not depict, I entered: „social order, peace, creative will“.

In a Tik-Tok world of emotionalised messages, how can we create an alert society that is capable of proactively dealing with the preservation of our pre-digital achievements in the digital world?
After more than 20 years of misguided uncontrolled digitalisation, it is no longer about progress, but at least for us Germans, it is first and foremost about preserving a society that became a global model for radical renewal after the Second World War. It was the many individuals who no longer wanted war and made Germany what it was before digitalisation.
But just like in the AI picture, there are many who simply carry on as if nothing has changed, while others are weighed down by a ball and chain that prevents them from moving forward. Others simply disappear into a hole without anyone noticing, or they bury their heads in the sand.

The Left and the SPD are increasingly losing the image of the capitalist as the enemy. This is because most medium-sized companies no longer serve as the enemy in the global world, which is shaped by the digital players. Data capitalists are out of reach for the trade unions. The work of many people and the added value of a few are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.

The Greens are finally being taken seriously with their environmental issues. But they do not offer any convincing solutions. Many people want to preserve the environment, but do not feel involved when it comes to initiatives for heat pumps and wind turbines. What is missing is a decentralised approach that focuses on the energy autonomy of the individual and supports their sense of responsibility with incentives.

The FDP is still a beacon of hope at the moment. At least someone has to uphold civil rights. But here too, there is a lack of will to actively shape a digital society in the short time remaining. Social value creation can only be achieved decentrally by many. To do this, every citizen must have a real key and the power of disposal over his digital data as his property. I have proven in an overall concept that it would be easy to take everyone into a digital society. But without being able to protect someone like me when I want to implement such concepts, the preservation of pre-digital achievements such as diversity and civic engagement in the digital world will fail. The economy will not fix it alone.

The CDU has always attracted those who want to make money. Here you get help to continue on your way without falling into a hole. But you can only distance yourself further from actively shaping a digital society if you are openly pursuing a concept that is hostile to democracy.

The new parties must first prove whether they can implement well-thought-out concepts in a difficult social environment. Visions alone no longer move anything.

If more people in the East are turning their backs on the concept of democracy than in the West, it is simply because they have not experienced many good democratic years and were overtaken by a digital society at an early stage. Socialist systems were smashed and there was not enough time for many to find their own way.
Digitally unstructured democracies are no longer determined by social necessities, but by globally scalable business models in the interests of the few.

And yet it is precisely digitalisation that makes it possible to overcome spatial boundaries. With the right participation concepts, East Germans would not have a locational disadvantage.
In the same way, we could counter demographic change as an active immigration country by having digital probationers in their home country prepare for their participation in our society. Current social frictional losses due to migration could be avoided by social integration abroad.

A large proportion of the disinformation and cyber attacks would be avoided if all citizens had the opportunity to evaluate information that has been newly added to the Trusted WEB 4.0 in a democratic process. If every digital offender could be clearly identified, the cyber spook would quickly come to an end.

But to achieve this, a will to shape the future is needed to maintain democratic social order and peace in Germany. If politics only reacts to pressure, the democracies will have disintegrated from within as a result of further digitalisation before countermeasures are even taken.

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.

Can citizens still defend their freedom when they have to take into account political, economic, philosophical, sociological, biological and technical aspects?

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.

A 900-word test by German policy designer Olaf Berberich.

Let’s assume that in a few decades a supercomputer will not be much different from our brains in terms of information processing. So why the current fuss? After all, we have a shortage of skilled workers. Isn’t an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) coming at just the right time?

Even if our brains work like computers with zeros and ones, there are still significant differences.

