| Sch** auf den Kommentar zu Westerwelle |  |
>Einseitige Sichtweise wie ich finde-ich wüßte nicht was ich bis jetzt davon habe das die US Regierung Westerwelle für nen unfähigen Schmarrkopf hält oder was sie von sonstwem halten -abgesehen davon das es völlig normal ist solche Einschätzungen zu erstellen-wo ist hier jetzt der "Mehrwert" für die Bevölkerung?
>
>Es wurde halt mal wieder reichlich Porzellan zerschlagen und die Amis stehen mal wieder als Deppen da und es ist mächtig Werbung für ne bestimmte Webseite-ansonsten sehe ich da wenig bemerkenswertes drinn.
Also diese halb-interessanten Details zu Westerwelle & Co. sind doch wohl ohnehin nur die "Spitze des Eisbergs" und in der Tat relativ belanglos. Aber interessant ist es insfofern, wenn man sich Kommentare/Artikel wie den unten von Bloodflower verlinkten mal durchliest (bzw. zustimmt):
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/29/the-revolution-will-be-digitised]
"(....)
Leaks are not the problem; they are the symptom. They reveal a disconnect between what people want and need to know and what they actually do know. The greater the secrecy, the more likely a leak. The way to move beyond leaks is to ensure a robust regime for the public to access important information.
Thanks to the internet, we have come to expect a greater level of knowledge and participation in most areas of our lives. Politics, however, has remained resolutely unreconstructed. Politicians, see themselves as parents to a public they view as children – a public that cannot be trusted with the truth, nor with the real power that knowledge brings.
Much of the outrage about WikiLeaks is not over the content of the leaks but from the audacity of breaching previously inviable strongholds of authority. In the past, we deferred to authority and if an official told us something would damage national security we took that as true. Now the raw data behind these claims is increasingly getting into the public domain. What we have seen from disclosures like MPs' expenses or revelations about the complicity of government in torture is that when politicians speak of a threat to "national security", often what they mean is that the security of their own position is threatened.
We are at a pivotal moment where the visionaries at the vanguard of a global digital age are clashing with those who are desperate to control what we know. WikiLeaks is the guerrilla front in a global movement for greater transparency and participation. There are projects like Ushahidi that use social networking to create maps where locals can report incidents of violence that challenge the official version of events. There are activists seeking to free official data so that citizens can see, for example, government spending in detail.
Ironically, the US state department has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for technical innovation as a means of bringing democracy to places like Iran and China. President Obama has urged repressive regimes to stop censoring the internet, yet a bill before Congress would allow the attorney general to create a blacklist of websites. Is robust democracy only good when it's not at home?
It used to be that a leader controlled citizens by controlling information. Now it's harder than ever for the powerful to control what people read, see and hear. Technology gives people the ability to band together and challenge authority. The powerful have long spied on citizens (surveillance) as a means of control, now citizens are turning their collected eyes back upon the powerful (sousveillance).
This is a revolution, and all revolutions create fear and uncertainty. Will we move to a New Information Enlightenment or will the backlash from those who seek to maintain control no matter the cost lead us to a new totalitarianism? What happens in the next five years will define the future of democracy for the next century, so it would be well if our leaders responded to the current challenge with an eye on the future."