hello this is the r t news channel i'm kevin zero in with our top stories for you this evening u.s. interest in julius sarge takes a sinister turn as his contacts are harassed and interrogated in an apparent attempt to fish out information about the wiki leaks founder also headlining from moscow continue to cement a strong ties as day one of led him of putin's visit to china reaffirms the shared stance about a number of international issues. braces for a million strong protest calling from. the muslim brotherhoods accused of capitalizing on people's anger right now to see her side their presidential

election rival. next on our t.v. much anticipated guest pulled no punches on the world's biggest issues in the late edition of the show that's just moments away. i'm truly an assignment. editor of wiki leaks expose the world secrets these documents belong the united states government being attacked by the powerful united states strongly condemn this quote after quote people illegally shoot some people five hundred days now i've been detained without charge but that hasn't stopped us. today we're on a quest for revolutionary ideas that can change the world tomorrow.

a furious war of the future of our societies is on the way to most this war using visible on the one side a network of governments and corporations the spotlight on everything we do on the other side of the. activists to make codes and shake public policy. this is the movement which spawned wiki leaks and i am joined by three cypherpunk friends from germany and the movement from from jeremy zeman and from the united states jay capital i want to ask them is the future of the world the future of the internet. but i want to look at the three basic freedoms when i. read it as saying that israel has become said stratton as

a christian its head of well he has these are the kind of house arrest as well because it leaves secretly but i'm sure that i would make i'm very place that i can verify if you're going to do 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 to 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 it is a is it a little bit a great at a cost and so in this sort of militarization of these sort of interactions and our

economic interactions have had suffered precisely the same consequence of julian 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 of things certainly free however 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 communications 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 begun all

voice calls all voice calls all 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 most of our thens likes that is very cheap super cheap compared to just one aircraft one military craft course you. do we really and yeah yeah we did 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 all to cut their fees libya and on the document that you know the commercial documents it was written nationwide interception mechanism that's just. to your good somewhere and you just listen to all your people communications so we can discuss of 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 really only paranoid people believed in the cost of doing it had not decreased to the point where. even countries like libya with relatively few resources it was doing it for instability exactly so not now that's a fact technology enables total surveillance 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 called a tactical one there are some indeed some legitimate use investigators investigating and 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 this judicial supervision where to go under the control that the citizens can have over the use of this technology is and this is

a policy should and when we get to this police the shoes and we were looking at the earlier we. 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 standard and that and you know all these people talking about cyber war 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 techno. into that and so when we have no control of our technology going to 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 there's no militarization of cyberspace because we have into deception across all the national border points. and as we have. militarized computer hackers operating in bulk we programs to attack sections of the internet and sponsor actions of the into that may pose about

the use of hackers in this context you're talking about as soldiers using computers and siebel is very mean this is not hacking yeah i know this is not tech or saying no i think it's not going to get me i mean i thought it was point is that we have civilian lives we don't we don't see tanks coming into the lab all this may be a special wintry mix but we in the most most people don't see tanks or bugs i mean to go around room normally or even down there even down that local road but now we take our personal lives 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 this study that does this is some kind of militarized station 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 kids that can intercept stuff and the like here is a nuclear weapon you cannot sell that easily a nuclear weapon in some countries we 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 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 then they saw them knowing that they do that while they were caught with their

own documents and this by about ready to 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. is it proper time now to to a vocal so that there is private servants and potentially do for private. 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 closing more than thousand you have found you know yourself 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 do you look forward to two years three days and four hours ago given that google no no i actually try not to the news that we will work for these very

reasons but what i'm saying is it's not only the state sponsored civilians it's 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 must be facebook as well jeremy well i actually don't use facebook so i don't know much about it but now we say look you see the very same behavior fuser is were very happy to hand out any kind of personal data and of course when you see to nader's 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. and. 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 bush if you look at the importance of the military in a military contractor sector in the west over the past ten years national security agency which was a bit bigger spy agency in the world. it had ten primary contractors on it sort of worked with there and 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. u.s. spying edge and seas 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 i mean is it just. i mean. you know over the years we just got to yes 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 awards also of being a good people and yes that's been found to be unconstitutional maybe nabi 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 yeah well your state is denied you 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 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 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 wonder 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 the 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 rule that this is the case is 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 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 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 livia 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 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 but i see as it is the difference between a u.s. . cypherpunk perspective and. the european perspective which is think is 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's the way you ensure that you don't have to tell a terror in regimes that people are armed and if it's tough 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 its big wall that report 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 seen it in every every browser now perhaps being back doored in different kind and subverted in different kinds of ways. that this notion of. you cannot trust our government to implement the policies that it says it is 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 saif 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 that 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 and it's actually if this is the change it is the fact that it just happens to be a fact about reality such like that you could build a totally bombs that there are 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 you know of a couple of individuals with cryptography standing up to the full power of the strongest superpower in the world and we're still doing a little bit but i have a have a view that the likely outcome is that those are really tremendously big economic forces in two minutes the big political forces like jeremy was saying and that. now 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 terry taylor terry i mean total surveillance and that perhaps the there will just be the last free living

people in these last free living people are those people who understand how to use this. cryptography to defend against this complete total surveillance. how are 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 hackers 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 hungary's and build the internet. for many reasons and 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 rebel radicalization into the use of the cost to use especially. you've been all over the world talking about tool 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 i mean i think it's absolutely significant i went to tunisia after ben ali's or jim fell 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 was 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 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 the cyberpunk mailing lists with ten men and reading your old posts on as a response mailing list i mean that's what started a whole generation of people who really becoming more radicalized because people realized 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 they 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 and as soon as people start to realize it does start standing 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 the reader in regime and power is that. 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 of tremendous but work and this was bilbo's and the internet and free internet is a tool for opposing that. another 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. the political storytelling the pretext that are used every day by politicians through the media are we all going to the terrorism therefore we need a patriot act child pornographers are everywhere all over the internet therefore we need. to come is reserved already. and artists are going to die and they 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 entitled to that political story telling 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. 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 if it's set up which are it shaving the same result anyway it's just suburban 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 the human aspect of that is in fact the most important part of that and the fact that when he says 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 can tend to then it is very difficult to keep up that and just pass those as laws and do it without the consent of the 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 as a free internet as long as we have it between our hands. going to. be very very short we're going to make it to.

that the. machine would be soo much brighter.