My talk on the Internet of Things, wealth disparity, surveillance, evidence-based policy and the future of the world

Download
MP3 (108 MB)

Published
January 16, 2015

Website
craphound.com, Mindenki Joga Radio Show (Facebook)

About
«Here’s the audio from last night’s talk on the Internet of Things at Central European University in Budapest! It was recorded by the Mindenki Joga Radio Show.»

Please help with
Feel free to help out with any of this on the transcript bellow: Thank you!
 * Proofread the machine transcription
 * Add paragraphs to make it easier to read
 * Add sub-headings to make it easier to read
 * Add timestamps at the start of each paragraph to make it easier to use
 * Check for typos and errors
 * Fix tagged issues
 * Add explanatory links to things that not everyone might understand
 * Add more tags

Transcript
[Introductory niceties]

[00:51] We live today in a world made of computers. We put our bodies into computers.

[00:58] A modern house, and a modern office building especially, is a computer that our body cohabitates. When you remove the computers from modern buildings, buildings that are a hybrid of insulation and automation, they cease to be habitable almost immediately, and in Florida, when they turned the computers off in the sub-prime houses that where foreclosed on after the crisis in 2008, what they discovered is that by turning the computers off for an appreciable length of time the amount of mold and decay that sets in made those houses permanently inhabitable. They had to scrape into the ground and start over again. In an important sense, the most significant thing about those houses is that they are giant case mods that we happen to live in.

[01:43] Cars are computers. Not self-driving cars, but contemporary, modern cars. Every year on conferences like Defcon or CCC we see people stand up and demonstrate attacks on car informatics using things like their Bluetooth unlocking interface to take control of the brakes or the steering. The most salient fact about your car is its informatics, not its engine.

[02:07] A plane is a computer. Boeing 747 is a very fancy flying Sun Solaris workstation in a really, really expensive aluminum case connected to extremely badly secured and tragic SCADA controllers.

[02:24] And not only do we keep our bodies inside of computers, increasingly we put computers inside of our bodies. Many of you will know someone who has a pacemaker or an implanted defibrilator, but even more than that; if you're like me and you grew up with a Walkman, or if you're a little younger and you grew up with mp3-players, you will log enough punishing earbud-hours that, should you live long enough and not be killed by a self-driving car, you will some day get a hearing aid, and that hearing aid is vanishingly unlikely to be an analogue, retro, transistorized, beige, plastic hearing aid. It will be a computer that you put in your body. And depending on how that computer is configured it will know what you hear, it may tell other people what you hear, it may stop you from hearing things that are there, and it may make you hear things that aren't there, with or without your consent.

[03:14] I mentioned implanted defibrillators before. Implanted defibrillators are wonderful technology. If you know someone who would die because their heart is no longer able to sustain its rhythm – today they can go to their doctor and she will cut them open, spread their ribs and attach a computer with a battery to their heart. And it will listen to their heartbeat and if their heart stops beating it will shock them back to life like defibrillator paddles. This is amazing stuff. And of course doctors want to read the telemetry off of them, what they're doing, they want to update the firmware, add new features. And computers that are in your chest cavity are inconvenient to attach USB cables to, so they have wireless interfaces. And a few years ago a researcher, now deceased, named Barnaby Jack, gave a presentation on how from 30 feet away he could compromise the wireless interfaces in implanted defibrillators and cause them to seek out other implanted defibrillators and take them over and then at preset dates administer lethal shocks to all their wearers. When Dick Cheney had his defibrillator implanted he had the wireless interface turned off.

[04:21] I'm a very frequent flier – I'm changing the climate, ask me how – and I know that the first rule of the road warrior is ABC: Always Be Charging, because your laptop is your lifeline to the world. And so whenever I go into a new room I automatically scan the baseboards for plugs. And I was in an airport lounge and feeling very smug about having seized the only plug in the room to charge my laptop, and a man walked up to me and very cheekily asked me if he could use my plug. And I looked over my glasses at him and said, "I'm charging my laptop before the flight," and he rolled up his trouser leg and he showed me the robotic prosthesis that was attached to his leg from the knee down and he said "I need to charge my leg before the flight", and I said, "it's all yours."

