of old precode are purpose and doing something with the knowledge that something is virtually certain to happen. and so we believe that is an intense standard. and, you know -- >> when we have look at fighting words statutes, we never applied this kind of heightened intent. as i understand, fighting words prosecutions, all the government has to show is that you said something that would cause a reasonable person to punch you in the face. and that's all we ask. so why shouldn't this be basically the same as that? >> it's a different tradition. fighting words, traditionally, there wasn't an inquiry. there is some that required it and others there aren't. there was this traditional requirement that person had to place a person in fear. here's the reason behind it which is fighting words has been essential lly wit willed down ta

very, very small figure of speech. it will result in a reflex of violence. there is no time for anything but a response. the only option is it put the cuffs on the guy before he lands a punch. and we were talking about incitement and true threats. there is so much more time for the law enforcement inquiry. there are options other than immediately cuffing the person. and because it involves a much broad broader category of speech, it's important to have inquiry into what the intent was. you know, basically, under the government standard, any speech that uses forceful language on rhetoric could be at risk. somebody who in ferguson moshgs month, the night of the riots tweeted a photo of law enforcement officers over the motto, the old motto the tree of liberty must be flesh with the blood of tyrants. i mean would a reasonable person foresee that is viewed as a threat about it police officers? again, i wouldn't want, you

know, have a felony conviction against it. >> this is valuable first amendment language that has to be protected? >> i think there is -- >> or the kind of things that were quoted earlier? >> i think when you're doing it as a category, yes this is valuable language. virtually any language that uses forceful rhetoric could be penalized. as i say, the blood of tyrants quote. >> it has to reasonably put somebody in fear. >> exactly, a very low standard. >> a low standard. but to my mind, it doesn't eliminate a whole lot of valuable speech. at all. >> for example, another example i would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal f someone puts on the facebook page a picture of a woman walking into a family planning clinic over the phrase turn or burn, you know, maybe that is a statement of, you know, christian doctrine and she is going to go to hell. maybe that is a risk of a firebombing. but with that i'd like to

reserve the right of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court, the court made clear that true threats which are not the best word in the world to describe them. they cause fear and disruption to society and to the individuals targeted. and for that reason congress enacted a statute that depends upon a man's component and an actor component. this is that the individual has to know and understand what the individual is saying. congress reasonably presumed that people who are speakers of the english language and who know that words with the meaning of the words is that they speak are accountable for the consequences of those words. >> and the minimum penalty is what? a fine. right? >> that is correct. there is no mandatory prison

sentence here. >> but it is a felony? >> yes. it is a felony. i think congress was quite clear that when it enacted this, it did not prescribe any additional specific intent or purpose to frighten or to threaten that petitioner up until standing at the podium today appeared to argue for. petitioner's position knoll today was that it's not a threat if somebody can say hey, didn't really mean it. sorry. that wasn't my purpose or intent. i knew that the words that i was speaking had the language in them that they did. i can take it that a reasonable person would have interpreted that way. petitioner would even cut out recklessness. even if he was consciously aware it was likely to cause fear, petitioner would -- >> that's exactly the point that's bothering me. i'm with you down to forget the purpose. i'm with you there. there has to be a true threat. we'll assume that. but now the question is knowledge. and that's the general

requirement for members raya. that is at normal rule, knowledge. you have to know those portion that's make up. you have to know the elements. one of the elements is a true threat. so i thought what do you say you have to know there? and when i read your brief, you first said he has to know, he has to understand the meaning of the words he speaks in context and must intentionally speak them. and is showing that defendant acting knowingly in trans mitting a true threat requires proof that the defendant knew he trans mitted a communication and he comprehended the context and context. now when i first read that, my clerk disagrees with me, i thought that means he has to know that it is a true threat. ie, why did i think that? i just saw people being sworn in. suppose someone comes from, i don't know, and he hears them say i do, i do, i promise. does you know the meaning of the

words? unless he knows the -- so marriage is better. someone who never seen marriages, hears the bride say i do. does the person understand the context of those words? if he doesn't know that that means they're married and go through a lot of legal proceedings? similarly, can a person know the meaning in context of true threat unless he understands just like the words i do what a true threat is? >> the individual can know the meaning of the words without necessarily drawing the same conclusion that the recipient of the communication or reasonable person would. that is, i think -- force. >> are you quarrelling with justice breyer? >> yes. >> why are you quarrelling? it's not enough for you, for us to say a true threat is when you intend to put another person in