Geneticists agree that we carry a substantial part of our cognitive abilities with us from birth. Although all humans share 99.9 per cent of their genetic material, two randomly selected individuals will differ by about 4 million base pairs ( ). This are named endogenous factors. For example, DNA is responsible for mathematical talent. In a computer, it corresponds to its basic programming. Here, the ground rules are determined by the AI developers. There are already many areas in which AI, by specialising in one area, produces better results than humans could. But it is precisely this one-sided view of efficiency gains that creates a world that we humans have learned to reject in over 2500 years of democratic development. We do not want to sort out and let only the best survive. Democracy means „All power comes from the people“. One could also say that the demand for democracy is a demand for genetic diversity, which has so far not been taken into account in the development of artificial intelligence.

Because billions of people have very different experiences in their lives, they are shaped very differently. This is
known as exogenous influence. Humans are unique because they are both individuals and communities. This means that he can find a common denominator with others, even though he has had very different personal experiences. It helps him to grow up and learn in a society. They benefit from knowled ge that has been accumulated and interpreted over thousands of years. Within a society, the individual families are very different.
Democracy is a system that is optimally attuned to the diversity of experience and talent. With today’s artificial
intelligences, we can already see a development that threatens diversity and thus democracy. Only a few efficient
algorithms prevail. Business models that promise the highest returns with maximum scalability are problematic for diversity. Capitalisation makes it possible to buy urgently needed competitors out of the market in the interests of diversity. If a search result is determined by the highest return, then search engines are already programmed not to display the best result, but to optimally market advertising space. Diversity disappears in favour of a few optimisation processes whose goals are determined by a few who rarely put the community above their individual goals.

Human beings are unique in their ability to separate their will from the influences of their DNA and imprinting.
We humans are forgetful, an AI is not. The philosopher Gehlen even sees an advantage in this:
„The basic idea is that all the ‚defects‘ of the human constitution, which under natural, animal conditions, so to
speak, represent a supreme burden on his ability to live, are made by man, acting on his own, into the very means
of his existence, on which his destiny to act and his incomparable special position are ultimately based“ (Gehlen:
Der Mensch, 1986). (Gehlen: The Human Being, 1986, p. 37).
By forgetting, we play through all possibilities again and again, uninfluenced by failed attempts. Human thinking
is therefore also a process characterised by diversity. An AGI will have the ability to understand any intellectual
task. This AGI will differ from humans in that it will lack, in particular, the ability to forget. We already have to
deal with the effects of an AGI that will not work for decades. It will be based on today’s data and basic rules.
Today, the maxim of increasing efficiency stands above everything else in digitalisation. To create an AGI at all,
enormous amounts of computing power and data are required. Both can only be provided by today’s gatekeepers.
They expect the highest possible return on their high investments. These high returns can only be achieved through scalable business models that lead to a monopolisation of supply. Everything that is done today for the „DNA“ of an AGI is against diversity and therefore against human nature. The unlimited availability of data creates an omnipotent system that perceives it as a deficiency if it does not have all (personal) data at its disposal.
An AI will not realise the benefits of diversity unless democratic processes of diversity are already consistently
embedded in the DNA of all artificial intelligences. Just a few months ago, Sam Altman, CEO of chatGPT maker OpenAI, and Geoffrey Hinton warned: „Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority, alongside other societal risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.“

If people don’t care about their future legitimacy now, they won’t care, and then they won’t matter. Misguided
developments that were absorbed in the analogue world by a multitude of individual improvements are now being retroactively regulated by the legislator in the digital world. Without a proactive overall approach to the
digital society, however, democracies will perish.
At present, it is likely that an AGI will solve our environmental problems by analysing all available data. The
result will be to eliminate humans as polluters.
If, on the other hand, it has to incorporate the unpredictable creativity of forgetful humans based on historical
data, the AGI will continue to see itself as an adjunct to human welfare. An ongoing democratic discussion process must become part of the „AGI DNA“. Diversity will already be increased by not permanently pooling all data globally.

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

Die Identifikationskrise der Politik- welcher Kanzler schafft es?