[05:07] So we live in a world made up of computers, where our bodies are inside of computers and where computers are inside of our bodies. And computers pose new regulatory challenges that are, in some ways, without precedent in the history of technology regulation. And because computers have become so intrinsic to our condition, our answers to these regulatory questions are some of the most significant questions we have in policy circles today. Now, historically, when a technology was involved with a social problem, we solved that problem with a technology mandate. So, for example, radios do a lot of useful social things – they bind us together as a community through radio broadcast, they allow for efficient emergency services dispatch, they are critical to air traffic control – and radio is a very fragile technology. Depending on how a radio emitter and a radio receiver are built, they will or won't work, and they can interfere with each other in ways that are quite dreadful and which can render whole classes of devices over very large areas completely unusable. Indeed, the first radio transmitters were things called spark gap generators, which, if you where to operate one today would effectively render all the radios around you unusable for so long as you insisted on using your big, dumb spark gap generator.

[06:27] Now, the way that we solved that problem was with a mandate. We have, in virtually every country in the world, a radio regulator, and if you are going to make a device for sale in a country or for import to that country, you are required to give a prototype of that device to a regulator who will inspect it and decide whether or not that radio is designed well to only emit in the bands which it is supposed to emit in and won't interfere with other radio equipment. And although, with a lot of effort, someone who is skilled as an electronics engineer could re-engineer that radio, could turn a baby monitor into an air traffic control device, that person could also do it just from scratch with parts. And the likelihood that someone would accidentally turn their baby monitor into an air traffic control device is extremely low. But today our regulatory model for radios has fallen apart, because modern radios are software defined radios. Instead of having a crystal – a quartz crystal who's resonant frequency, whose vibrational frequency determines how that radio emits – today we have an oscillator and a signal processing algorithm and an analog to digital converter/digital to analog converter that determines the characteristics of the radio depending on what software is used in conjunction with them. Which means that by loading new code into your baby monitor your really can make it into an air traffic control device. So this is an enormous regulatory challenge which you don't really have any answers for. It doesn't really work with computers this idea saying before the computer leaves the factory you have to decide what kind of instructions it will interpret and which ones it wont, and that way we'll solve our social problem.

[08:21] And to explain why, I have to delve into some computer science fundamentals, and particularly into the idea of Turing completeness. Now before the Second World War if you wanted to electronically compute something important you built a calculator to compute just that thing. So if you wanted to tabulate elections you built an election tabulating machine. If you wanted to calculate ballistics tables you built a ballistic table calculating machine. And so the war changed all that. During WWII Bletchley Park in the United Kingdom – a great collection of mathematicians and early computer scientists led by Alan Turing and particularly assisted by Polish mathematicians in exile – worked together to create what we think of as the modern computer. And that work was critically augmented by what they called "The Hungarians"; John von Neumann and his colleagues who went to the Princeton institute and worked on the early computer architecture in Princeton. And together they designed this computer, this architecture, this revolutionary architecture for computing that we call the Von Neumann machine that is Turing complete. And a Turing complete Von Neumann machine is a computer that can execute all the instructions that we can express in symbolic logic. Any program that is valid can run on any Turing-machine, and every computer that you've used in your life, almost certainly, was a Turing complete machine. What that means is that the programs that you're running on computers today, that are tens of millions of times more powerful than the computers that Turing built and Von Neumann built, would run on those computers. Now they would run very slowly on those computers, they might take more time than we have left before the universe collapses to run, but they would run.

[10:10] Now Turing completeness is amazing, because it means that instead of designing a new machine every time we need to do a new thing, a new calculation, we just load new code onto it. And Turing completeness, once we discovered it, we hardly seem to be able to get away from it. It seems to be almost latent in the structure of the universe. You may know a collectible card game called Magic: The Gathering. Magic: The Gathering, given a large enough deck and the right rule set is a Turing complete computer, and you can compute anything you can compute on a laptop with a very large Magic: The Gathering deck. And when I say very large I do mean a deck that might stretch to the sun and beyond, but with a large enough deck and enough time you can compute anything on any Turing complete machine.

[10:56] Indeed we try now to build machines that aren't Turing complete, and we usually fail. So why would we want to build a Turing incomplete machine? Well, say you just designed a new social media platform, and on your social media platform everyone gets a page, and on those pages they all get a glittery unicorn on the top of the page. They get a GIF at the top of the page that glitters and animates. An you want to let them have the awesome self expression power choosing how the unicorn looks. So you write a toy scripting language that lets the unicorn do 3 or 4 really simple things, and you think that's safe. And then, inevitably, at a conference like CCC or Blackhat or Defcon some programmer stands up and says I took the 2 or 3 instructions that you included and figured out how to build a full Turing complete instruction set out of your toy unicorn animation language, and I wrote a virus of them. So this means that computers can't be appliances the way we think of computers as appliances. When you say, oh I've sold you a router and all it is is a router and it will never be a rendering station or a car informatics system, what we mean is it will be dumb and weird to use it as a rendering system or a car informatics. What we don't mean is that it's technically challenging or impossible to use it as that.