fear or you know that your words will cause a reasonable person to feel fear. you're quarrelling with that farm lags? >> that's right. >> you want something broader. >> what we want is a standard that holds accountable people for the ordinary natural meaning of the words they say in context. >> but in context is right. is it reasonable person and examples that were given of the teenagers on the internet or is it a reasonable teenager on the internet? if there is such a thing. sorry, chief justice. the context that was used understand the jury instruction in this case and it's an appropriate one, it's more protective of the defendant, perhaps, than a reasonable listener approach. a reasonable speaker approach. whether he would foresee that a person to whom the communication is addressed would interpret it

as a true threat. i think -- >> but there again, we're talking about what subculture you're looking at. i mean it's the internet exchange. is it the -- what a reasonable teenager thinks how it would be understood by the recipient of the text? >> the speaker chooses their audience. the speaker can communicate and completely private manner on a facebook page, the speaker can make certain aspects of the communication private. or the speaker can open it up more widely. i don't think this court requires this case requires the court to decide the full dimensions to what the context is because here it was quite clear what the context and the -- >> i know. but you're asking for a standard that would apply across the board. so if the teenager has a the love friends on his facebook page, then they evaluate it by a different standard you? know, friends over different age

groups and everything else. that's a different? >> it will depend to whom he's communicating the statement f we're communicating among favors in face-to-face context queshgs say certain things that will be understood as sarcasm. but when we widen the audience and put a statement out, any situation where reasonable people are going to react to it by saying this requires attention this is a threat against an elementary school. >> that doesn't seem to me answers just scalia's hypothetical of the friend who calls to report the threat or another hypothetical what one student says i have a bomb in my lunch pail and the other student hears it and tells the principal. under your view, the person that hears & tells the principal can be liable? >> that's not our view. i think it's important to clarify. >> what is the suggested instruction you would have in order to eliminate liability and

my hypotheticalal or justice scalia's hypotheticalal? >> the statement has to express a serious intention of the speaker to inflict bodily arm. >> well, that was not in the instruction that was given in this case. >> not literally and it's not instru instructed. >> the instruction given does not meet the standard you just gave. >> justice kennedy, i think does it if you read the entire context. it was understood as being a reference to the speaker's intent to carry out the threats. we're not asking for -- >> it seems to me if that's the case you should have no problem accepting the specific intent. specific intent all the time. >> let me give you a couple examples of his position as i understand it would cut out. it would certainly cut out people who are reckless, people who are consciously aware this is taken as a serious expression

of an intent to do harm and the speaker says i'm going to disregard that and say it anyway. >> how about using that exact standard? and it's similar to the way justice breyer had it. it's knowledge that a reasonable person would cause fear. you could say it's basically the same thing to say -- to say, you know, substantial probable that person you're talking to would feel fear. so either way, you know, there's a little bit of a fudge factor as to -- but the critical point is that you have to know something about the probability that you're going to cause fear in another person. if you really don't know that thing, then you're not libel. what is wrong with that? >> the first thing that is wrong with is it immunizes somebody who makes that statement and then can plausibly say i just

realized i called in a bomb threat and a school had to be evacuated. i knew what i was saying but i was too drunk. >> drunkenness is not a defense in a specific intent case. >> drunkenness is a defense. >> i mean with knowledge. i mean i want -- >> i think that any standard that -- i'm trying to get you to focus very specifically on forget the first amendment issue here. take it to side, forget it. let's look at ordinary horn book criminal laws after the model penal code. there the normal, as you say in your brief, requirement is that the person know the elements of the offense. that is normal. if it is drugs, he has to know that this is a drug. if it is a flthreat of force.

so why shouldn't he here have to know what is an element of the crime, namely, that there is a true threat as so defined? are we departing from it or not? >> actually, your description of the bank robbery situation is illustrative. if you just look at the statute that this court is going to consider tomorrow, 2113, termented terment ed interpreted in carter. no intent element. no specific intent element. >> i degree with you no specific intent. that is you don't have to have it to be your purpose. that's why i use the model terminology which for me is easier. you don't have to visit as your purpose. but do you have to know the elements of the defense. >> you just have to know what you're doing.

