russians, deputies far in minnesota. so again, we have called said that there is a wrong using risk of direct on conflict between the powers. looping is equally with the prima club readings form. we have come to the conclusion that today there is a risk of a direct arm conflict, including from the killer powers. we have come to the conclusion that there are questions regarding how the classical concept of nuclear deterrence works. we also concluded that we need to think about what's next and how to minimize the risk of a direct confrontation. professional conversations on this topic must be continued to the official line. our opponents are putting forward, obviously unacceptable conditions for such a dialogue. that is, they propose, in fact, to get away from the entire hospital policy that nato led by the united states is pursuing towards russia and return to dialogue in line with patterns on those platforms and in those formats. as it happened before, the beginning of the current space of the most acute crisis and relations between

russia and the collective west. this isn't possible. i think that both political science circles and officials in the west do still in their heart of hearts understand the questions being raised and the impossibility for us to sacrifice fundamental security interest. just to avoid an acute conflict with the west, the decision is a reflection of the total collapse of the entire value system that the you and it's member states tried to be proud of. this is an overt case of not just assess, but a brazen, unceremonious use of other people's property for criminal purposes. that is, those who make such decisions should have a double criminal liability for this. strictly speaking, there is nothing surprising here. if the european commission says that there is nothing to comment on the most serious terror attack committed by key of with the support of its western sponsors and patrons, it is obviously not trustworthy. what can we discuss here? these people are deprived of any moral foundations and in general,

in the concept of human morality, values are alien to them in their denial of these values. they have reached the stage where they commit outright criminal offenses. and moscow, it is device and now we're going to close the continent on an ocean on to live. he's great to rick sanchez, the right to impact the next. enjoy the i'm julie and assign it sort of where she weeks with expose the world secret. these documents, blown united states government being attacked by the path of united states strongly condemned, illegally shoot the sun for $500.00 days. now i've been detained without john, but that hasn't stopped us. today we're on

a quest for revolutionary ideas to can change the world tomorrow. of periods for the future of our society is underway to most vis for using visible on the one side, a network of governments and corporations. despite everything we do on the other side, which was to be active but to make codes and shake public policy. this is the respond which the weeks i am joined by 3 sites, a conference from germany and remove them from from jeremy's and from the united states. jake capital, by one to asked, is the future of the world the future or be in today? i want to look at the 3 basic freedoms. so when i into

a head of has it has blog assignment as robot has become a sense of the phrase. the question was kind of the, these aren't kind of house arrest as well cuz i'm kind of leave to think of like nation, but i so that i would make that comparison and say something like that comparison. you said that i was right. no, no, no, no, no. so so, so i want to go, go back to these, these 3 fundamental freedoms, freedom, communication, freedom of movement and freedom of economic interaction. so if we look at the transition, all of our global society onto the internet. when we made that transition, the freedom of personal movements is on change. the essential that the freedom of communication is enhanced tremendously in some ways that we now can communicate to many more people. on the other hand is also tremendously degraded because there's no privacy anymore. and sorry, all communications can be spied on and off, bite on and stored, and as a result can be used against all. so this is

a little bit of grace, other costs now. yeah. so in this sort of new tries ation of the sort of interactions and our economic interactions have had suffered precisely the same consequences. julia did something wrong, what you're saying, but i'm not sure you can really distinguish between point 2 and 3. because the internet, as we have it today, is infrastructure for our social or economic. our cultural, political, or ethics certainly feel free to. however, however, the communication architecture is the money is just bits. i mean, this is just a usage of the internet and your study fees. and cryptographic telephones, secure phone calls, sort of mess. surveillance is occurring in relation to telecommunications to tell me what is the state of the art as far as the government intelligence bulk surveillance industry is concerned?