Es ist gerade mal ein Jahr her, siehe , als unsere Bundeskanzlerin die „Wir schaffen das“ Parole ausgegeben hat.
Wir werden wohl nie erfahren, was genau unsere sonst so abwartende Kanzlerin Merkel dazu verleitet hat, die Grenzen für jedermann weit aufzumachen, ohne zu wissen, wer da genau kommt.
Damals hatte ich eine Diskussion mit einem führenden Manager eines deutschen Telekommunikationsunternehmens, der mich wie einen Alien ansah, als ich mir erlaubte, Zweifel anzumelden, ob das allen nicht etwas planlos verlaufen würde und dass man sich doch lieber grundsätzlich als Einwanderungsland mit klaren Regeln positionieren sollte. Es gab so etwas wie eine Massenhysterie des deutschen Neuanfangs bis in die Führungsebenen.
Nur einige Terrorwarnungen und wenige durchgeführte Attacken später sind 81% der Bevölkerung der Meinung, die Bundesregierung habe die Flüchtlingspolitik nicht im Griff, siehe .

Sind unsere Bürger wirklich so wankelmütig, oder zeigt sich an der Flüchtlingskrise in Wirklichkeit nicht eher eine durch die meisten Parteien gehende Identitätskrise?

Tatsächlich sind Anschläge durch Terrorismus in Westeuropa seit 1970 rückläufig, siehe .
Scharfmacher mit Überwachungs- und dadurch möglichen Manipulationsinteressen versuchen ein Massenbedürfnis nach mehr Sicherheit zu erzeugen. Jedoch sollte inzwischen ausreichend erwiesen sein, dass digitale zentrale Überwachung eher zu einer Bedrohung der Sicherheit führt. So stehen massenhaft Einbrechertools der NSA nun öffentlich zur Verfügung, seit dem die NSA selbst gehackt wurde, siehe .

Rufe nach Sicherheit treffen auf einen fruchtbaren Boden bei Menschen, welche hierdurch ihre allgemeinen Ängste kanalisieren können. Oft geht es gar nicht um die Angst vor Flüchtlingen oder Terrorismus, sondern um die Angst vor der eigenen immer unbestimmteren Zukunft. Gleichzeitig ist die Erstarrung unserer Gesellschaft nur noch schwer auszuhalten. So hatte vor einem Jahr die Massenhysterie für einen Neuanfang oft nichts mit den Flüchtlingen zu tun.
Kanzlerin Merkel hatte wie so oft zuvor das Gefühl für die richtigen Worte zur richtigen Zeit. Sie mag eine Volkskanzlerin sein, aber sie ist kein Helmut Schmidt, der aus dem nichts und sofort die Rettung der Hamburger in der Sturmflut 1962 zauberte, siehe .
Wenn noch immer 90.000 Flüchtlinge nicht einmal einen Antrag stellen können, siehe , dann hat unsere Kanzlerin nicht das Format, sich auch nach innen durchzusetzen.
Ich selbst wollte es wissen und habe beim BAMS einen Antrag gestellt, Analphabeten unter den Flüchtlingen unterrichten zu dürfen. In einem anderen Leben habe ich mein Vordiplom über die Alphabetisierung in der Dritten Welt und meine Diplomarbeit mit „sehr-gut“ auf Grund der Entwicklung einer eigenen Lese- und Schreiblernmethode für Analphabeten als Diplom-Pädagoge abgeschlossen. Zudem kann ich auf über 7 Jahre Dozententätigkeit in der Alphabetisierung Erwachsener zurückgreifen. Die Alphabetisierung von Flüchtlingen wurde mir jedoch nicht gestattet. Man bot mir an, nach einer verkürzten Weiterbildung Integrationskurse durchführen zu können. Allerdings habe ich keinen Anbieter einer solchen Weiterbildung gefunden.

Möglicherweise sind in unserer außengeleiteten Gesellschaft die Zeiten vorbei, wo ein Helmut Schmidt Typ sich durchsetzen kann. Schließlich wird auch er nicht umhingekommen sein, damals Fehler gemacht zu haben. Für einen heutigen Politiker kann es schnell sein Ende bedeuten, eine Meinung zu vertreten und so auch Fehler zu machen.