>> all right. you have to know what you're doing. and you have to communicate a true threat. >> the petitioner is not disputing that he knew the words he was saying. we're not disputing that the government has to show that individual is aware of the words that they're speaking. the dispute here is over whether the government has to show that petitioner actually intended to cause fear or today mr. elwood proposed moving down a level to knowledge. he proposed moving to recklessness. when congress passed the statute, it intended to capture all of those people by making no intent element in the statute beyond the knowledge whast speaker is saying. when you're an english speaker -- >> so the drunk enperson who says i don't know what i was saying, is he or she guilty? >> yes. the drunken person who creates panic and disruption and would

be reasonably turpted as having uttered a threat is guilty under mr. elwood's position in his dreef that individual would not be. because involuntary intoxication can negate specific intent. it is horn book law that is a defense. under the position that he argued at the podium today perhaps not. voluntary inintoxication doesn't negate knowledge. >> i'm still not sure how you answer just scalia's hypothetical and mine. the threat is just repeated. >> let's say the newspaper prints it on the front page. the newspaper is not expressing its intent to -- or making a statement that reflects the speaker's intent to inflict harm. what the threat is a statement that the speaker makes which on its face and in context would be understand as an intent to

inflict harm. repeating it doesn't have that characteristic. that's how they were understood. >> if the have the statement in the style of rap music which several of these were, is the renl prn supposed to be someone familiar with that style and the use of what might be viewed as threatening words in connection with that music or not? >> it depends on whom the speaker is speaking to. i think the individual has to understand that not everybody will have the same private meanings that that person attaches to rap music and will bring -- >> so that does the subject the prosecution, the lyrics that a lot of rap artists use. >> it's pretty clear that

purpose of the communication is entertainment. people seek out rap artists because they are seeking some form of entertainment. >> so how do you start out if you want to be a rap artist? the first in communication. you can't say i'm an artist. >> i think you have perfect freedom to engage in rap artistry. you don't have freedom to make statement that's are like the ones in this case where after the individual receives a protection from abuse order from a court which was based on facebook posts that his wife took as threatening, he comes out with a post and says fold up that pfa and put it in your pocket. will it stop a bullet. he knows that his wife is reading these posts. he knows that his posts despite the fact that they're in the guise of rap music instilled fear in her and he ramped up and

escalates the threatening character of the statements. this is completely different. >> just made a wonderful closing statement. is it going to harm them? >> i think the clearest problem would be if the court goes with the position that petitioner advocated in this case which is that there must be a purpose to frighten. it cuts out recklessness. >> i would disavow that. he said he has to know that she will be in fear. they're arguing the case in the

supreme court. i agree they should know what the fourth amendment requires. but there was no request for a knowledge instruction. there was no argument that the proper standard is knowledge. there are is a distinction between purpose and knowledge. so the idea that backing off this purpose is fanciful. there is considerable difference between knowledge and recklessness. >> do you agree with that? >> if i understand that correctly. >> i think you're understanding it correctly. i think i would attribute more distinction. knowledge under the model penal code is acting intentionally

with knowledge of two practical certainty that result will follow. it doesn't have to be to the level of knowledge. so there is -- >> exactly. i think that's a distinction. i'm thinking that perhaps a lot of these case was come up in domestic relations disputes. the question be would because people get into heated arguments, do you have to show the defendant, used some words that in context would be taken as a true threat? or do they have to have that characteristic? now if i'm right -- >> the former. >> i know. you think the former. the real issue is it the former

or latter? >> correct. and if it's totally open in the history and so forth, i think people do say things in domestic disputes that they're awfully sorry about later. i'm hesitating to say that congress -- he's lacking something there. maybe it's fault that he is lacking it, but he is. >> the jury instruction in this case said right before the passage that we've all been focused on dl is on page 301 of the joint appendix among many other places is after giving the definition of the true threat, justice breyer, the court said this is distinguished from idle or careless talk, exaggeration, something said in a joking manner or an outburst of transitory anger. so the context of this instruction took into account

the concern. it cuts that out. >> counsel, lest we define defendiancy down, i don't agree with the proposition that -- in intermarital disputes, people make physical threats to the person. i think that's rather unusual. >> i think that even -- >> even in the heat of anger. >> and it often will trigger just what happened here. the spouse goes and gets a protection from abuse order. and the individual is on notice that that person's statements are being interpreted as a threat and a judge validated that. and then you have petitioner going on and continuing to do that. i think this is one of the best reasons for the court not to add an element that eight out of the ten regional courts of appeals have not done for decades.