[12:24] But firms are under extreme pressure today to tether their devices to ecosystems that they control. They look at Apples 10 billion dollar 2013 App Store revenue, and they say wouldn't it be great if we could design computers that would only run the code that came from our store, and not the code that came from other peoples stores?

[12:46] The investors that they court, they speak glowingly of business that have what they call "moats" and "walls", where there is some cost that the customer would have to pay to change their loyalties, so that if you stop being a user of one ecosystem and start being a customer of another you find yourself having to throw away all of your gear and buy all new stuff, because it's been designed not to interoperate. [some fumbling with words] That's a "wall". And then they a business with a "moat" and that's a business where it would cost another company a lot of money to come in and compete with you. And so they want to design devices and computers that only talk to the ones that are blessed by them.

[13:28] Now historically there has been a kind of economical equilibrium between "moats" and the rents that they allow the firms that create them to extract. If your customers have to spend 1000 USD to replace their printers to get one that uses cheaper ink, then you can charge them 1000 USD over the life the of the printer, and on average they will stick with your printer and not throw it away and buy one that gets cheaper ink. Hand waving aside [DU] questions about net present value and so on. But generally if your printer costs a lot more than 1000 USD in extra value you would expect your customers to maybe defect to a printer that was 1000 USD cheaper and throw away their brand new printer to get another one rather than buy all of your extremely expensive ink.

[14:18] So that's normally the limit on how much rent you can extract from your moat. It's what your competitor can come in and offer your customers that would make it a good deal not to buy your very expensive consumable or participate in your very expensive ecosystem. Generally, if you try to get your customers off your rivals products, they will just a lot[?] themselves, thanks to the miracle of the Turing complete of the von Neumann[?] architecture. They will just – if you have a program that checks to make sure that all the software running a phone is blessed by Apple, someone will make a program that makes sure that that first program doesn't run, right? And then they can buy their software from anyone, and that's the end of it.

Basics of cryptography
[15:05] Now to understand how that works and why that works, and particularly why that doesn't work we have to talk about cryptography for a moment, as well as computer science foundations. And again we go back to Allan Turing here and the work he did on cryptography. When you talk to cryptographers about how crypto works they tend to use examples involving three people: Alice, Bob and Carol – Although today we might say Alice, Bob and Clapper[?]. And Alice and Bob are two friends who trust each other and want to send each other messages, and Carol is their enemy, and Carol wants to read their messages. And cryptographers try to figure out how Alice and Bob can talk to each other without Carol getting in the middle of things. And cryptographers start from certain assumptions. They assume that Carol knows that Alice and Bob is sending each other a message. Because Alice and Bob are probably sending that message over a medium that are a bit noisy, like a radio, where everyone inside the radios transmission zone can see that the message is going by, or maybe by satellite, where it blankets a whole continent, or maybe they're using a public switched internet or a phone. In all of those cases we assume that the adversary, Carol, knows that the message exists, and we actually assume that she can get the message, that she can receive it in transit. Because if you know it exists, if it's coming from a satellite, if it's being blanketed over a whole continent, then it's not hard for Carol to get a copy of that message. So Carol has the scrambled message. Alice and Bob also assume that Carol knows how they scrambled it.

[16:43] The reason that Carol will know how Alice and Bob scrambled it is because we don't know how to make security systems who's security is provable by any methodology other than by telling other people how they work. Before we had science we had a thing that looked a lot like science, called alchemy. And alchemists where all engaged in similar labor – they wanted to transform base metals into precious ones – and they had a kind of weird game theory kind of outcome. Because if you figured out how to turn lead in to gold and then all the other alchemists got the secret from you, then gold would become worthless, and all of your life's work would become waisted. So alchemists didn't tell each other what they thought that they'd learned. And human beings have a bottomless capacity for self deception, which is very hard to check when you don't tell anyone else what you think you know. And as a consequence[?] alchemists all discovered for themselves in the hardest way possible that drinking mercury was a very bad idea. So alchemy stalled them. We didn't get any kind of advance on the alchemical project, until alchemists started publishing. And we call the period before they started publishing "the dark ages" and we call the period when they started publishing "the enlightenment". And like every other discipline[?] of the enlightenment the only way to know security works is peer review. There is no security in obscurity for the same reason there is no physics in obscurity. If you don't tell other people what you think you know, you're probably kidding yourself. So Alice and Bob, having learned the lessons of Allan Turings adversaries, who had secret ciphers that Alan Turing broke along the [DU] and the Hungarians and continued to send messages in these broken ciphers and got all their u-boats sunk. Having learned that lesson, they told everyone they could find how their cipher worked, so that all the dumb mistakes they make can be corrected. Because anyone can design a security system that works against people stupider than them, and they want to make one that works on people smarter than them. So Carol knows what Alice and Bob have done [which is?] to scramble the message. Carol has the message. So how is Alice and Bob to retain their secrecy? Well, Alice and Bob have a key, and when they run the message trough the algorithm with the key it gets scrambled in a way that can't be descrambled unless you also have the key. The maths of the crypto are strong and good and have withstood peer scrutiny, and we believe they work. We believe in a really foundational way that they work, and that means that you can give Carol the message, and so long as you never give her the key, it doesn't matter.

Stopping someone from using their own device as they want – Crypto applied to software
So how does it work when you try to stop someone from running software that they want on a device that they own in this crypto model? I want you to be able to play DVDs, but I don't want you to be able to rip DVDs. Right, I just want you to play them in the optical drive in your computer. Or I want you to be able to download Netflix and watch it once but not save it to watch later. How do we make that work? Well, we give you a player – we give you the Netflix player or the DVD player – and that player has an algorithm, it's a good algorithm, you know it's one that is published widely and is understood, and that player has the scrambled movie, that's what Netflix sent you or that you brought home from the store on a DVD, and that player has the key. And so long as you never find out what the key is, you have designed a piece of software that decodes the DVD, right?

Well, you may have spotted the problem with this. Because you are Carol, but you're also Alice. Bob has sent you the key because you're Alice, you're supposed to read the message, but Bob hopes that you don't have the key, because you're Carol and you're not supposed to be able to read the message unless you're doing it in a way that Bob says so. And anybody in the world can be Alice. All you need to do to be an Alice is to get a Netflix subscription, buy a DVD-player. Bored lab-students with the weekend off and electron tunneling microscopes are Alice. And we have hidden the key in a piece of equipment that we let Alice take home with her and we hope that she'll never figure out where we hid it. This doesn't work for the same reason that we don't keep even really good bank safes in bank robbers living rooms. Because if you have it on your equipment, on your premises, it won't work. So why do we still

[-21:32]

Machine transcription – Start helping here
'''The following is a machine transcription. Please help out with fixing errors and adding paragraphs, subheadings and time stamps to make it easier to read and use! To do this download the audio file from the top of this page and listen to it while you edit this page. Do as much or little as you like, then please move the heading and this message to the place where you drop off. Thank you!'''

So why do we still have it. How does it work that how is it how is it that we have conflicts that we have i Tunes that we have i Phones and so on. Well we swallow spiders to catch that fly. There is a miniature global treaties that begin not humanity's it to be human with both treaties that C.T. and the U.D.T. and then turned into a global longer actives like the two thousand and one seat of the American D.N.C. It usually incog. Interactive nine hundred ninety a carrot is recent Bill C. eleven all those it was endeavor to protect this weird. Alice dog. Carol business and all these walled gardens in the need for preventing privacy. They make it a felony to release a tool that circumvents effective means of access control that is if you do anything that assists people in doing things that manufacture manufacture is prohibited you commit a felony. Now it doesn't actually stop people from creating software. To operate their devices they still do not but the fact that they can't do that in a way that is open in a way that allows them to raise capital and market products and put on birds on the size of buses means that the industry that uses these digital arts can still maintain source of secondary income from them for themselves by depriving users of features that the law would allow but that. They're not all an attack because they have to bridge the digital art to get there. So a good example this is C.D.'s and D.V.D.'s. If you buy a CD and you bring it home and you own a fruit flavor laptop Apple will give you a free program to slow it is really minutes but call. I Tunes and it will do something totally illegal. It will require CD and it'll stick at reading your article. You know if you own a D.V.D. which is read the same drive and is made in the same factory and can be very honest with your column i Tunes It would be in Fanny to give you a copy of a program that would let you rivet your computer and stick it on your i Phone instead you're supposed to buy name that D.V.D. again as a download from your store and so for companies that would like to sell you something you already own a provisional Bridie digital loss. Is a great way to make more money right. It is there is a way to take the surplus value to maintain your property and take it in for themselves so you cannot imagine that if you have a thousand dollars worth of season thousand dollars worth of D.V.D.'s and one hundred eighty six that to date is the bodies can only do what they can do when you bought them you can just even just wash them which is amazing when you think of the technology or new features been added since ninety and he said that that's a shocking thing to write on but C.D.'s because you can rip them. There are alarmed tones and ring tones you can mash them up and often stream them and get your friends and you can put in the background music in your You Tube videos and do million things all that lady value that used to be in your in your CD is now a bit of a leash because there's no prohibition on getting you into all that allows you to do legal things with your C.D.'s the model the digital OSS enable you can be because the euro tract infection isn't small so this eat all of our YOU flows are kind of healthy guy with a D.V.D. the valley becomes a painful riddle right every time you want to do something middle of the D.V.D. you have to go by happy right. Again. And so on this is a very very attractive proposition to industry and to investors right they really like this I had dinner recently the friend of mine who is an analyst for an easy firm that invests in Western companies during her service in China and they said we're only investing in companies that have an ecosystem. Or there's a summary go system that ties the harbor into a sea of services. And that suite of services will never be competed way up because by industry by by through investment capital because it's awful to do that. But it's not enough to make it a crime to manufacture. That allow users to childred their devices because individual users might figure out how to get their get around this all on their own or are already might get nonprofit software into these that have different risk row files and different victory conditions like deal seems based here in Hungary that circumvent and don't charge anything for it. End because of course as I said anyone can become outside buying your products and scrutinizing it. Closely. So these laws don't just prohibit firmus from releasing interoperable products they criminalize disclosing information that might help you break a digital watch. They just they make it a crime to tell you about flaws in the digital Are they can be used to walk it because that's what individuals need in order to make their own players is going to feel see were lost on in order to make their own players. Now that turns the defects in devices that are covered by these any circumvention statutes into your reservoirs of long lived vulnerabilities and those long modeler abilities threaten our own lives because bugs in software are just used to jailbreak funs your phone is a supercomputer in your pocket that knows everything about you knows who your friends are and what you talked about in everywhere you go and how long interior bank account. It has a camera and you take it with human to the toilet and into that room and it has a microphone that's on potentially while you discuss sensitive things with people around you in the room. It knows what you're a doctor or even a few to knows what you said to your lawyer and so the vulnerability in your phone doesn't just let you rate our bills software or ecosystem it also opens you up enormous writs. An Internet of Things worlds is a world where you are potentially under continuous. It's if you think about what a voice activated system means it means a system where you are never at range of a microphone. Well just your activated system means a system where you remember a range of a camera and Mauer authors the people who attack us there are computers rely on the same vulnerabilities that are trying to report where any piracy laws they rely on them to figure out how to subvert devices security models. So as you pass through spies and any limit on vulnerability disclosure increases the length of time and the owner ability is like the field before manufacture before manufacturer can issue a cash for it. And so if you think about what this means for a future of devices that you don't know about that you're not allowed to know the vulnerabilities in and then are ever more intimately woven into your life and where people who discover critical flaws face jail time as the Russian programmer given you're still here a face when he revealed flaws in Adobe's e-book reader in the F.B.I. put him in jail in America. It means that our devices become not on servants but potential traitors in every way and so today we're already seeing the first steps of that so they can be your model protests in him. And bait