tomorrow. a furious war of the future of our societies is on the way to the most this war he's invisible on the one side network governments and corporations to spy on everything we do on the album decipher the choice of activists and 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's room and from the united states jay capital i want to ask them the future of the world the future of the internet. and i want to look at the three basic freedoms where i interviewed as i say now israel has become 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 i'm very place i think there's anything to that right or not and 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 embassy 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 or our thinks certainly 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 euro 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 well yes 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 violent and the cost of cyber war is. normal weapon systems cost a lot of money if you compare the cyber warriors to massive violence likes that is very cheap super cheap compared to just one aircraft one military craft course you . do we 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 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 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 aimed to be this was really something i 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 was doing it with french technology 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 and bad guys and networks of bad guys and so on made 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 under the control that the citizens can have over the use of the state that our genes and this is

a policy should and when we get to those but you see shoes and we were looking at the earlier we 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. 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 the interception across all the national border points of pocket and as we have militarized computer hackers operating on 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 at siebel it's very mean. this is not hacking yeah i know this is not tech or saying you know i thought. i could have more and i mean i thought i'll 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 entry actually but we 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 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 other study that does so this is some kind of militarize ation of civilian life absolutely there is a real question on whether or not we should regulate. the fact of just buying

and owning those technologies. or you look at all the interception kits that can intercept off and that layer is a nuclear weapon you cannot sell that easily a nuclear weapon in some countries 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 certain 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 suddenly we know they do that before they were caught with their own

documents and this by about ready to release state sponsors of billions in aid and major issue with challenges due to the structure of a democrat sees in the way they do with functions but. 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 who knows who your community taking with who you know what you're researching potentially your sexual orientation your you can only moral value of that 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 do you look forward to two years three days and four hours ago i'll get on that with google now i don't know but i should i try not to the news that we will work 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 he's been made with the data. base because 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 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. 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 good if you look at the court action in the military contractor sector in the west over the past ten years national security agency because of the because spy agency in the world is here if it had been primary contractors all it would have worked with there has two years ago has over one thousand votes so there's a spreading out smearing out of the border between between what is government going to be argued that. 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 a little sort of being a good complaint yes that's been found to be construed 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 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 docketing 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 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 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 the telephone networks either the courts have consistently rule that this is the case it's absolute madness to adam 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 both 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 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 assad 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 this is what i see as it is the difference between a u.s. . life with one 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 he's tough enough. then they simply take their arms and they retake control by force so if we look back to this declaration that could 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 it's in 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 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 you 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 and so i think 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 change it is the fact that it just happens to be a fact about realities like that you could build a toy 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 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 miss 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 are me me me me that slowly we will end up into a global totalitarian surveillance society society by totalitarian mean total surveillance and that perhaps 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 a screwdriver and try to open devices to understand what it was like inside so this is what being a hungary's and i guess build the internet. for many reasons but with 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 covering 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 this political redell radicalization of into that of the cost two years especially from. you have been all over the world talking about or talking to people who want to 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 or jean 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 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 the it goes far far back. you know the old mailing list the cyberpunk mailing list 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 who are 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 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. 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 power and this should be opposed ending 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. 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 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 n.t. don't do that political storytelling political storytelling relies and when chanelle ity and relays and the media term that is of extremely short span one information appears and disappears twenty four hours after was 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 we have won the narrative but

behind the scenes. secret bilateral treaties if it's set up which are it achieving the same result anyway it's just. one thing that i think really has to be pointed out is a 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 each has released documents that enable that that it is the information sharing that is important but it is also the people that take that important information and actually move it because there is at least the argument that we do live in a democracy that we are free that it's supposed to be that we are govern 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 we take them and we can do that collectively we is a free internet as long as we have it between our heads but. not. very very well going to make it to.

sigrid lumber tour. was able to build a new most sophisticated robot which on fortunately doesn't give a darn about anything mission to teach creation why it should care about humans. this is why you should care only.

on our credit agency moody's tears apart the pristine ratings of seven of germany's leading banks amid fears that not even europe's economic bastion can withstand the euro crisis now. as one of the major contributors to wiki leaks charged with aiding the enemy faces his latest hearing on washington gets caught red handed with a very selective approach to handling classified data. breach the peace pay the price russia's parliament vote to target the wallets of protesters who break the law with thousands of dollars in fines at stake. hello this is r t it's two pm now here in moscow kevin zero in with the top stories for you today and panic over the euro crisis is no breached even germany's defenses

with rating agency moody's downgrading seven of its major banks among them commerzbank the country's second largest it was decided that even europe's premier economy may not withstand potential financial shocks if matters in the euro zone deteriorate any further well let's get more on this development just live comment now from your vet over the chief of both belgium leading business magazines trends and that you know and thanks for being on the program first off how justified is this downgrade. moody's argue in. communique there is a problem with the overall quality of the portfolios of commerce bank and the other german and austrian banks being downgraded today and most specifically for the german banks there's certainly a major problem in terms of the paper they have on board the countries of the periphery of the eurozone spain greece portugal italy.