it's not led to the kind of problem -- >> you're asking us to go down -- it's not purpose, it's not knowledge of cause and fear. it's not a conscious zrdisregar. it's just that you should have known you were going to cause fear, essentially. and that's not the kind of standard that we typically use in the first amendment. the only time i can think of is in the fighting words context. the first amendment requires a buffer zone to ensure that even stuff that's wrongful maybe is permitted because we don't want to chill innocent behavior. i guess the question is shouldn't we allow some kind of buffer zone here past the sort of reasonable standard that you're proposing? >> i don't think so. if you look at the kinds of case

that's attracted this court's buffer zone, like "the new york times" versus sullivan. you were talking about statement that's were made to public officials or public figures, perhaps expanded to matters of public concern where there really was a social interest in preserving that speech. here what you're talking about are criminal threats. statement that's taking away any private meanings that the individual attached to them would leave observers of the view, hey, this guy intends to carry out act of violence against somebody. that is not something that has first amendment value. there are many ways to express yourself. >> what about the language at pages a4 to 55 of the petitioner's brief? you know, that would make a nice bed for mom yes at the bottom of the lake. this is doing the context of a

domestic dispute between, you know, a husband and wife. the mom is splashing water. no more fighting with dad. under your test koshgs than prosecuted? >> because eminem said it at a concert where people are entertained. it's not whether he said it private or on a facebook page after receiving protection if abuse order. it's not as though he appropriated a style of wrap that he's been doing previously and then tried to express violent statements that way. in the context, any reasonable person would conclude at a minimum that is there is ambiguities about the statements being a serious intention of an expression to do harm. this is critical here. we're talking about an area if the jury finds it's ambiguous, it has to acquit.

this is how the statements should be interpreted. >> yes, but you're dealing with very inflamatory language. the question is whether or not the xwlr is going to be swept away with the language as opp e opposed to making the subtle determinations you're talking about. >> there are two protection there's. the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. that is subject to appellate review. the second protection is it needs to be a true threat. whether it's a good term or bad tefrment it means that these statements are to be taken seriously. that they're not in just. they're not exaggeration. they're not high penitentiarybly. this is not a standard that lead to any problems. >> if the first two are correct this language is not worth a whole lot anyway. >> that is correct as well. the proof is really in the pud ug. the petitioner claim that unless the prevailing rule in ten out of the 12 regional circuits is overthrown, there is going to be a tremendous chill.

i think what he is overlooking is the fact that until recently, 11 out of the 12 circuits followed this rule. the tenth circuit changed once. and there is no evidence of chilling. the best evidence that the petitioner has come up wf a case that was prosecuted is one in which an individual after having to urge the fbi agent to recommend a prosecution and failing called him up and said have a good day, the silver bullets are coming. and the jury was able to hear in that case a tape of the statement, put the statement in the context in which it was made and conclude that it was indeed a true threat. plus, the very statute of prosecution did require proof of intent to impede an offense in his business. i don't think that's a good reason for this court to change course. >> in this statute, there is a,

b, c and d. all d has specific intent. i think you would agree with that. >> yes. >> it is proper then to say that it's likely that section c also should be a specific -- it's very odd to say a, b and d are specific intents but this one isn't. >> justice kennedy, it cuts the other way. congress in the other sections of this statute focused on intent to extortion. and whether it came down to prohibiting threats in 875-c, it did not do that. section # 71 which ch is the threats against the president statute requires that threats be made knowingly and willfully. that has been universally interpreted as not requiring any proof of an intent tore knowledge that it would be taken as threatening language that was designed to put the president in