well yes, mass storage, meaning i'm storing all telecommunication has to be put on no voice calls and all voice calls on internet connections. the, i see what you have to see is the, if it compare the military budget to the cost of so violence and the cost also, cyber war is a normal weapon. systems cost a lot of money. if you compare that to cyber, while reyes onto mass of islands likes, that is very cheap. that's super cheap compared to just one aircraft, one little to across, across you to the 1000000. yeah. yeah. yeah. was it. and the other 2 questions here we, we also have this example of the eagle. this has been sold by the french company, i'm assistant with some to, to kind of feed libya. and on the document that you know, the commercial documents, it was written a nationwide into a section mckinney, texas for the jacob page box that you would somewhere. and you'll just listen to

all your people in communication. so we can discuss of about the technology and i'm, i'm interested very much by that. and this was the, was this 10 years ago, this was a and to be offended as in this was a, be something to on the other, the paranoid people believed in project. the costs of doing it have now decrease to the point where even countries like libya, with relatively few resources, was doing it with french technologies. exactly. so no, no, that's in fact technology enables those have it in. so every communication then there is do the, the, the other side of the coin is what we do with it. we could admit that for what you call the technical one, there are some and did some legitimate issues and investigators investigating on both guys and networks of bad guys and so on. may need, under the supervision of virginia shall authority to be able to use such and such tools. but the question is, yeah,

we have to grow this traditional supervision. we have to go under the control of the citizens, can have over the use of those technologies. and this is a police issue. and when we get to those policy issues, and we were looking that earlier, we, if solutions that are asked to just sign something and don't understand the underlying technology, which is why we see so much hype about cyber war. is that some people that seem to be in the authority about war start talking about technology isn't sanders sanderson or any of all these people talking about cyber war and not one of them. not a single one is talking about cyber peace building or anything related to peace. go think they're always talking about war because that's their business. and so they're trying to rogue technology into that. and so when we have no control of our technology, we have these people that wish to use it for, for their ends. for more specifically, that's a recipe for some pretty scary stuff. so i see that the is now notarized inside the space because we have a deception across all the national board points of pocket. and we, we have notarized computer hackers operating and bulk with programs through the

tech sections of the internet and find sections of interests. may i oppose about the use of factors in this context is talking about of soldiers using computers so now. okay. hello. sorry, mean? yeah, this is not tech. yeah, this is not a tech are saying the point is that we have civilian lives. we don't, we don't see tanks coming into the way. well this may be a special lounge. and actually we, we think the most, most people don't see tanks of bogs coming into the lounge and normally, or even down the, even down the local road. but now we take our personal lives and you put it all, we put it on facebook, we communicate using instead we communicate using mobile phones. we to now missed to the internet us and the military has control over the intelligence agencies have control of that data study that data. so this is some kind of militarization of

civilian life. absolutely. there is really the question of whether or not we should regulate the defective, just buying and opening those technologies or the intersection kits that can you to set the top and the nuclear weapon you cannot yet. so that is you need a nuclear weapon and some countries may want to build 1, may have problems or something. and that's the technology that is regulated and the use that is being done with it. we, when we talk about weapon system. so i think that you're making might be about whether or not these technologies should be considered as war. the news is weapons and is it's, there's no question that it is a weapon in places like syria or in places like libya, right? they specifically use the surveillance equipment to target people politically and libya. they targeted people in the united kingdom and using french equipment that

would be illegal to run in france and they, uh, they saw the do that right? well, they were caught for their internal documents and this by files, right, the term is state state is considered civilians is indeed a major issue with challenges that the very structure a whole democracies. and the way to work with function that is, it did in the proper time now to, to have a goal so that there is a private surveillance and potentially to full private mass collection of data. and actually just mean who can google me? google knows if your standards, google user, who knows who you're coming, engaging with who, you know, what you're researching, potentially your sexual orientation, your lauren values on, you know, you know, so more than your mother. yeah. and maybe more than yourself than those when you're online and when you're not for the now, what do you look for it? 2 years, 3 days and 4 hours ago. i'll get on that google known stuff. no, i,

