it's corporations to spy on everything we do on the other side of. activists and make codes and shake public policy. this is the movement which spawned wiki leaks and i am joined by three such upon friends from germany and. from france germany zemin and from the united states jake apple and i want to ask them is the future of the world the future of the internet. i want to look at three basic freedoms when i interviewed as as below as saying that israel had become the sort of strength that as a christian let's head up there but he has his own kind of house arrest as well because it leaves secretly but i'm sure that i would make a comparison a place of like a comparison you can add to that right or not and i mean that's the first i want to go back to these these three 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 movement is unchanged essential that the freedom of communication is enhanced tremendously in some ways in that we now can communicate to many more people on the other hand is also tremendously degraded because there is no privacy anymore and so our communications can be spied on and spied on and stored and as a result can be used against us and if he is a little bit at a great at a cost and so in this sort of militarization of these sort of interactions and out economic interactions have had suffered precisely the same consequence of joy and it's not wrong what you're saying but i'm not sure you can really distinguish between point two and three because the internet as we have it today is

infrastructure for our social or economic our cultural political or our thinks certainly have or however the communication i should take truth is the money is just it's i mean this is just a user of the internet and the or the of study for years. cryptographic telephone secure phone calls sort of mass surveillance is occurring in relation to telecommunications tell me what is the state of the art as far as the government intelligence. bulk surveillance industry is concerned would use mass storage meaning storing all telecommunication has because our normal voice calls all voice calls or internet connection and actually what you have to see is the if you compare the military budget to the cost of surveillance and the cost also of cyber warriors. normal weapon systems cost

a lot of money if you compare that to cyber warriors to massive violence likes that is very cheap super cheap compared to just one aircraft one military craft course you. really really and yet you have it and there are two questions here we also have this example of eagle this is them sold by the french company and this is that was on to to cut their fees libya and on the document that you know the commercial documents it was written nationwide interception mechanism that's just a provision box at you you're good somewhere and you just listen to all your people communications so we can discuss of about the technology and i'm. interested very much in that and this is this ten years ago this was seen to be a fantasy it was really something i really only paranoid people believed in the cost of doing it decreased to the point where. even countries like libya with

relatively few resources was doing it with predictability exactly so not now that's a fact technology enables those also variants of every communication then there is do the other side of that coin is what we do with it we could admit that for which you go to tactical one there are some indeed some legitimate use investigators investigating the bad guys and networks of bad guys and so on may need under the supervision of the judicial authority to be able to use such and such tools but the question is where to drill these judicial supervision where to go do the control that the citizens can have over the use of the state going to g.'s and this is a policy should and when we get to this body see shoes and we were looking at the earlier we of that are asked to 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 as

a vander send it back and you know 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 building they're always talking about war because that's their business and so they're trying to rope 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 or more specifically that's a recipe for some pretty scary stuff so i see that the. militarization of cyberspace because we have into deception across all the national border points of pocket and as we have militarized computer hackers is operating in bulk with programs to attack sections of the internet and sponsor actions of the into that may pose about the use of hackers in this context it's not about us soldiers using computers and see below it's very means d.c. is not hacking yeah i know this is not saying you are. going to be i mean

i'll point is that we have civilian wise we don't we don't see tanks coming into the lab all this maybe especially under actually we know most of most people don't see tanks or bugs i mean to go out through normally or even down there even down that local road but now we take out a life and we put it all we put it all on facebook we communicate using it that we communicate using mobile phones which in our midst to the internet. and the military has control intelligence agencies have control that other study that does this is some kind of militarize ation of civilian life absolutely there is a real question of whether or not we should regulate. the fact of just buying and owning those technologies. or using the old interception kits that can intercept off. a nuclear weapon you cannot sell that easily a nuclear weapon in some countries who may want to build one may have problems or

something and that's the technology that is regulated and the use that is being done with it when we talk about weapon systems so i think it's a big night to be about whether or not these technologies should be considered as war material that is already sort of in there is weapons and everything it's there's no question that it is a weapon in places like syria or in places like libya they specifically use the surveillance equipment to target people politically in libya they targeted people in the united kingdom using french equipment that would be illegal to run in france and they saw that no no they do that before they were caught or there are documents in the spy about ready to commit state sponsors of billions in aid and major issue with challenges due to the structure of a democrat sees in the way they do it with with functions but. is it proper time now to to a vocal so that there is private servants and potentially useful private mass

collection of data and actually just look at google. google knows if you're a standard google user google knows who your community taking with who you know what you're researching potentially your sexual orientation your you clearly more than thousand advantage you know that your so more than your mother and maybe more than yourself who knows when you're online and when you're not what did you. you know what you look forward to two years three days and four hours ago given that google no no i should try not to the news that we're going to war for these very reasons but what i'm saying is it's not only the statements of civilians it's due to the question of privacy the way they data is being handled by third parties in the the true knowledge that people have of what is being made with the data. base because well germany well i actually don't use facebook so i i don't know much

