surveillance engine because all of the data mining it does do you think it is possible to make an enormous platform like facebook without this large scale data collection a social network that one spy on you or is collecting and monitoring inherent to the business model of today's internet products. well i don't know if it's either one and i don't think there should be a platform like facebook the only thing about facebook that is specially useful is that you can get in touch with lots of people. who have offered to be contacted perhaps the government should run a platform you can do that with just so everyone can be on it but once you contact the person you shouldn't be pushed to communicate through that same platform no quite the contrary that should only be for how to get in touch with someone and then you will talk with each other through any system of communication you choose

so you see the business model of facebook is to pressure people to continue communicating through facebook and giving facebook personal information this is what makes facebook a surveillance monster show facebook does not have users facebook has used people that facebook uses i'm not one of them i have never had a facebook account and i'm never going to. face spies on people even who don't have a cat ok let me ask you this why should people be worried about data that the social networks collects about them i mean that the data i use is a bulk what that the amount of it is so huge a cop will it do anything but that it's not really personalized is it that's not true that's not true facebook personalizes people and makes that data available for manipulating them and it can discover things that people may not wish to have

generally known to businesses such as if they're pregnant or if they're gay you know in some countries in the world you can get killed if the state figures out that you're gay. facebook is used to carry out. anation racial discrimination in job offers and housing and so it can hurt people in lots of ways and this is not to mention the fact that the u.s. government can collect all of that data at any time and find out a lot about people and not only that but the you know facebook has some data google has some data these companies don't have access to each other's data directly but they all get sold to data brokers and even if they're not sold without the person's name and address what happens is the data brokers figure out who it is they figure

out that this is your record from facebook and that is your record from google and that's your record from twitter and that's your dasi a of travel from over and they put it all together to draw conclusions and the f.b.i. does the same thing as this starts to be dangerous there may be some governments in the world that don't sweat and people with the use of their personal data against them but. not the powerful governments they shouldn't get that kind of information about you mark zuckerberg has published them on a fast so cold the privacy of focus vision for social networking and there was he actually outlined the idea of creating a new communication platform which would be quote focused on privacy first and people's communications there will be private encrypted and safely stored seeis

think facebook can create something a safe i mean would you trust it no it can't in fact australia just made a law claiming the power to punish anyone in the world that. refuses a secret to me and to see. sabotage the privacy of a communication system and that would include any employee of facebook or any other company if the company allows users in australia so it's going to take courage to refuse this kind of insidious evil demand and a company like facebook would never even think of refusing would hardly resisted all because they're in it for the money and they're not going to get money by seriously defending anybody's rights but you know if we want to have privacy it's not enough to have rules about the use of the data that's collected about us we

need to design systems so that they don't get data about us that's what privacy really means it means anonymity and that's the opposite of facebook's business model so it's hardly ever going to allow anonymity remember facebook is the company that started demanding people give their real names and have only one account which is a tremendous restriction and then the governments as we know now collect data and grows as well for security purposes well it is claimed last time and. they call it scarier than the last time you just spoke you said you were against authorities using data to investigate people whether warranted or at least on a valid suspicion but today's algorithms allow or official intelligence to flat potential threats by scanning data do you think it's a reason good enough to use it let's say

a program scale social no no i have no identifies a potential you could be interests that by their pasta line i mean wouldn't that way is i think it doesn't work. it what it doesn't work it's all it's known not to work the fact is a lot of people don't talk about what their well a large fraction of such killers don't actually talk about what they're going to do they're indistinguishable from thousands of other neo nazis who might conceivably commit violence but most of them don't so that message is bogus in any case. a government that doesn't respect our rights is even more dangerous than occasional terrorists that don't respect our rights of course they don't know the point is that you can't make people safe by setting up a tyranny of surveillance as in one thousand nine hundred four somehow we have to

investigate when there is evidence of a specific threat and that means when when there's the evidence to suspect someone then yeah that can authorize starting to collect data about that suspects but to collect data about everyone in the world in case one of them is later suspect that prepares the way for repression and we have to make ourselves safe from repression as well as from the terrorists richard you told rail so that we need a critical mass to fight against today's total surveillance but is it even possible to assemble this critical mass these days i mean it seems to me that the general public is quite complacent about online visibility and i mean people were grumble when n.s.a. or google raise their e-mail. they still use those e-mails anyways i mean use credit cards over library why it's. messengers how do you rally people

around the privacy cause if they don't really feel like it's important enough to change their everyday habits for it the first step is don't be defeated straight don't say oh nobody cares anymore it's useless because that just guarantees defeat and we'll never have any kind of privacy and will not have democracy either if we tolerate constant surveillance and i reject a lot of systems of surveillance that most people do tolerate for instance i don't know if you can see my button but it says don't. be tracked take care. i never use credit cards for anything except airline flights and they're the only reason i use it is because they demand to see my id anyway so very a lot of things you can do the anonymous way if you're willing to make some effort