fear. it has been interpreted just the way the third circuit interpreted this statute. if the word threat has inherent meaning of intent to put somebody in fear. it raises questions about that long standing terngs against the threat against the president's statute. i think that statute exemplifies the problems created by threats. 9 problems are that they disrupt people's activities and they put people in fear. now the president is unlikely to be put in fear by l. -- an assassination threat that is made over the internet that the secret service intercepts. she is made of hardy stuff. it is highly disruptive to society. when the secret service is considering what to investigate, it doesn't have access to the private intentions of an individual or his unreasonable interpretation of the language that he actually speaks. the thread causes the harm

regardless. >> wouldn't you stha about a lot of criminal law? the harm is the conduct irrespective of what was in the person's head and yet we insist on looking very often at what was in the person's head. >> yes. and xong writes statutes against a background requirement of mensrea. we accept that here. but that the question is what has to be shown is it enough that person had knowledge of the words he spoke as an english language speaker understanding their meaning or does there have to be something more? name lishgs the government must prove in each case that he intended the bad outcome, whether he had knowledge of it or that he was conscience of it and disregarded. there is nothing in the statute that requires any of those things. the harms inflict ready just as bad or serious regardless of those. i have to make one final point on the intent question that your

honor raised. i think congress would have well have understood that the majority of these cases probably were people who intended to threaten some subset of them are people who are reckless. and for congress, it was no mat cher those things were. the point was -- >> let's go to that question. it may have been congress's intent. but does the first amendment provide an umbrella that cabins -- >> i don't think so. the fighting words that he spoke of is jurisprudence focuses on the infects the word will have on the person who hears them. in the context, there is no requirement that the person that has the items in question has to -- >> we've been loathe to create more exceptions to the first amendment. >> i don't think that these are --

>> we don't know where in the common law you have found a hook to say that we should create this as an another exception. >> let me give one more example. in the definition context, it's true. for public officials the court required actual malmalice. there is no requirement that there be anything more than negligence in a defamation statute. and the harms the defamation protects are much less serious than the harms that are protected by a threat statute, when you deal with people's safety. so this court call grated the first amendment requirements not where a wrood brush that says in all cases there must be mensrea but in some cases you do not mean it. the through threats doctrine as it's grown up has been implemented and applied by the sikts has never been a context in which the court thought it

necessary to lay around some kind of infent that is not in the decision. >> why is this really a question of mensrea? something be trans mitted in an interesting commerce. the thing is a threat. the question is what is this thing? is it a thing intended to cause for or just naturally causes fear? i see your time up is. i wish you had time to answer it y is -- why it is a question of mensrea. >> you don't have time to answer. there say background presumption of mensrea. i entirely agree with your honor's evaluation of what the statute focuses attention on. it focuses attention on an expression of an intent to do harm. that's swlau to look at. the expression and the cone text. then the ge is did the individual know what he was doing? if he did, the statutory analysis is complete. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. five minutes.

>> thank you. >> i think it's valuable to look at the traditions at the time. as pointed in and out state versus benedict in 1839, vermont case, and in thewardon from 1957 case which book end the period in which the statute was enacted, both of those require a showing that the speaker knew he was putting the listener in fear. the first time drn. >> i thought you said it required intent the last time you have referred to those two. >> i've been accused of changing my position. the point is that when you say something with knowledge that something is certain to happen, that is intent. it is both purpose and knowledge plus, form of intent which ja-22 we did ask for an knowledge instruction. but on both sides of that bracketing the period when

enacted, they said you have to have intent to play with the person in fear. the first case the government can point, to unequivocally says we're going to hold people to the meaning -- we're going to hold people criminally responsible for what an english speaker understand this is to mean. and i think the pierce case. and all the cases after that is a relatively recent phenomenon that this has happened. so when you're looking at what congress would have been thinking at the time, the standard at the time was that a person had to know that they were going to be putting someone into fear. the government's neary is it is enough to make somebody criminal responsible if you're a speaker of english and you know the words you're saying. i don't think there is any different reason why just even as the government would say you get a little more slack. we've all had experiences where we all noi that words can have two different meanings.