about it but now we facebook you see the very same behavior fuser is were very happy to do to hand out any kind of personal data and of course when you see teenagers you know sending pictures of them being drunk or whatever they may not have this vision that it means the whole rest of the world but then surely for a very very long period of time that we have access to these data and so facebook makes its business by blurring this line between privacy friends probably city and is even storing the data when you think that it is only meant for your friends and the people you love does this line between government and corporation mean this is but if you look at the court action the military the military contractors sector in the west over the past ten years national security agency which was a bit bigger spy agency in the world. it had been primary contractors

all that sort of worked with their has two years ago has over one thousand of those so there's a spreading out smearing out of the border between between what is going to going to be argued that the u.s. spying agence ease of access to all of google's stored data and all of facebook data so in a way facebook and google maybe extension you have a there's evidence of that i believe you know i mean i know that we just we just got to us yesterday in our twitter case so far. 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 that there's a these or there's also one of being a good complaint yes that's been found to be unconstitutional let's maybe navy not right i mean you know for the twitter 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 know well your state has denied you have twitter must disclose this data and you know we're in the process of appeal specifically about the secrecy of docking and i can't talk about ad 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 you have no expectation of privacy when you willingly reveal information to a third party and by the way everyone on the internet is a third 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 of the phone company by using it and you knew that right by using a telephone you obviously are saying i have no expectation of privacy by having those numbers i mean there's even less explicit connection to the machine people don't understand how the internet or if they don't understand telephone networks either but the courts have consistently a rule that this is the case it's absolute madness to agilent that we give up all of our personal data to these companies and then the companies have essentially

become privatized 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 reward them as a culture by you know they get laid now you know they report on their friends and then like katie you know if so and so got engaged or so and so broke up i know who to call now right and this is the difference between a privacy by policy and a privacy by design approach to to actually creating secure systems i mean when you're trying to target people and you know you live in a country that explicitly targets people face book put it servers in get off these libya or. put it in syria that would be absolutely negligent so knowing that that's reality these companies have some serious ethical liability that stems from the fact that they're building these systems and they've made the economic choice basically to sell their users 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 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 want to look at this this is what i see as it is the difference between it a us. cypherpunk perspective and. the european perspective which is that it's quite interesting so us second amendment is the right to bear arms and i would just recently watching some footage that a friend shot in the u.s. on the right to bear arms and right above apply around the store it's democracy locked and loaded. and that that's the way you ensure that you don't have to tell a terror in regimes that people are armed and if they pissed off enough. then they simply take their arms and they retake control by force so if we

look back to this declaration that code making providing secret cryptographic codes that the government couldn't spiled was in fact the munition and his big war that we've fought in the one nine hundred ninety s. to try and make cryptography available to everyone which we largely won actually in the west in the west and we largely won and it's in in every every browser now perhaps being back doored in different kind in suburban different kinds of ways. that this notion of. you cannot trust our government to implement the policies that it says that it's implementing and so we must provide the underlying tools cryptographic tools that we control as a sort of use of force in the government no matter how hard it tries if the cipher is a good cannot break into your communications directly with the crazy maybe can put a bug in your house or whatever source of authority is derived from violence one

must acknowledge with cryptography no amount of violence will ever solve a math problem exactly this is the important key it doesn't mean you can't be tortured it doesn't mean that they can't try to bug your house or subvert it in some way but it means if 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 the this is the thing though that is totally not 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 could but that's the difference right it's actually if this is the case or just the fact that it just happens to be a fact about realities such like that you could build a toy bombs that there are if that's problems that you can create that even the strongest state cannot directly directly break and i think that was tremendously appealing to california libertarians who and others who believed in this sort of democracy locked and loaded and he was

a very intellectual way of doing it and of of a couple of individuals we've cryptography standing up to the full power of the strongest superpower in the world and we're still 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 to me it's the big political forces like jeremy was saying and that. that the natural fusion season of these technologies compared to the number of human beings who will meet will mean that slowly we will end up into a global totalitarian surveillance society society by terra tell us very only a total surveillance and that perhaps the there will just be the last free living people and these last free living people are those people who understand how to use this. cryptography to defend against this complete total surveillance.

