If you don't take care of politics, is the politic to take care of you, which implies that if you don't think about your present and future as a citizen and member of your society this implies that someone else will take care of your present and future which implies that they will do so for their own benefit and at the expense of your living. In no case and in no way can the delegation politics and management and operational choices made by third parties be in the interest of "the individual who in pursuing his own interest pursues the interest of the community" A.Smith.
Today we live in one of the most controversial periods in the history of the European continent of all time when the average European citizen is subject to strong foreign stresses due to the geopolitics of the historical moment and foreign superpowers with the history of the chair in which they sit who see Europe as a territory of conquest and a branch of their own interests to the detriment of the interests of individual European states.
A competitive advantage, this built and accumulated over the past decades at the expense of Europeans through strategies aimed at preventing know-how or Knowledge of individual states and the European state operator in strategic technological sectors.
And systematically sabotaged and obstructed and thwarted the European Public-type State operator in the strategic sector such as social networks, Software-type Technological Production, Hardware-type Technological Production of devices such as compute and components, Laptops and components, Smartphones and Components to the detriment of the European operator and to the benefit of all other operators who massively finance their national champions, technology companies with covert strategies and hidden funds in equity pumping that has nothing to do with market investments regulated by state operator in terms of competition and market efficiency. Today to have the majority and market share in terms of mobile technology software of the European market are the American companies Google and Apple with private duopoly position in a strategic sector and public domain of European states. If we go to look at the composition of the majority stakeholders (see the first two posts published on this blog) of both Google and Apple, we can arrive at ownership in the logic of the posts previously published on this blog.
The importance of this strategic technological sector is fundamental to the independence of Europe and the European citizen, since this sector has a very strong impact on all sectors of European society. The double implication of the ownership of software and personal data is very important, as it poses two questions in conflict of interest with market logic of the American private duopoly and other Non-European operators today in this Market. In the purchase of the Software with the hardware device, does the European citizen acquire ownership of the software in all respects, or does he acquire only and exclusively the usufruct of the software which remains in the ownership of the private duopoly at this time? The European citizen acquires only the usufruct of the software since the private operator aim to generate profit for the companies, but especially the collection of personal data true intent and interest companies.
The personal data of the European citizen are the exclusive property of the European citizen and cannot in any way belong to a non-European operator and likewise the software is the total property of the European citizen since it is in line with the principle of private property and free economic initiative. This means that the purchase of the software is total since it is a product related to the ownership of personal data which are the exclusive property of the citizen and which in no way can be understood as owned by the company. Because of the impact of technology on today's society the telephone device with phone number, hardware and software and personal data under management is to be understood as an extension of the person of the European citizen and in no way can a company or a private company claim ownership of a person since this was the case in the most ancient eras with slavery centuries ago. To understand this question just as quoted above are the two private monopoly operators in Europe today who by contract apply unilateral monopoly conditions where the only possible choice is applied the purchase of only the usufruct of the software of the telephone device and the ownership of the software data to the private monopoly companies Extra European such and such as a slave-like idea of ownership of the person as an extension of the individual citizen.
On the other hand, this principle whereby private monopolistic Extra-European operators apply these conditions to the European citizen is to be understood as totally wrong since in the social contract enshrined in the constitutions and architectures of European states of the socialist type free economic initiative is granted to such companies on the European market in terms of citizenship ergo their existence on the European market is granted by the legislature in terms of the utility of society in line with the contract the principles of the constitutions of the states and therefore of citizenship. Because of the size and lobbing capacity of such Extra-European private monopolies, the application of a principle enshrined in European constitutions in terms of the right of free economic initiative on European territory in accordance with the rules of European legislation requires intervention by the legislature. Which must specify that the ownership of the software is transferred and is to be understood in a total manner of the citizen as today an extension of his own person that in no way can be the object of ownership of a private company and the data of such device both hardware and software are to be understood as the exclusive property of the individual citizen.
Another strategic sector are the Social Network Platforms which have the same purposes, that of acquiring the personal data of individual European citizens from private companies outside Europe, upon free use of such platforms or even upon payment. This point, too, raises an important question about the strategic and important of this technology sector and the lack of European state operator as an alternative and regulator. And in fact still understood in the same way and in absolute conflict of interest the position of the individual European citizen who today is forced to choose a non-European social network platform due to the absence of a European company, since the technology has strongly impacted the European society and the position of the non-European company which claims that the individual user's data belongs to the non-European company. Once again due to ineptitude of the European legislator this conflict of interest remains unchanged and the silence is deafening. If we consider only the labor market where today the European citizen necessarily needs a Social Network profile required by the since the impact of technology has radically changed the labor market, and it is clear and obvious that this is a strategic sector that in no way can be granted to the private operator because of state interest of the community. And therefore comparable the social network profile to an identity card in all respects, and as such must be regulated and issued by a State operator. Vice versa such private companies will continue to intend that the data of individual citizens belong to them and that the personal profiles of individual users are their property, which is tantamount to say slavery 2.0 (which I remember slaves used to be white and then of different colors) since a company with its own legal entity or not, owns the property of people in full or even partial ownership.
Therefore, it is necessary an intervention of the legislator to resolve the conflict of interest in a definitive way reaffirming the centrality of the citizen in the state institution and the position of the Non-European companies i function of the centrality of the citizen unique condition to the free economic initiative on the territory of the European States by Non-European companies.
It is therefore necessary an intervention of the European legislator to restore the principle of efficiency of the market of the technology sector on the European territory by the European Operators with the creation of favorable conditions for the emergence of European agendas in the Strategic sectors of technology and telecommunications because the European citizen can not fail to have a choice of a European operator in these sectors and even more can not lack a State operator in these sectors.
The Nokia case and an emblem of pioneering European technology, European company in the early 2000s to have the leadership in the market of mobile phone production which is thwarted destroyed in its development plans, with the usual trojan horse technique, an appointed CEO former Mikrosoft manager who in a very short time destroys the company by taking out of the market and focus and corporate vision by giving an address on a dead end track. Specifically it takes the form of destroying the Corporate Operating system already developed by Nokia by burying it and opting for the system of the American competitors(since the CEO and former Mikrosoft manager) in this case Android which even today and equal to a colander in terms of security and privacy when at that historical moment the Nokia company held the leadership and absolute majority in the mobile phone market in Europe and also in other continents. European mobile phone software is being obstructed and thwarted deliberately to the benefit of the non-European private duopoly in a strategic and public domain sector of European individual states where privacy and data are comparable absolute primary assets in a society where technology has a very strong impact on all areas such as work, business, commerce, and private life of individual citizens.
The SIMSme Messenger case, another emblem of European technology, a German state-owned company in the messaging communications market in a strategic sector where the state operator is necessary and essential in terms of efficiency, data protection and privacy. In the same way this very efficient company is thwarted and crushed with the same trojan horse strategy, it is acquired in a quite controversial way as it is not well understood the motivations for a sale of such a valuable asset by the German State operator to private shareholders and ownership which as per script directs the company into a bankruptcy and dissolution of it for asset insolvency when in no case and in no way could a default have been feasible given the strategic market position and goodwill of the company by the German State operator. And possible default of this European reality instead if one enters into unfair competition by non-European private operators who aim not only at maintaining technological supremacy in the technology sector but also aim to keep the European state-type but also private operator in utter ignorance with the intent of creating even more competitive advantage and dominant market positions to the detriment of Europeans.
Strategic sectors these that by the socialist configuration and architecture of individual European states can only be in the public domain and never could exist as private monopoly operators even worse when they are not even European companies. From Communism 2.0 to Slavery Corporativism 2.0.