we get the example of bob woodward. and so it's a mild example. you have two people who know what they're capable of meaning. but for the turn or burn for the blood of tyrants example, we know what english speakers are generally capable of meaning. what we don't know is whatter that ment to mean in this particular case. and the government wants to impose a five year felony liability on any time there is a disagreement between those two parts. between the understanding of the speaker and understanding of the listener. i want to point out because mr. jury wanted to talk about how, you know, after the pfa was granted, he continued to make arguments. i want to point out page 329 of the joint attendism which is three days before the prevention

from abuse order was ordered. to the idea that he just came upon what is threaten ag wife, there is a long and painful to read rap there which has nothing to do with his wife. it is the standard stuff of rap boasting n response to a departing facebook front. he calls an al qaeda sim pa thighers. he says i do this for me. it's their puttic. the reason this is a recent invention. there is stuff he can point to to show there was a nis understanding between the two of them. but the speaker and the listener focus on different things when they're talking about context. look at page 344, this is a page that shows -- this is the only record of the standard disclaimer which appeared on this web page which says all content is for entertainmen

purposes only. again, can you imagine a situation where somebody says i'm posting this for entertainment purposes only. >> this sounds like a road map for threatening a pous and get ago way from it. so you put it in rhyme and put stuff about the internet on it and say i'm an aspiring rap artist. and so then you're free from prosecution. >> and the jury -- the position would be perfectly free to point out all the things they can find on the phone. you have to point out this is the only threats case i can think of where somebody is saying this isn't a threat. this isn't a threat. when you look at the jeffries case that came up from the sixth circuit and in front of the court in 2013, they says i'm not kidding, judge. ordinarily, i mean, the diminishing the value of a threat if the person doesn't know that they're being threatened. >> what do you say to the person who says if you're position is to adopt that, will have a grave

effect in cases of domestic violence. they're just wrong. they don't understand the situation. >> it's in their interest to have a standard. but the fact of the matter is many states including the states that you really want to have if you're going to win the electoral college, call, texas, new york, all of these states have subjective intent requirements. the government has never shown that states had any problems protecting the pob lus from fear. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> on the next washington journal, congressman henry quare. and then stephen ellis of taxpayers for common sense will be here to analysis the federal funding bill and talk about taxes and spending included in

the legislation. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the kofgs on facebook and twitter. >> hear and view the kmenlts we recently received from our view irz. >> i'm very interested in this program on the american indians. i didn't watch the whole thing. i came in and found it. when i turned the tv on and watched what i could for about an hour and a half. this program is absolutely wonderful. if it's going to be on again, get you a bigger audience by notifying all the local genealogical societies and asking them to spread the word.

something i've never seen before. and i do watch a lot of c-span. thank you. >> i am qualg from greensberg, pennsylvania, about american history tv. i love that channel every weekend. i watch it almost religiously. i watch it. i love all the history stuff you have. please give us more history programs. history in the sense of, you know, something before 1950 or 1960. if you want to have the political commentary type things of the -- you know, from the 1970s on, you know, that's fine later. but not during the history weekend. i really love your history lectures. you know, i like to have another chance to hear that or even see it again several months later.

like today instead of this reaganite that you have on here ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love c-span. i lot of nonfiction books. i love when you have the book fair. i'm always elated on the weekend watching c-span. it's the best thing i do and it's the most fun -- my friends teach history at a junior college. i never used to be interested in a whole lot of history, now i am. so thank you very much. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us. you can also e-mail us or you can sends us a tweet.

>> last week the justice department and georgetown law school hosted a symposium on computer crime. the head of the european cyber crime center spokes about his agency's role in coordinating law enforcement effortses to stop computer criminals. his remarks are followed by a discussion about how congress can address the issue. this is two hours. >> i'd like to invite everybody back. i hope you enjoyed your lunches. i have the honor of introducing assistant dprektor and head of the european cyber crime center or ec 3. he began with a danish police in 1908 and served in a number of leadership positions within danish national police and central bureau of interpole, an organizations within europeol,

the european police organization n 2009, he was promoted to the assistant director in europeal sean now the coach of the counter terrorist and financial intelligence committee. i know from personal experience working with him and with my section working with him, how committed he is to the fight against criminality committed online. the global fight against criminality committed on line. the department of justice is fortunate to have him as a partner and we are both lucky and honored to have him today as our keynote speaker. thank you very much for inviting me. it's an honor and privilege. i've been here a couple of time. the last time was actually to go with general alex ander in a more prominent place in an old

