Dezember 2009 - Issue 1

Letter to our friends in the US:

Don't mess up your Social Security System or The Future of Germany's Social Security Sytem

Pension System:

The pension insurance alone sucks up almost 20 percent of the (potential) income of employees. What is even more alarming is that the system will explode (or implode?) in the near future. When they “invented” this pay-as-you-go system in the late 1800s, it was fine. Even in the 1950s when they introduced it on a broader basis and extended the scheme, it worked since there were about 5 people working for every single pensioner. After 2020 when all the baby-boomers will retire, there will be less than 2 people in their working age for one pensioner. Simple arithmetic – the thing is not going to work anymore unless you dramatically cut pension payments for the retired, dramatically raise the social security contribution of the jobholders or radically change the whole system as soon as possible. Well, another possibility would be to raise the retirement age. However, this would just delay the problem for a couple of years. Guess what they did. Right. They decided to gradually lift the retirement age from 65 in 2007 to 67 in 2029.

Health Care System:

Here is how they are going to ruin our health care system. To start with, I really do think that a compulsory health insurance or another scheme that provides basic health treatment for everybody is not a bad thing at all. The question is how to design such a scheme so that it is going to cope with technological progress and demographic change, that is just and fair and – at the same time – fundable. I am not going to tell you the whole story from the beginning because that would take quite a while.

First, publicly insured people do not pay a premium according to their very risk to get ill. I am fine with some kind of compensation of good and bad risks that might be caused by genetically predisposition or whatever. I am even fine with not explicitly taking into account personal habits and lifestyle such as dangerous activities, unhealthy diet, obesity, smoking habits etc. So, a flat rate or fixed premium per capita that takes into account the average risk would be ok, I think. But our public health insurance goes far beyond this. The premium in the public health insurance system is solely dependent on the individual income. Right now, the premium is about 15 percent of the income.

Second, we have about 200 public health insurances in Germany and you can imagine that this creates a significant amount of administration cost. Anyway, having a couple of hundred insurance companies gives a certain potential for competition, right? Well, our government introduced a very clever new health insurance law two years ago. They call it “Wettbewerbsstärkungsgesetz” which means “strengthening-competition-law”. Guess what it is all about. They fixed the premium! Yes, I am not kidding, they fixed the price. Now, every single health insurance is charging exactly the same premium: 15 percent of the individual income. Can you explain how a law that takes away one of the most important drivers of competition – the price – can possibly “strengthen” competition?

Third, as our pension system, the health insurance follows the pay-as-you-go scheme. There are no reserves or capital stock that young and comparably healthy people save for the time when their risk to get ill is saved. All the money that is collected by the system is spent for the current health expenses. Therefore, the same problem as with the pension system occurs. Simple arithmetic, again – the whole – you excuse my French – damn system is going to explode (or implode?) in the near future when all the baby-boomers will reach the last quarter of their lifetime unless you dramatically raise premiums or cut the services covered by the insurance. The system is already in trouble. Some of the public insurances have started to charge extra premiums – additionally to the already quite significant 15 percent of the income. And, furthermore, the government (or should I say the taxpayer) is co-financing the public health insurance system with about 10 billion EUR every year.

To cut it. The whole thing became a – you excuse my French again – damn mess.

Juni 2009 - Issue 1

Blockierung kinderpornographischer Seiten - Thesen & Argumente

Das Thema “Access Blocking” wird aktuell nicht zuletzt durch die Initiative der Bundesregierung zur Blockierung kinderpornographischer Seiten gerade in Deutschland heftig diskutiert. Diverse Initiativen und Petitionen wenden sich gegen das Vorhaben, Seiten mit kinderpornographischen Inhalten für Internetnutzer zu sperren.

Hier einige kontroverse Thesen bzw. Fragen zu diesem Thema:

A) Contra Access Blocking

1. Die Identifizierung und Sperrung der betreffenden Seiten sowie die Löschung der Inhalte wäre ein wesentlich effektiveres Instrument, um die Verbreitung illegaler und abstoßender Inhalte im Internet zu unterbinden, als die - für versierte Nutzer durchaus zu umgehende - Blockierung des Zugangs.
   
   
2. Die Sperrung des Zugangs zu bestimmten Inhalten ebnet den Weg für eine weiterführende Zensur und stellt möglicherweise eine potenzielle Gefahr für Meinungsfreiheit und Demokratie dar.
   