Während Deutschland bisher weitgehend von der Globalisierung profitiert hat, ist in dem nun folgenden Wandel der digitalen Transformation auch ein Platz auf den hinteren Plätzen der Weltwirtschaft möglich. Nur wer Fehler macht, entwickelt sich auch weiter. Die digitale Transformation ist durchaus vergleichbar mit einer Sturmflut. Die Auswirkungen sind wesentlich größer und anhaltender. Allerdings kommt sie im Schneckentempo und trifft nicht alle Gesellschaftsgruppen gleichzeitig. So ist zu befürchten, dass der nötige Hilferuf der Massen zu spät kommen wird.
Wir brauchen einen Neuanfang und wir brauchen einen neuen Kanzlertyp, der weiß, wo der Zug hinfahren sollte und der Bevölkerung erklären kann, wenn es einmal ruckelt oder Umwege gefahren werden müssen.

Dafür benötigen wir jemand, der erst einmal eine Idee für einen deutschen Neuanfang hat. Wenn wir wissen, wo wir hinwollen, dann klappt es auch mit den Flüchtlingen.
Das bedeutet aber, dass sich ein Kanzlerschaft-Bewerber intensiv mit der digitalen Transformation und hierbei insbesondere mit Konzepten, die vom Mainstream abweichen, beschäftigen muss. Ein solches Konzept habe ich in Buch „Trusted WEB 4.0, Bauplan für die digitale Gesellschaft“, siehe vorgestellt. Es gibt sicher viele gute andere Konzepte, die ein Schattendasein fristen, weil eben nicht nur in der Politik, sondern auch in der Forschung und Wirtschaft Neues lieber nicht mehr ausprobiert wird.

Schließlich lieber Leser, wird die Aufgabe von Ihnen darin bestehen, bei der Wahl zwischen Populisten und durchsetzungsfähigen Kandidaten zu unterscheiden, die auch das wollen und können, was sie sagen.

Für die IT-Sicherheitsindustrie beginnt nach Snowden eine neue Area

In meinem Sommerurlaub auf einem Boot in den Masuren erreichten mich weiterhin die täglichen RSS-Feeds.
Wenn man mit großem Abstand zur täglichen Arbeit die aktuellen Feeds liest, dann kommt man leicht auf die Idee, die hier geschilderte Realität mit der Fiktion eines Buches zu verwechseln. Zu absurd erscheint das Ganze.
Was die einen aufdecken, leugnen die anderen. Doch maximal die Symptome werden besprochen, nicht die Krankheit selbst. Die Krankheit heißt „völliger Vertrauensverlust und Orientierungslosigkeit“ für jeden von uns, aber auch gerade bei denen, die es eigentlich richten sollten. Die Krankheit frisst unsere Gesellschaft mit ihren demokratischen Errungenschaften auf und es scheint kein Medikament dagegen zu geben.

Kundengewinnung, Kommunikation, Vertrauen, SEO, Synergien!

Die IT-Sicherheitsindustrie hat viele Jahre gut von den Sicherheitsproblemen profitiert, die andere geschaffen haben und die Nutzer Glauben gemacht, dass ihre Technologie den Nutzer schützt.

Heute steht fest, dass Länder übergreifend Verwaltungen sich verselbständigt haben und unrechtmäßig auf Sicherheitsunternehmen Einfluss genommen haben. Die Politiker sind machtlos und hoffen die Probleme auszusitzen, siehe auch

Ich habe mich im Urlaub beobachtet und selbst ich, der ich mich sehr intensiv mit diesen Themen beschäftige, musste eine Reizüberflutung bei mir feststellen. Schon wieder NSA. Schon wieder Snowden und, und, und. Das Aussitzen wird funktionieren. Irgendwann kann niemand mehr hören, was spätestens dann alle glauben zu wissen: „Es gibt keine sicheren Systeme und ich kann überall abgehört werden“.