building. it was very impressive. i am the director of the european cyber crime center. the european union is 505 million people, 24 different languages and heavily wired at the internet. it's been interesting to me this morning to listen to the discussion from the cyber experts and also again from the judges. and it was also interesting to see the variety of use that we also share, europe and what is privacy. one of the things that always strikes me about the discussion about privacy is that if you go online, there say link between privacy and anonymity which i don't think is right. i think everybody has a right to privacy. we have this in the online world and we have it in the o offline

world. the off line world, for instance, you have privacy. we can take away your privacy if we suspect you to be a criminal. if you are a drug dealer, money is for your activities and we can tap your phone or whatever. i think that should be the same also online. this is the discussion we need to have is that it is privacy on line and also anonymity. law enforcement has any way to have lost the battle of incription. it's much cheaper to incrypt than decrypt. i don't think that there should be irreversible incription but this is all about trust. now let's go back to. this but i will first give you my -- what is this? in april. that is very interesting. i think i do that later, right? so instead, i will go down here

because i cannot see anything on my screen. this system here is a bit tricky and then move a bit forward here hopefully. let's see if anything happens here. it actually doesn't. this is the ufeuropean cyber cre area. but we have agents for approximately 40 different countries and some of them work in the european cyber center. what is the digital age? this is a picture of the internet taken any given sunday. you can see the more unlike, the more ibt net use. you can see those areas which are very, very dark. we're only 2.9 billion people online at the internet right now. this the change, ladies and gentlemen. we'll become four billion in three to five years. and the chinese are rolling out

broadband in africa and they will probably skip the pc and go directly to mobile and to smart phones just like the one i have here. you ain't seen nothing yet. people communicate in different means than on e-mail and location based, you know, atrack us. my smart phone says hold new the wrong place, you need to go to dollars now. it knows where i am. they know i'm going to traffic. it will tell me when to change locations on always. what is the first thing do you whether you download an application when it asks you to can you have access to your phone or agenda or location? yes, yes, yes, yes. this is what all of us does. and then we think we're in baez

because we have a free application. do you think there is anything that is free? if it's free, you're the product, right? they want your information to sell. if you're a criminal, they want your information also to steal. this is the income distribution worldwide. it will be where the blue it and it's unfortunately here and where i come from. look at the development. at any given sunt, opportunity this is going on at the internet. while we're eating our roast beef sand which, this is the every day attacks. i told that you africa was not really utilized on the internet right now. but you'll see now that it will change. look at the activity in i guess it is nigeria. and you will see that there are

lots of cyber criminals already moved to africa. why? because they have good infrastructure and very week government infrastructure, that will help them in their ability to do crime. >> so -- this is the area that i'm in and this is a bit below here. this is below surface eastern this is the dark net and deep net. the deep net covers 96% of the internet and every day 2.5 billion terrorbytes are added to the internet volume. and then we have the dark net which are areas that i cannot

create any at bugs. so what is going on? you can see there are a lot of statistics. i'll share with you the last statistics which tells you that every day there is 9.7 million new attacks every day. what is the difference between the normal crime and the internet crime? the challenges that we face is that you have two types of cyber crime. you have the cyber traditional crime that can only be conducted at a computer. and then you have the cyber facilitated crime which is crime that normally is taking place in the physical world but is now in the online porld. they talked about the atm $45 million scam. this is rate of children in the physical world. you do see internet to zpt it.

you also use it to stream, live streaming. so what you do is if you don't travel and you don't want to travel to a country for various reasons but you still want to enjoy it, to see a rach of a 2-year-old baby, can you order it online and pay approximately, i will say maximum $80 and then you get 20 minutes where you can see two men rape a 2-year-old boy and they beat up the kid afterwards. this is live streaming. there is no trace of the crime afterwards. because it's not actually downloaded anyplace. this will also be one of the challenges in the future. another cyber facilitated crime is a recent crime we saw in one of the three biggest harbors in the eu. a drug cartel from colombia, they smuggled he could taken through europe. they did it in containers. 1.2 tons at the time.