   
3. Durch die Blockierung kinderpornographischer Inhalte auf der Seite des Internetusers wird das Problem nicht an den Wurzeln gepackt. Ob mit einer solchen Maßnahme überhaupt zum Schutz von Kindern vor Missbrauch und Vergewaltigung beigetragen werden kann ist mehr als fraglich.
   
   
4. Durch die Schaffung stärkerer Transparenz durch die Veröffentlichung von Schwarzen Listen mit Webseiten und Anbietern, die kinderpornographische Inhalte verbreiten, wird es den Konsumenten, d.h. Finanzierern dieser widerlichen Industrie eher erleichtert, an die ensprechenden Netzwerke und Inhalte zu gelangen.

B) Pro Access Blocking

1. Wessen Rechte und welche Rechte werden durch die Blockierung kinderpornographischer Seiten eigentlich eingeschränkt?
   
   
2. 99 Prozent der Internetnutzer würden von einem solchen Regime des Access Blocking kinderpornographischer Seiten überhaupt nichts merken, da sie - auch zufällig - niemals auf eine dieser Seiten landen würden.
   
   
3. All jene Verbraucher, deren Nutzen durch die Blockierung kinderpornographischer Internetseiten unmittelbar tangiert wird, sollten sich ernsthaft fragen, warum das so ist und ggf. professionelle Hilfe in Anspruch nehmen.
   
   
4. Es besteht kaum die Gefahr, dass legale Inhalte (z.B. legale Pornographie) fälschlicherweise blockiert werden. Falls ein solcher “false positive” dennoch einmal auftreten sollte, steht dem Anbieter der Inhalte die Möglichkeit der Beschwerde, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und nicht zuletzt der Rechtsweg (u.a. Schadenersatzklagen) offen.

C) Fazit

Dieses Thema ist m.E. alles andere als trivial. Zum einen betrifft es einen der abstoßendsten “Anwendungsbereiche” der digitalen Welt und ist deshalb ein hochemotionales Thema. Zum anderen ist die Frage, inwieweit Access Blocking ein sinnvoller Baustein innerhalb eines effektiven Systems zur Bekämpfung der Verbreitung und vor allem Produktion kinderpornographischer Inhalte sein kann, nicht ad hoc zu beantworten.

May 2009 - Issue 3

Controversy on Access Blocking in Germany

In January 2009, the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth announced a plan to block child-porn websites which has been agreed by the cabinet soon after. The ministry signed an agreement with the five biggest Internet service providers in Germany – covering more than 75 percent of the market - in April on establishing access blocking for websites that provide child pornography. Internet users trying to get access to a child-porn website will instead be confronted with a kind of stop sign, warning of the impact of paedophilia on the victims. However, users will not have their personal details or IP addressed recorded.

Soon after the draft had been agreed by the cabinet, an outcry among the web community blamed the minister to pave the way towards censorship. The issue has been heavily discussed since than and a strong opposition raised campaigns against the plan to block child-porn websites. An online petition against the amendment reached almost 100.000 signatories in late May easily outreaching the minimum number of 50.000 required by German law for parliament to open hearings on the issue. Given the success of the petition, the debate is expected to go on and spread to the German Parliament.

Making a clear-cut statement on the very issue is far from trivial. On the one hand, blocking certain internet sites is indeed affecting the freedom of Internet users and content providers and might initiate the blocking of other types of content. Furthermore, blocking the access to child-porn sites might not be very effective in combating the spread of child pornography and the abuse of children because it does not reach the very core of the respective networks.

On the other hand, what is wrong with combating the spread one of the most disgusting forms of content on the Internet? Every measure that is potentially useful to dry out the market for child pornography has to be proven and if there is just a slight chance that it contributes to the protection of children - it has to be done. Second, how does blocking child-porn websites actually affect the ordinary Internet user? I suppose that 99 percent of all Internet users wouldn’t even recognize this measure and – by the way – those who do should seriously think about why…
Third, the fear that ‘false positive’ – the blocking of sites that do not provide child pornographic content – could occur are by far exaggerated. How could a government agency, a court or who ever decides what sites will be blocked confuse a child-porn website with legal content? And even if a couple of legal porn websites would be mistakenly blocked temporarily – would that be a serious problem? Fourth, other countries including, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the UK have already introduced similar schemes and there does not seem to be any problem regarding “censorship” in these countries.

Of course, detecting the sources of child-porn websites, deleting the content and arrest and accuse the providers and producers of these disgusting images and videos would be by far more effective and – by the way – is the first option in combating child pornography. However, if access blocking is one component of an adequate scheme that prevents the spread of child pornographic content, I rather support such measures.

What do you think?