i should i find the list for that for these are reasons, but what i'm saying is, it's not only that the states themselves civilians, it's the question of privacy, the way they data is being handled by 3rd parties and the, the, the actual knowledge that people have offer what is being made with the data, the most of a facebook as well jeremy? well i actually, i don't use fables. so i, i don't know much about it. but now we say, look, you see the race and behavior of users. we're very happy to, to, to him though, then you kind of personal data. and of course, when you see teenagers, you know, sending pictures of them being drunk or, or whatever, they may not have this vision. that means the whole rest of the world potentially for very, very long periods of time that will have access to these data. and so facebook makes its business by blurring this line between privacy, friends, publicity,

and is uh, even storing the data when you think that it is only meant for your friends and the people you love this, this line between government and corporation means this is, but if you look at the court action and go to the military contractor sector in the west side of the past 10 years. national security agency, which was the biggest, wisest thing in the world. you've had. you've had 10 primaries, contractors on this boat so that it worked with, you know, it has 2 years ago has either 1000. so, so there's a spreading out smearing out of the border between between what they told me that if i were going to be argued that i didn't us spending agencies of access to all of google store data. so they do and all of facebook data. so in a way, facebook and google's media extensions, you have the address of the, you know, i mean, i know that we just, we just about to yes. yes. in our twitter case so far us,

which unfortunately i can't really talk about because i don't actually live in a free country, which is a really, i mean it's a thing that could be these orders also have dragging. okay. yeah. so the thing sounds we don't come through, so let's say i'm maybe maybe not, right? i mean, um, do you know for this, for their case, it's public that we lost the stay where we said that disclosing this data to the government would do irreparable harm. and they can never forget this data once they receive it and you know, the government said you have all your stay is denied. yeah, twitter must disclose this data. and you know, we're in the process of appeal specifically about the secrecy of darkening. and i can talk about that because we're in the process of appeal, but, but as it stands right now, the court found that they said on the internet that, that, that you have no expectation of privacy. when you willingly reveal information to a 3rd party. and by the way, everyone on the internet is a 3rd party, and they said it was a one to one map with banking privacy. and with, you know, dialing a telephone, you willingly disclose the number to the phone company by using and you knew that

right? by using the telephone, you obviously are saying i have no expectation of privacy by typing those numbers. i mean, there's even less explicit connection to the machine. people don't understand how the internet works, the bit, they don't understand telephone networks either for the course of consistently rule that this is the case. it's absolutely madness to imagine that we give up all of our personal data to these companies. and then the companies have essentially become private, high secret police, where in the case of facebook, we have democratized surveillance. and instead of paying people off the way the study did in your country we, we rewards them as a, as a culture. but you know, they, they get laid now, you know, they report on their friends and then like, hey, this, your phone so got engaged or so until broke up. oh, i know who to call now. right. and this is the difference between privacy, by policy and privacy, by design approach to, to actually creating secure systems. now, i mean, when you're trying to target people and you know, you live in a country that explicitly targets people use it. facebook put it servers in,

in good off these, libya or you put it in a sod, sir? yeah, that would be absolutely negligence. so knowing that, that's the reality that these companies have some serious ethical liability that stems from the fact that they're building new systems. and they've made the economic choice, basically to sell their users out. and this isn't, this isn't even a technical thing. this isn't about, it isn't about technology at all. it's about economics. and they have decided that it is more important to collaborate with the state. and to sell out their users and to violate their privacy and to be a part of the system of control to be paid back for being a part of the surveillance culture. to be part of that, that, that culture of control then to be resistant to it. and so they build it, they become a part of it. they're complicit and liable. and i don't know what to look at this. this. what i see as it is the difference between us pfeiffer, punk prospective and then you are paying perspective, which is thing is quite interesting. so us 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms . and just recently watching some 40 said