so the question is will you make a sacrifice for your freedom and everyone else's one and implement ahead implement convenience us on let me as they oh let me let me ask you this what is the critical mass i mean how does it manifest itself by what it private in march on washington help or will it take a bike out of some online service is what has to happen i don't know what i do know is that the more we did me and privacy the more we'll get it now cultivated contacts with the cambridge city council and the council is considering now the licensing of scooters on the street well i'm proposing they should require that the school scooters permit anonymous usage so that they don't know who's using the scooter. they know somebody paid of

course they want people to pay for using them but there are ways to do that where they don't find out who and that is what i'm saying the city council should require these systems to permit so you know how he get a critical mass you get it by making small actions and occasionally winning something and this builds the awareness that there's something to fight for all right richard we're going to take a short break right now when we're back we'll continue talking to richard stallman the founder and leader of their free software a woman discussing our privacy can we approach access and the digital world stay with us.

so we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy. let it be an arms race often spearing dramatic development only really. i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical. to sit down and talk. we came here where did

you work before you came here where you live well. in many us states capital punishment is still practiced convicted prisoners can spend years waiting for execution but most of the time the victims' families they are very much in favor of the death penalty there are some people because of what they do have given up the right to live among us somebody even proven innocent years on death row and how many more is all races are going to take before we as a society realize that this is not working and we actually do something about.

it we're back with richard stallman the founder and leader of the free software movement talking about ways to resist a massive data collection by tech giants today welcome back richard so the internet one day began was an arcade playground and now like in real life it's a doll an eight by if you giants if the giants hold all the markets word as a user who needs a turn to go. well you talk about markets but what i do on the internet has nothing to do with markets so i'm actually less concerned with markets than i am with communicating with people let's look at what the sensitive data are about you or any person what is it that the state should not be allowed to know about everyone we're people go what they do while going there and who talks with whom

these are the most sensitive data the things that we should do the most to prevent from being tracked massively it should require a court order to begin collecting data about any particular person and the court order should be justified by specific reasons that show a judge that that person must be investigated we have to set up all systems that can track people to follow that rule and this doesn't just mean the internet they're putting up cameras in the street to recognize car license plates and people's faces and listen to people there's a scandal now in the u.k. that chinese cameras have been put up and they be transmitting the video or the sound to china but you know what they could be transmitting to the british government too and that's even more dangerous for you if you're in britain and

you're a dissident of any kind and we know that. the police of investigated protesters nonviolent protesters politicians even members of parliament so you just can't trust and you have to make sure that they can't do that on their own accord should there be some trust busting down like roosevelt style against say monopolizing the internet and is it pop is it possible i click breaking google into many smaller googles like rockefeller sanders or i would mention a much. why not. that wouldn't change much because remember the data brokers put the data together and so do the so-called security agencies when they get the data from these companies they put it all together so it doesn't matter whether it's ten big pieces or twenty pieces or thirty pieces they'll still

get all those pieces and hook them up into one coherent collection of data so the idea of breaking up these companies is a distraction from what we really need to do which is required a systems to be designed so that the data doesn't get collected in the first place . so the european union right now is finalizing the article thirteen of the copyright directives that a black has also shown media and publishing platforms to install automated filters to scan our posts prior publication these automated block your postes if they decide that you used a copyright media music or an image are this filter is equal to censorship in some way. well a stencil believe those order made it copyright censors are only about copying now i think that's an injustice by itself people copying and sharing is good and people

should be free lawfully to share copies of any published work now not your personal data which is secret that's a different issue entirely but once something is published it's not a secret and we should all be free to share it on the internet so that law is not only harmful it's its purpose is unjust but it's also going to serve the purpose of censorship now we know this from youtube we've seen cases where somebody posted say a political message and somebody who doesn't like it claims it's copyright infringement but this claim is a law i those false claims occur quite common commonly and they serve to censor the material that the lawyer wants to censor and after ten days if the poster appeals that it can go back up but censoring somebody for ten days through a cheap law i is very effective against political discussion and then there are the

errors in the filters to you tube has been known to say about pieces of white noise but it's a copyright infringement of somebody else's different white noise or something or other it automatically gets things wrong and if google hasn't been able to do it right nobody's going to be able to do it right so the e.u. is moving on to mentally that was wrong because it's because what fundamentally that law is wrong because it's purpose is wrong and because sharing is good ok so let me ask you if the e.u. is moving towards with another measure or it's a link tax proposing that users pay for sharing links to the news articles published online considering that news mostly travel through social media these days how is it going to change the way we get information about what's happening around us. well what i understand is that large companies would be required to pay

for posting links i don't have much i don't have a strong opinion about that i'm not sure whether it's good or bad i don't think it's as dangerous as the mandatory copyright filters. zuckerberg that would make this think it's a big bad thing it's a big thing for people to depend on social media platforms to get their news i know right now the regulations that exist on the internet globally do not satisfy the needs of one or other countries cultural codes so it's country is trying to regulate internet inside it in some way or another or even sicker beric lately in the article that we mentioned has said that governments should be involved in regulating their internets more president emanuel mccrone last year came out and