For further issues on ICT see www.netissues.eu

May 2009 - Issue 2

As the Economy Contracts, the Digital Universe Expands

According to a recent study by IDC - titled "As the Economy Contracts, the Digital Universe Expands" - the amount of digital information available in the Internet increased by more than 486 billion gigabytes (3 892 79 868 480 350 000 000 bits) in 2008. This amount of information created in 2008 is equivalent to almost 20 billion Blu-ray DVDs.

Looking forward, the Digital Universe is expected to double in size every 18 months. The main drivers of the growth of digital information will be the followi

• Mobile users will grow by a factor of 3. Over the next four years, 600 million more people will become Internet users.  Nearly two-thirds of all Internet users will use mobile devices at least some of the time.
• Non-traditional IT devices such as wireless meters, automobile navigation systems, industrial machines, RFID readers, and intelligent sensor controllers will grow by a factor of 3.6.
• Web 2.0 services such as messaging and social networks will grow even faster (factor 8.0).
• Online shopping will further increase so that by 2012, twice as much Internet commerce will take place compared with 2008. By 2012, Internet commerce will be a $13 trillion industry, mostly involving sensitive business-to-business commerce.

While the pace of digital information creation is supposed to further increase, IT budgets are rather stagnating or even declining due to the ongoing financial and economic crisis. This could widen the gap between the bulk of information to be handled and the investment in IT resources to manage the flood of information.

Looking forward, the Digital Universe is expected to double in size every 18 months. The main drivers of the growth of digital information will be the following:

This development certainly asks for new tools, techniques and business models that are appropriate to manage the amount of information and are affordable at the same time. To solve this puzzle, will be one of the greatest challenges in the next couple of years.

May 2009 - Issue 1

Broad Agreement on new Telecoms Rules but Telecoms Package stalled

Yesterday, the European Parliament reached a broad agreement on most parts of the reform of telecommunications law in the EU.

The major reports on the reform have been voted by the Parliament with overwhelming majorities, including more than 10 important reforms to overhaul the European telecoms market: 565 votes in favour of the establishment of the new European Telecoms Body BEREC, 493 votes in favour of the new Directives on e-Privacy and Universal Service, 605 votes in favour of a modern set of rules for ensuring efficient management of radio spectrum and helping to remove regulatory obstacles and inconsistencies in the single telecoms market and 578 votes for the reform of the GSM Directive.

However, the Parliament rejected the part of the compromise that would have allowed for cutting off Internet access to people who download illegal copies of movies or records (’3-Strikes-Bill’) that has been pushed by the French government. This vote basically stalls the approval of the whole wide-ranging package reforming telecommunications in the European Union.

Commissioner Reding welcomed the broad agreement on the very core of the telecoms package and recognized the vote on the rejection of the 3-Strikes-Amendment as “…an important restatement of the fundamental rights of EU citizens” and as “…of very high symbolic and political value”.

However, she also emphasized the importance of the telecoms package and seemed to be worried that the issue could block the approval of the reform. “I call on the Council of Ministers to assess the situation very carefully, also in the light of the importance of the telecoms reform for the sector and for the recovery of our European economy. The Telecoms Council on 12 June should be used for a political discussion on whether agreement on the package is still possible or whether the discussion will have to start again with the new European Parliament in autumn”, Reding said.

April 2009 - Issue 1

Grand Challenges of ICT

On April 1 2009 the Hanns Seidel Foundation and the VDE (VDE Association for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies) hold a conference on Information- and Communication Technologies (ICT) hosted by the Representation of the Free State of Bavaria to the European Union in Brussels. At this interesting conference it was stated that there is a somehow surprising and regrettable gap between consumption and production of ICT in Europe.

One reason for the lack of innovation in ICT sectors and the lack of ICT products and services offered by European providers is the insufficient investment in R&D, infrastructure and marketing which are not even half of the US level and falls way behind Japan and other Asian countries, Prof. Dr. Ingo Wolff, Member of the Board of the VDE said. The evolution of communication infrastructure and of fixed and mobile networks is a precondition for the innovative potential and the development of new ICT applications in Europe.

The proposed doubling of ICT promotion by the European Union by 2020 is a step in the right direction, Wolff said, but he doubts that the EU will sufficiently fulfil its promise to stronger support SMEs. He deplored that decisions of co-funding ICT projects are slow and fraught with bureaucratic obstacles. Prof. Dr. Brinkschulte, Spokesman of the GI/ITG Initiative “Grand Challenges of ICT” strongly confirmed this.

Erika Mann and