it always arrived to the harbor. you have a combined data base between the shipping companies and the customers. so what they did was they put in a key. they got the pass words from the shipping company. then they could follow their computer, i'm sorry, they're container. when it arrived, they made sure it was packed close to the exit. and they went in to the customs data base and they checked off fblgly inspected already. customs would never touch this. in that way, they secured their kmodcy. and this is used every day. i'll give you some other examples of this. what do you with he see? knee owe nazis are very active at the internet. this is not an area that i'm doing that much about. you use the internet to conduct a sib area tack. that is terrorist related. but what terrorist used the internet for is to recruit, to

radicalize, to facilitate and to steal money. i'll not exclude the future they will also do other things at the internet. we have to keep a tight eye here. then we have state sponsored activity. the best hackers in the world are governments. and when they have launched some kind of an espionage tool, we can always see that there is a connection between the use by states and organized crime with delay of approximately one year. so if we know what the government is up to, we can prepare a bit what will happen with organized crime a bit later. normally states do it for three purposes. they spy like everybody spies and we've done this since the middle age and we'll continue to do this until the end of the world. and then they steal interlekt you'll property. and then they prepare for war. and when they prepare for war that, is what they do with

dragonfly and malware. look at our great state, look at the control center. look at the press. look at everything. if there is a war, they can close down all these power stations, control station ands the dark will come and then the soldiers would the boots would enter. and then they steel interlekt you'll property every day. why should a counsel triinvest a00 million euros and three years of research and develop. if they can steal it in two minutes? they do this and we have to do something about this for the norm setting. but this is what i'm mostly occupied with. this is organized crime. the problem is the mag any tufd the crime is so big and what i'm really concerned about is the impact and the scale. i'll come back to this now. so what is the difference in the way that these criminals operate?

there are many theories and you heard some of them here. it is organized crime in is it loose networks, what is it? >> i think it's a mix of both. we have seen already organized criminal groups like the traditional organized criminal groups muscled in here. this is a high profit, low risk area. no organized criminal group will ever let this alone. they must win and they'll give some of the guys and an offer they cannot refuse and they'll pay 20% of their jk to organized crime. this is what is happening right now. you have a rather small group of mallwear producers. they produce mall ware. they interact with another group that tests the mel ware against the 72 anti-viruses. then they say okay, this will penetrate the mode but not all as you tweak it in this way, chafr. then they'll send it back and then tweeted, now they have a product that they want to sell. normally the gangsters don't go

the cyber crime themselves but they sell it to those who will do it. you go to the deep net. it's not the dark net. this is on pier to pier service. you are sell the malwear. you don't need to be a cyber expert to be a cyber criminal. if you want to take over a facebook account or penetrate your wife's xip account or do adidas attack, you go here. download. you pay, you get' service level agreement. they help you to installed. if you're short of money, give me $3,000ure yoez and you'll have $100,000 in three months. this is where you can find it. i can give you all the links to all the various web sites where can you download the malwear. traditional crime is also moving into society mind. so if you need two grams of cocaine or you need to buy a gun illegally or you need to buy stolen identity or whatever, you probably know where to go in

december. i don't know. i could probably find a place. but why should do you this? if you can do it online and not be revealed the buyer and seller, then you meet. so there is a service here. so what do you actually want? there is a service provider in the middle. he provides this facility. then you're the seller and buyer. you have a combined interest here. you use his platform. he takes some cut. but you want it and you sell it and the mail man the deliver it in the future. irguess it will be delivered by a drone. if you buy enough, why should i go physically here if can you send some machine to deliver it? so here we see that all normal crime moves in. and you will, of course, say like i've said, yeah, yeah. but if i can not reveal who the buy and selcer because it's on a tour, it's over, then you can

cheat each other, right? you want to buy five grams of cocaine. you pay. but she sends 5u grams of wheat. right? how do you then manage? they have it triggered here. so you're actually assessing your service that you get or you'll have a 5-star service provider and a 1 hitch star service provider and then move through the right ones. there is how it's structured. in the future, a lot of this normal crime will actually move. a second thing is that what we see is a shift in down hooding things to streaming nings and the criminals use bullet proof cloud producers which are not the i cloud or amazon cloud or all the other cloud service wez talked about. cloud services in countries we cannot reach. and if i even get a subpoena there, they will probably say unfortunately we didn't do our governance right. you could give ace fine? i cannot tell who you is behind this address or this address.

with no identification, no criminals caught. so this is what you then see that they sell the malwear and they put it on the internet and the various organized criminal groups in various parts. they download it: