The name is Konstantin Klein. I'm a senior editor with Deutsche Welle TV in Berlin, Germany. I've been blogging since October 30, 2000, under various blog and domain names. This is the 2010 edition of my weblog.
All content is served to the RSS reader of your choice; new posts are also announced via Twitter, Facebook and FriendFeed.
You can send me an email from here.
© 2010 Konstantin Klein,
Planet Earth
Legal stuff can be found here. All content, unless noted otherwise, is licensed to everybody (including you!) under a Creative Commons License.
Es gibt Politiker, die werden unter Druck zu Diamanten, wie Helmut Schmidt, und es gibt Politiker, die unter Druck zerbröseln, wie Rudolf Scharping. Westerwelle ist sicher kein Helmut Schmidt.
There are politicians who, under pressure, turn into diamond, like Helmut Schmidt, and those who, under pressure, crumble, like Rudolf Scharping. [German Foreign Minister] Westerwelle certainly is no Helmut Schmidt.
Die SPD hat in den vergangenen Jahren die Logiken des Internets nicht verstanden.
So Germany's Social Democratic Party is ready to embrace the Internet. Wait, no: one member of the inner party is ready to embrace the Internet. No, wait, the single member sets out to make his fellow party members finally understand the Internet. No, wait...
Here's why it is next to impossible for members of the political class in Germany to win over the Generation Internet:
Speaking of Google: Partially due to POW (plain old workload), it took me a while to grasp the importance of Google dropping its... let's call it self-censorship for users inside the Great Chinese Firewall, basically letting them search for terms like Tiananmen and the like. Google's newly discovered self-consciousness as The Huge Engine That Could (provide everybody with everything, that is) is caused by one cyberattack too many:
In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident -- albeit a significant one -- was something quite different. (GoogleBlog)
What fascinates me most is not necessarily that Google doesn't want to be evil, anymore, when it comes to freedom of information. And while I really like to think along the lines of German blogger mspro:
[...] es ist gar nicht auszudenken, was das für einen Rattenschwanz nach sich zöge. Nicht nur für China, dessen Regime sich wohl nicht halten könnte, wenn die Firedämme brächen und die Welt per Google in das Land einfiele. Nein, etwas anderes ist entscheidend:
[...] Google wäre in der moralischen Pflicht, Informationen überall dorthin zu bringen, wo Zensur herrscht. Warum also nicht auch nach England? Oder nach Australien? Wozu sich überhaupt noch an Gesetze halten? Wozu überhaupt noch die Regulierungsansprüche von Staaten ernst nehmen? Wozu überhaupt noch Staat/Nation?
Und auf einen Schlag sähe jegliche nationale Gesetzgebung das Internet betreffend aus, wie ein Wutanfall von Mickey Mouse.
...who basically puts Google above any national regulation, making each attempt to regulate the Internet look like "Mickey Mouse throws a tantrum", I'd rather consider the implications of a corporation directly engaging in politics. Which is amazing, especially when you think the corporation is on "your" side, for instance opposing ignorant politicians who just want to over-regulate everything, be it in a democracy or, as in the present case, not.
While I'm still ready to give Google the benefit of the doubt (full disclosure: I'm a Google fanboi, but that doesn't necessarily make me stupid!), I think it is more important than ever that any corporation, not just Google, doesn't consider itself above the fundamental laws of... yes, of what? coming to think of it (physics, maybe?), and that Google is actually ready to and capable of not being evil, is able to tell good from evil.
Again: a fascinating story. I just hope that we all can agree upon what "good" is.
Stay tuned.
The patent system is misused to restrain competition for the economical benefit of a few but fails to promote innovation. A software market environment is better off with no patents on software at all. Healthy competition forces market players to innovate.
A Stop sign I can live with. Signed.
The reason there are few attempts to blow up airplanes is not because we have successfully restricted people from blowing up airplanes. It’s because not many people want to blow up airplanes.
Failure is interesting, as a strategy, because it doesn't require the necessary planning, funding, and training required for a potentially successful attack. As a result, attacks can be made quickly across a broad spectrum of targets.
John Robb is a United States author, blogger, entrepreneur and former USAF pilot. His idea of failure as a strategy implies that the goal of terrorists (I hate this word - it has been overused quite a bit recently!) could change (or has changed already?) from killing people to disrupting their lives.
Which could much easier be achieved by supposedly unsuccessful terrorist attacks like the recent incident on board a Northwest/Delta airplane which still result in even more regulations and formalities inhibiting our ways of life.
On the other hand: al Qaeda probably don't need Robb to come up with an observation they themselves may have made already.