a friend shot in the us on the right to bear arms and right above a fly around store it's democracy locked and loaded. and, and that, that's the way you ensure that you don't have fatality or in regimes that people are arms. and if it pissed off and off and they simply take their arms and they re tight control by force. so if you look back to this declaration that code making providing the secret cryptographic codes that the government couldn't spy on was in fact the munition. and his big was that report in the 1990s to try and make cryptography available to everyone which we lodge the one actually in the us in the west when there's a lot of c one and seen in every, every browser. now perhaps being back door to different time and separated and different kinds of ways. mm hm. um that this notion of, as you cannot trust government to implement the policies that it says is

implementing. and so we must provide the underlying tools, cryptographic tools that we control as a sort of use of force into the governments. no matter how hot it tries. if this life is a good cannot break into your communications directly. maybe maybe can put a bug in your house or whatever the force of authority is derived from violence. one must acknowledge with cryptography, no amount of violence will ever solve the math problem is this is the important key . it doesn't mean you can't be tortured. it doesn't mean that they can try to bug your house or separate it in some way, but it means that they find it encrypted message. it doesn't matter if they have the force of the authority behind everything that they do. they cannot solve that math problem. and this is the thing that is totally non obvious to people that are non technical and it has to be driven home. if we could solve all of those math problems, it would be a different story. and of course, the government will be able to solve those math problems if anyone. good, but that's the difference, right?

it's actually if that is the change, it is the fact that it just happens to be effect about reality, such like that you can do with how many problems that there are. it's address problems that you can create, that even the strongest states cannot directly directly break. and i think that was tremendously appealing to california and libertarians and others who believed in this sort of democracy locked and loaded. and here we here was a very intellectual way of doing it. it's all of a couple of individuals. we've cryptography. standing up to the full power of the strongest superpower in the world. and was doing that a little bit. but i have a, have a view that the likely outcome is that those are really tremendously big economic forces and tremendously the political forces by jeremy was saying. and that's so the natural as efficiencies of these technologies compared to the number of human beings only meaning that slowly we will end up into

a global totalitarian civil society society. my to tell us, are you, i mean, the titles of violence and the is perhaps the, the, there will just be the last free living people. and these last free living people, those people who understand how to use this, the cryptography to defend against is complete title surveillance. while we headed for that sort of story. but 1st of all, if you look at it from the market distinctive, i'm convinced that there is a marketing privacy that has been mostly less unexplored. so maybe that will be in economic drive for companies to develop tools that will give users to the individual ability to control the data and communication. maybe this is one way that we can solve this problem. i'm not sure if it can work alone, but this may happen and we, we may not know it yet. but also it is interesting to see. and what you're

describing is the, the, the power of the hackers. anyway, a hackers to the primary sense of the term? no, no. the criminal hacker is a is a technology enthusiast. is somebody who likes to understand how technology works not to be trapped into technology and make it was better, like i suppose that you to when you with a 5 or 7, you had the screwdriver and try to open devices to understand what it was like inside huh, so this is what being a hacker is and i just built the internet and for many reasons, old and also because it was fun and i've never loved it. and that's given the internet to, to everybody else. so companies like google and face moved sodium alternative to build a business models based on capturing users personal data. but still we see

a form of power in the hands of hackers. and what is of my primary interest to these days is that we see these hackers and gaining power, even in the, the political irene, us. this political randall radicalize ation arrange that you are the cost to use, especially that you'll be all over the world to talking about the tool, talking to people who want anybody want privacy relation to their own government. and we must have seen in many different countries. this, this phenomenon. is it something significant? sure. i mean, i think it's absolutely significant. i went to, to teenager after been a laser shameful. and you see that there is a sort of awakening about that. but i think that you're wrong to say that there just happened the last couple of years and i'm sorry to do this to on your own show . but you know, you, you are part of the radicalization of my generation. right. i'm like a 3rd generation cipher punk, if i, if i were in that and you know,