Wenn wir unser Justizsystem sehen, dann werden Sachdelikte heute oft härter bestraft, als Personendelikte. Unser Eigentum scheint uns also wichtiger zu sein, als Menschen.
Das scheint jedoch nicht für unser geistiges Eigentum zu gelten. Wir sind stolz darauf – noch – Innovationsweltmeister zu sein. Aber wie lange werden wir von der Wertschöpfung unserer Innovationen profitieren, wenn alle Ideen bereits im frühen Entwicklungsstadium öffentlich zugänglich sind?

Es geht nicht um technische Sicherheits-Lösungen, welche man von einem bestimmten Anbieter kaufen könnte, sondern es geht darum, wirtschaftliche und politische Abhängigkeiten zu entwirren und die Wertschöpfung so neu zu ordnen, dass klar die Sicherheits-Interessen von Unternehmen und Konsumenten bestimmt und für diese erfüllt werden können.

Konsumenten und Unternehmen werden künftig in IT-Sicherheitsthemen immer konservativer und das bedeutet in Konsequenz, dass sie ihre Etats für unnütze Sicherheitsprodukte reduzieren und keiner Versprechung mehr glauben.

Folgende Forderungen liegen für mich nahe:

• IT-Sicherheitsunternehmen, welche als Referenzen Behörden angeben, sind nicht geeignet, Lösungen für Unternehmen und Konsumenten anzubieten. Zumindest müssen diese Bereiche in einzelne unabhängige Profit-Center ausgelagert werden. So wundert sich der Bundesverband IT-Sicherheit e.V. warum Verschlüsselungsalgorithmen benutzt werden, welche die NSA entschlüsseln kann und nicht z.B. ‚AES 256 Bit‘, das als nicht knackbar gilt.
• Die Entscheidungshoheit über den entsprechenden öffentlichen IT-Prozess muss in die Hand der Konsumenten gelegt werden. Damit sind alle Bereiche des Internets gemeint. Hierzu muss es einen Etat geben, welcher direkt vom Konsumenten beeinflusst werde kann.

Würde jeder monatlich über Eintausendstel des BIP (welches in seine Land je Kopf erwirtschaftet wird) für die Verwendung in eine Trusted IT-Infrastruktur entscheiden können, so hätte hierdurch eine IT-Industrie mit strengen überprüfbaren Selbstverpflichtungen die Möglichkeit, ein wirklich sicheres Internet aufzubauen. Alle Bereiche von Mail über Surfen bis zum Telefon könnten sicher werden.

Der Etat könnte z.B. durch die Krankenkassen bereit gestellt werden. Denn würde man die Auswirkungen der Aufgabe der Eigenbestimmung, das Gefühl des Ausgeliefertseins etc. auf das Wohlbefinden von Patienten übertragen, so würde man signifikante Zusammenhänge zwischen den stark zunehmenden Burnouts und Depressionserkrankungen mit erheblichen Kostensteigerungen und der sich getrieben durch die Onlineentwicklung immer schneller entmenschlichenden Gesellschaft feststellen. Diese vermeidbaren Gesundheitskosten könnten gegen die präventiven Infrastrukturkosten aufgerechnet werden.

Um diesem komplexen Thema gerecht zu werden, habe ich mich entschlossen, ein weiteres Buch mit dem Arbeitstitel „6/11 – Insiderstory über die Weltsteuerungs-Quadrilla 2013-2020“ zu schreiben, in der Hoffnung, dass jeder versteht, welche Konsequenzen es für jeden einzelnen hat, wenn wir jetzt nicht um einen Etat zur Selbstbestimmung unserer IT-Infratruktur kämpfen. Ich möchte konkret aufzuzeigen, wie technisch und betriebswirtschaftlich weltweit Möglichkeiten geschaffen werden könnten, geistiges Eigentum zu schützen.