said i want to do something to regulate internet in france i don't like what america is doing i don't like what china is doing i don't like what russia is doing but i'm going to do my own thing so everyone is trying to regulate internet inside their countries do you think it's a good thing should there be government regulation on internet most of those countries are trying to block dissent so as not to have anything that resembles democracy not necessarily. french is exactly the most democratic country on earth right now so no not necessarily i wouldn't agree no no i wouldn't agree it's pretty clear that it. also is thinking about laws that would enable what would authorize blocking dissent and a lot of kinds of dissent are illegal in france. somebody mocks president sarkozy once by repeating an insult that sounds cozy and said to a member of the. and this person was put on trial when just barely escaped being

jailed for it there's actually a lot of censorship in france and probably even more in britain. so i am just as scared of government regulation as i am of some of the terrorist movies terrorist movements you know whether it's islam is stored nazi or. they're all dangerous but we've got to avoid leaving ourselves open to repression in our rush to defeat a lesser danger if mask is developing his projects of a satellite narrow network that would provide the whole planet with free internet access are you afraid there's going to be there there's going to be a catch i mean nothing is really free will we have to pay for this. data perhaps when i use the word free when i use the word free it refers to freedom ick and much

less concerned with whether something is gratis or not. i'm worried that if we all got our internet connection through the same system that it would send survey it would spy would restrict us in various ways and we'd have no choice no way to protect ourselves from that by going in some other way you're so critical of the internet of things and the stakes so you call it smart home tack however has it's generally in virtues for example and it could be easier for people with disabilities to control their house through an app how do we get to the point were people can reap the benefits of such have without having to pay for their privacy. wait a second the internet of sting's is made up of devices that spy on everything

you do with them and they do this by communicating with the owner through the server of the manufacturer and that means all the commands are recorded by the manufacturer and all the responses all the reports are watched by the manufacturer this is a design for total surveillance no i wouldn't allow such a device in my house i regard it is a spy on the other hand we could have computerized devices that provide the same benefits but are designed not to spy on people it's actually not hard to do that but that's not what companies want they want to collect data so they use the design that enables them to collect everything there's even a sex toy that talks on the internet and you can let someone else send it commands for what to do which might be nice except that those commands all pass through the manufacturers server so that manufacturer knows what the toy is doing and

probably knows who is sending it commands you probably don't want the manufacturer to know that well if that device were designed the right way it would talk to your computer and you could allow someone else to communicate with your computer and put it in your computer would pass the commands on to the toy and then you get the same benefit but it wouldn't be designed to spy on your advocate all think secure and trust or they pay with cash phones encrypt your traffic but even if i go independent and set up my own encrypt at satellite uplink i will still have watch spy a whole lot of special services wondering what on earth i'm up to not to mention how much it would. i doubt it oh yes trust me so why is that there with all the new and snoozer yet tell me because it's just so inconvenient of all independence

did you exaggerate it i don't have my own satellite uplink that must cost a million dollars and you have to get permission to use it but you don't need anything like that you just need to communicate through tour but my point is that it's actually a nice on all of this independence so inconvenient in today's world so inconvenient i mean here is not that is a first reading your own ecosystem not using a credit card is inconvenient. not using a credit card is sometimes inconvenient but i value my freedom and when it comes to the choice it's very clear to me that i don't want to sacrifice my freedom for a little convenience and after all why do we have any freedom at all it's because in the past there were people who were willing to make sacrifices for it we are all subject to could commercial public relations trying to teach us that convenience is

what we need more than anything else if we want freedom we have to learn to disagree with that commercial public relations. now when i don't carry a portable phone it's inconvenient sometimes but i don't want people to track me everywhere i go that's stalin's dream. all right thank you so much for this interview once again richard it's a pleasure talking to you as usual good luck with everything we're talking to richard stallman this founder and leader a free software movement discussing why there are only line cried mrs burrage for good in today's tech based world and what can be done about it well that's it for this edition of sophie and call see you next time.

just for the. customers go buy yourself a. good now well reduce a lot of. that's undercutting but what's good for market is bucket for the global economy. when almost choked seems wrong why don't we all just don't all. get to shape out just being educated and in the game equals betrayal. when so many find themselves worlds apart if we choose to look

for common ground. best's drugs were at her cocaine as were four bucks for dia under thirty to everybody use cocaine crack cocaine you can smoke it this is worth like fifteen thirty. twenty. score came to this is about a fifteen dollar bet and people smoke this one bigger second sweetie you can find these drugs in any city in the united states that you walk along as you want to get it about to. make money. and that's what i did every day.

after the previous stage of my career was over everyone wondered what i was going to do next the ball different clubs on one hand it is logical to sit in a home field where everything is familiar on the other i wanted a new challenge and the fresh perspective i'm used to surprising people and i saw one on t.v. . i'm going to talk about football not feet or else you can think i was going to do. by the way ways of that slide here. a little bit longer the list of. all. people on the home of the homeless is about there's no.

come up there's nothing. decided we look at the. dog. as a. human rights. denied entry to the us. experience. and you claim.