the work that you and ralph did on the rubber, his file system was part of what inspired me to, to work on crypto systems. and, you know, the crypto processing he wrote was in response to things like the, you know, the regulatory, investigative powers in the united kingdom, where they basically the state has decided negative regulation is the solution to cryptography where they can, you know, you know, take, you take your password, of course, in julian's case when they created this, it was because oppressive regimes with torture people for passwords. so you had to be able to give up different past phrases in order to comply with their torture. and i realized when i saw that this insisted that you could use technology to empower everyday people to change the world and the cyberpunk. so going back, i mean, this is, this is really that it goes far, far back the, you know, the old mailing list, the cyberpunk mailing list with, to me and reading your old post on the site reflects mailing list. i mean, that's what started a whole generation of people really becoming more radicalized because people realize that they weren't atomized anymore. and that they could literally take some

time to write some software that if someone used to, they could empower millions of people. and, and they're just some unintended consequences with how that played out. yeah, so get people to create a google, they didn't start out to create google to create the greatest surveillance machine that ever existed. but in effect, that has what has been created and the same as people start to realize that they'll start sending in those national security letters. okay, i think the 3 crucial points in what you, you, you just said, just 3. know, yeah. among others, one of them is and all $33.00 in region and the powers that all the read them regime of in an era of digital technologies in. ringback the case of the been, any regime is ease of use in so many regime. as of today, it is obvious that you can decide what people who can learn about who they can communicate with. and this is a streaming this power. and this should be

a bose and the internet for internet is a tool for opposing that another that you, you well that's your, you know, fix parties and it's buildings to, is, and building towards to, to building better technology technology that can try to route the rooms of problems a censorship, but basically building towards the auto dot infrastructure that's help us. and the dictators like that. and yet another issue, and this is the political stories dealing the predicts that are used every day life positions, uh, through the media. all we all going to the if the reason therefore we need to face real. that child photograph or is, are everywhere. the pay, the $1.00 that is all over the internet. therefore, we need this so it says the printer, nancy dot com is reserved already and the offices are going to die and they won't

be seen him anymore. therefore we have to give hollywood power defense of the internet and so on and so on. so, um, i think here again, the internet is a tour, it is a internet, maybe the antidote to the political story, getting the ability to go. so we didn't even realize, and my personality and relies on the, the media terms that ease of extremely schultz spend. one information appears in these abuse 24 hours of to wells and he's replaced by another and, and so on. with the internet. i got the feeling that we are what we're building, what i call the internet's time. as the great internet never forgets me, we can build over years. they, yesterday, those c a and we can a local rates, we can. and then this is what we have been doing for the last 3 years. we've stopped. and so we built our own political lines with internet time, with

a 3 size analyses was how the work was connecting people together to participate in that we, we have one the, the narrative behind the scenes secret bilateral trade. these are things set up which are changing the same result. anyway, it's just, it's still sup. uh, one thing that i think really has to be pointed out is, you know, the people that are fighting against act are in fact they are using technology and the technology enables them to resist. but it is, in fact the agency of everyday people and it is important to, to understand here. and, and techno, babble is not the thing that is important. what, what matters is people actually getting involved in that narrative and changing it well. they still have the power to do so. and, and the human aspect of that is in fact the most important part of that. and the fact that we can reach has released documents that enable that, that it is the information sharing that is important. but it is also the people that take that important information and actually move it because there is at least the, the, the, the, the argument that we do live in

a democracy that we are afraid that it's supposed to be, that we are govern through consent. and so if, if, if everyone understands what is going on and we find that it is not something we can send to, and it is very difficult to keep up that and just pass those as laws and do it without the consent of the, of those that are govern, thinks about increasing the political cost of taking those bad decisions for the ones that take them. yeah, and we can do that collectively with a free internet, as long as we have it between the go to make it to the a

the

breaking news on all t, dudley tales in kenya. and what protest as a school in the parliament unset key government, those things on file as on the boil. so for the approval of biomass pushed taxes and other breaking news today, flying to print them off to 5 years and cost rates of inside a maximum security prison in case the width of the junior massages of whisked out of the country off to striking a p deal with us and on our phones convinced that so when, when the bad news is that he has to plead guilty to conspiracy to obtain and

disclose national to.