we headed for that sort of story first of all if you look at it from a market perspective. convinced that there is a market in privacy that has been mostly left unexplored so maybe there will be in economic drive for companies to develop tools that will give users to the individual ability to control their data and communication maybe this is one way that we can solve that problem i'm not sure it can work alone but this may happen and we may not know it yet. also it is interesting to see. what you're describing is the power of the huggers in a way. as to the primary sense of the term not not a criminal. is a technology enthusiast is somebody with likes to understand how technology works not to be trapped into technology and make it work better like i suppose that you

do when you were five or seven you had a screwdriver and try to open devices to understand what it was like inside so this is what being a hackers and i guess build the internet. for many reasons bolden also because it was fun and have developed it. and that's given the internet too to everybody else so companies like google and facebook so the opportunity to build business models based on the guttering uses personal data but still we see a form of power in the hands of huggers and what is of my primary interest these days is that we see these hackers. gaining power even in the political arena as this political rattled radicalization of into that the cost to use especially. you've been all over the world talking about or talking

to people who want anybody want privacy in relation to their own government we must have seen in many different countries this is this phenomenon is it something significant sure i mean i think it's absolutely significant i went to tunisia after ben ali's are seem well and you see that there's a sort of awakening about that but i think you're wrong to say that it 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 third generation cypherpunk if i if i were in that and you know the work that you and ralph did on the rubber hose file system is part of what inspired me to to work on cryptosystems and you know the crypto file system he wrote was in response to things like the you know the regulatory investigative powers in the united kingdom where the basically the state has decided negative regulation is the solution to cryptography where they can you know you know take it take your passport of course

in julian's case when they created this it was because oppressive regimes would torture people for passphrase you had to be able to give up different past phrases in order to comply with their torture and and i realized when i saw that this existed that you could use technology to empower everyday people to change the world and the cypherpunks are going back i mean this is this is really that it goes far far back. you know the old mailing lists that cyberpunk mailing lists were ten may and reading your old posts on as i recall this mailing list i mean that's what started a whole generation of people really becoming more radicalized because people realized that they weren't atomized anymore and that they could literally take some time to write some software that if someone used it they could empower millions of people and there are just some unintended consequences about how that played out this is a people that created google didn't start out to create google to create the greatest surveillance machine that ever existed but in effect that is what has been created in a scene as people start to realize it does start sending in those national security letters. i think there are three crucial points in what you just said just three.

you know. among others one of them is of the reader in regime and the powers that regime in an era of digital technologies in the case of the been a new regime it is of use in so many regime as of today it is obvious that you can decide what people can learn about who they can communicate with and this is a tremendous power and this should be opposed and the internet and free internet is a tool for opposing that. another is that you well that's your area of expertise. and it's building tools and building tools to building better technology technology that can try to root the runs of problems censorship but basically building tools that are part of that infrastructure that help us. topple

dictators like that and yet another issue. is the political storytelling the pretext that are used every day by politicians through the media are we all going to die of terrorism therefore we need a patriot act child pornographers are everywhere the pit of analogies all over the internet therefore we need. to. come is reserved already. and artists are going to die and it won't be cinema anymore therefore we have to give hollywood the power to censor the internet and so on and so on so i think here again the internet is a tool. internet maybe the n.t. built to that political storytelling political story telling me lies and chanelle ity and relays and the media term that is of extremely short span

one information appears and disappears twenty four hours afterwards and is replaced by another and so on and so on the internet i get the feeling that we are. building what i call internet time as the great internet never forgets we can build over years day after day. and we can elaborate we can and this is what we have been doing for the last three years with act up and so we built our own political line with internet time with precise analyses with hard work connecting people together to participate in that where one narrative but behind the scenes. secret bilateral treaties of it's set up which are it shaving the same result anyway it's just. one thing that i think really has to be pointed out is that you know and 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 that is important to understand here and technobabble is not the thing that is important what matters is people actually getting involved in that narrative and changing it well they still have the power to do so and and this human aspect of that is in fact the most important part of that and the fact that we can expose 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 argument that we do live in a democracy that we are free that it's supposed to be that we are governed through consent and so if if everyone understands what is going on and we find that it is not something we consent to then 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 governed it's about increasing the political costs of taking those bad decisions for the ones who

take them and we can do that collectively we is a free internet as long as we have it between zero and. not. very very thorough going to make it to the.

couldn't take three. three. three. three stooges. video for your media project free media r.t. dot com.

us interesting julian assange takes a sinister turn as his contacts. in an apparent attempt to fish out information about the wiki leaks founder. moscow and beijing continue to cement their strong ties as day one of the fluted visit to china reaffirms the shared stance on a number of international issues. as egypt braces for a million strong protest calling for. the muslim brotherhoods accused of capitalizing on people's anger to sweep aside their presidential election right. this is r.t. it's full time in with our top stories for you and first it's a partnership widely seen as a counterbalance to influence the u.s.

of russian president vladimir putin's high profile visit to china is expected to foster already strong ties aside from obvious economic interests the neighbors also see eye to eye on major international disputes such as the syrian conflict while also sharing concerns over u.s. expansion in the asia pacific region let's go live to beijing sure. correspondents there just tell us a little bit more about the significance of this whole visit over the next three days. well first of all this visit is certainly very significant because it is the first state visit to britain as russia's president to china something that each president of any country can do only once during his presidential term now certainly has been greeted here with a lot of ceremony with the red carpet with the military marches and certainly this is something which is done according to the political one person one of president conducts a state visit to a certain state but also definitely this visit has a very large meeting in russia and china boosting their ties.