on the way most of this war he's invisible on the one side a network governments and corporations the spotlight on everything we do on the other side of their choice of activities to 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 jay capital and i want to ask them the future of the world the future of the internet. but i want to look at the three basic freedoms where i interviewed as as below i say now israel has become the said stratton was 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 that i can verify anything to that i would rather 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 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 it is a little bit of great at a cost so in this sort of militarization of the sort of interactions and our 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 our economic our cultural political our ethics have or however the communication i should take to it 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. and 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 so violence and the

cost also of cyber war is. normal weapon systems cost a lot of money if you compare that to cyber warriors to a mouse or violence 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 imus's that was going 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 provisional rocks 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 aimed to be this was really something i really really paranoid people believed in the cost of doing it

had not decreased to the point where. even countries like libya with relatively few resources 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 go to 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 these judicial supervision where to go do the control that the citizens can have over the use of the state that are g.'s and this is a policy should and when we get to this body see shoes and we were looking at the earlier you have politicians 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 if they understand it and that 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. g. into that and so when we have no control of our technology we have these people that wish to use it for for their ends for more specifically that's a recipe for some pretty scary stuff so i see that there is no militarization of cyberspace because we have into deception across all the national border points. pocket and as we have. militarized computer hackers 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 as soldiers using computers sold as legal it's very mean. this is not hacking yeah i know this is not saying

you are. going to be i mean i thought it was point is that we have civilian wise we don't we don't see tanks coming into the well this may be a special interim actually but we know most of most people don't see tanks or bugs i mean into the lounge room normally or even down there even down their local road but now we take our personal lives and we put it all we put it all on facebook we communicate using internet we communicate using mobile phones which in our midst to the internet. and the military has control or intelligence agencies have control that other study that does this is some kind of militarized ration of civilian life absolutely there is a real question of whether or not we should regulate the. effect of just buying and owning those technologies. or using it all to interception kits that can intercept. 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 the debate made be about whether or not these technologies should be considered as war but you know there's always are doing is it 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 that knowing that they do that while they were caught with their own documents and this by about ready to release state sponsors of billions in blood 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 have a call so that there is private servants and potentially for 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 clearly more than thousand advantage you know that you're so much more than your mother and maybe more that 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 are good and i will google now i don't know but i just try not to the news that we've got a little more for these very reasons but what i'm saying is it's not only the state sponsored 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 while jeremy 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 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 publish. 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 but if you look at the court action the military the military contractor sector in the west over the past ten years

national security agency because of this because spy agency in the world. is that it had been primary contractors on that sort of work with their it 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 be 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. 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 awards also have a good complaint yes that's been found here and considered so let's 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 you know your state is 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 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 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 stasi 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 a theo so and so got engaged or so and so broke up oh 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 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 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'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 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 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 cipher is a good cannot break into your communications directly with the gravy 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 an 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 right 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 tory 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 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 in two minutes the 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 terror tellers areally total surveillance and that perhaps the they 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. how are we headed for that sort of story first of all if you look at it from a market perspective i'm 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 hikers 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 the screwdriver and try to open devices to understand what it was like inside so this is what being a huggers and i guess build the internet. for many reasons 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 capturing users 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 is this political rhetoric radicalization of into that or the cost

to use especially from. your being 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 i mean i think it's absolutely significant i went to tunisia after ben ali's or g.m. 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 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 they go far far back. you know the old mailing lists the cyberpunk mailing lists for 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 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 soon 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 the reader in regime and power is 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 that you use 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 around sort 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 die of terrorism therefore we need a patriot act child pornographers are everywhere the bit on ads is all over the internet therefore we need. to. see that 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 entitled to that political story telling

political story telling me lies and money chanelle ity and relays and the media turn 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 we have won the narrative but behind the scenes. secret bilateral treaties of it's set up which are it shaving the same result anyway it's just sub zero the. 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 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 can send 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 would take them and we can do that collectively we is a free internet as long as we have it between our. going to. be very very well going to make it to the.

i'm sure it would be soon which brightened if you knew me by the song from funds to the pressure. starts on t.v. dot com. u.s.

interests in julian of songs takes a sinister turn as his contacts are harassed and interrogated 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 legendary reagents visit to china reaffirms their share it sounds on a number of international issues. and as egypt braces for a million strong protests calling for mubarak execution the muslim brotherhoods accused of capitalizing on people's anger to sweep aside their presidential election rival. live from our studios in central moscow you're watching archie with me and he said now it's great to have you with us eight pm here in the russian capital our top

story this evening with just a week to last for julian assange has lawyers to challenge his extradition to sweden it seems u.s. authorities already have the knives out for the australian the wiki leaks founder show here on our t.v. has apparently awaken the interest of the f.b.i. with one guest on the program even stopped and interrogated by agents are just going to camp has more on the story. u.s. officials say there is no indictment against julian assange but apparently the u.s. is going after him after all in their quest for evidence they might hear watching the sunday shows here on our t.v. or else of how would several of the show's guests end up interrogated about the weekly leaks founder and this week's episode features one of them that's jeremy zimmerman an internet freedom advocate who's based in friends at the airport traveling from the united states to friends he will stop by self identified.