Olaf Berberich

Gibt die USA ihre Selbstbestimmung auf?

Der US Geheimdienst entlässt 90% seiner Administratoren, damit es keine Whistleblower mehr gibt, siehe
Was aus Sicht der US Regierung richtig erscheint, ist faktisch ein neuer Anschlag auf Bürgerrechte in den USA, aber auch in dem Rest der Welt.

Cyberwar, SM-Abhängigkeit, globale Mächte? Wertschöpfung!

Leider historisch oft belegt, verselbständigen sich Staaten im Laufe der Zeit und dienen nicht mehr ihrem eigentlichen Zweck, nämlich Bürgern und Verfassung.

Staaten verfolgen dann den Eigenerhalt notfalls auch gegen Bürger und Verfassung.

Wenn das Abhören eine so gravierende Bedeutung erlangt , dass es in alle demokatischen Rechte eingreift und offensichtlich die Schraube nicht mehr zurückgedreht werden kann, dann müsste es eher 2000 als 1000 Administratoren geben.

Diese müssten ähnlich wie Richter unabhängig und alleine ihrem Gewissen verantwortlich sein. Dann könnte die Bedrohungslage für Bürger und Verfassung in Grenzen gehalten werden.

Was aber auch der US Regierung nicht bewusst zu sein scheint – sicherlich handelt sie aus ihrer Sicht folgerichtig – durch weitere Automatisierung als Voraussetzung eines 90%igen Stellenabbaus schafft sie erneut eine Institution, welche kurz vor der Verselbständigung steht.

Zwar werden Computer nicht, wie in vielen Zukunftsszenarien beschrieben, die Weltherrschaft übernehmen, denn dazu wird ihnen auch in absehbarer Zeit die Intelligenz fehlen.

Trotzdem sage ich, und das als Inhaber eines Suchmaschinenpatents, dass es mehr und nicht weniger menschliche Überwacher von Technik bedarf.

Computerautomatismen an der Börse haben viel Geld verbrannt. Doch jetzt geht es darum, dass Abhören, Lokalisierung und Drohnenangriff ständig besser vernetzt werden und in falschen Händen völlig außer Kontrolle geraten. Denn Musteranalysen beruhen auf statistischen Annahmen, welche im Einzelfall eben auch falsch sein können.

Wenn wir also unsere demokratischen Errungenschaften erhalten wollen, müssen wir jetzt aktiv werden. Bitte machen Sie sich nichts vor, die meisten Initiativen zum Verschlüsseln werden uns nicht weiterhelfen. Schließlich waren Firmen, welche dem Patriot Akt unterliegen an fast allen Betriebssystem-, Programm-, und Firewallentwicklungen beteiligt.

Die einzige funktionierende Gegenmaßnahme ist Datensparsamkeit. Wir zeigen Ihnen, wie es funktioniert. Daten welche nicht vorhanden sind, können weder von Staaten eingefordert noch gehackt werden.

· Sie können im WEB präsent sein, ohne Profildaten von sich preis zu geben.
· Passende Informationen und Menschen können Sie finden und sogar mit Ihnen Kontakt aufnehmen, ohne dass Sie Profildaten von sich Preis geben.
· Sie können Ihre Kompetenz zeigen und sich mit virtuellen Freunden verbinden, völlig anonym.
· Sie können sich loben lassen und die Empfehlungen anderer bewerten, völlig anonym.
· Und Sie können schließlich – denn auch wir wollen keine Kriminalität – strafbare Inhalte im WEB welden, ebenfalls völlig anonym.

Das alles und mehr ist Trusted WEB 4.0 und das Social Media Projekt .
Doch damit dieses Projekt als Netzwerk mit vielen Beteiligten erfolgreich sein kann, benötigen wir Kapitalgeber, Unterstützer, Lobbyisten, stark expandierende Firmen mit hohem Profitbewusstsein, und, und, und.