the old regime was extremely hostile to the uprising in Iran and they did what they could to our compromise in time the people who came in including investigating and threatening their families trying to assemble dossiers on. Who was sympathetic to the movement and so on in America now there's widespread use of these devices called sting rays and a series of a cell phone tower that briefly pulses all the phones around it and gets them to answer back with something called the Army on. Which is the unique. In fire and your carrier which is liable to a subpoena or just a straight up attack from the state you're here can associate your I.E. Our with your identity. So imagine if any in mocking it rather than having to send secret police and provocateurs around to find out who is throwing Molotov is or beating the drums or doing all the other things. The OP On the other side of the line they did just President bum a gong a mean address of everybody protesting. Square and now forward a couple of years. We now have these new smart meters going and Google just I'm asking you this are your companies smart meters or super cool technology. If you would like me are worried about coal power power and planet. One of these one of the promises of the smart meter is it. It's going to allow us to minimize our reliance on cool because right now turn off coal generators when the power grid hits people. And so that's going to throw coal. But the alternative to turning on coal and power and his peak load which is turning on everyone's thermostat degree and we don't have strong coal mines that's great but you can imagine that people replying to systems with think I'm Ferrari if we're going to turn down people's thermostats by one degree. We don't want the ongoing over and turning it back up again we need to design those the missed outs. So that they're not under user control bunker under remote control so that the user is treated as an adversary and not the owner of the device and not in most cases people don't get their response their own power company especially nice normal snow imagine that the next mine is in minutes and everyone's got smart meters and Lucian Co turns on seeing rain because otherwise that dress and presses a button and turns off everyone's Heat who showed up for. Demonstration in minutes. Read the power of a state to answer sized who was a force over the citizenry in a world in which we are treated as adversaries the devices that are written inside of and there inside her body is her. Erica the last of the suckers hothouse industry sent the finance industry searching for mean things to securitize new loans to securitize and the latest securitization mania is for cars they started offering sub prime loans to to people who are aren't good credit wrists to buy cars and they secure ties it's loans they generate bonds based on them and the way that they maintain the value of those bonds which is contingent on car payments be made is by fitting the cars with the networks. Remote control location sensitive ignition override. And if you don't make your payments your calls are and if you have a condition on your lease that says you can drive to a certain region. And you drive another region your car on Sturt we've already seen the negative consequences of this there is in the New York Times an account of the woman who I had a lease that specified she wouldn't take her car out of her county line over county line and she took her children on a trip to the woods just orange county lines outside a mobile phone reception and she turned car off and then Martin was going walk back to the car and the currents are they had a mobile phone reception because they're on the wrong side of the county line. Their car me they needed to speed insurance company car violence company to restart their car with a matter of how that will work when it's not accidental deliberate they resist seem very large nothing in that but. Congress was willing to give your team an industry. Statute that says it's a felony to show someone how to listen to music or another group devise what will Congress make of that youtube videos that are already there playing how to remove their overwrite from your car. There you go to Congress and say why can't we have a law that says it's illegal to show someone how to steal a car if it's illegal shows them how to listen to music the wrong way and so we can expect in this doctrine we'll have enormous pressure to expand. And we're against is anyone's guess but I saw presentation a few years ago from Hugh Herr who is the head with nineteen yards percent it's an artery. And here it is amazing presentation he has a slide switch. I'm in office I can use slides and he shows all the slides of these amazing things that his life has gone and then the last slide is a picture of him and he's clinging to a rock. Mark in Texas and he's rock climbing and he has no lives. He has Person X. and he's a walking up and down stage this whole time to go out and he saluted mansion he rolls his hands lights up. And he's lost with his legs across. He's brought from the down and he bit and then sort of jump it up in a state like a mountain goat. It is the coolest down a line ever seen and the first question anyone asked was how much of those legs eating your prize that like you could buy a brownstone will resign for your house and care for him and then the next question was who can afford those likes reason why any one right if it's a forty year mortgage on a house or a city or working John like you're going to take the lands. Well we already have seen it in sub prime mortgage what repossession looks like right. What does reposition look like when it's your legs. Now worryingly. The world security services have hit on a strategy for cybersecurity capability of. All of us all of us and on no defense this no revelations included the news that G C H Q And the N.S.A. collaborate on programs that are depending on which side you hear on call Bull Run or Edgehill which cost two hundred fifty million dollars a year they're devoted to deliberately introducing vulnerabilities into your vices. So that they can be used to attack their adversaries. Including subverting standards like the National Institute For stands in technologies cryptography room never to marry a girl tickle her around her generator which is a shocking turn of affairs. It's like discovering that the security services have been secretly mixing sand into all the concrete so they can make buildings fall them things to read. Not your Billy remember is just as uninhabitable with those ninety as it is with minute structural supports So in addition to the US. Many of the world's governments have started buying over beliefs from security researchers historically security researchers who discovered all their deliveries disclose them to the manufacturers in fact they force the manufacturers to responsibly used to be you would go to Microsoft and say I found a Google bug in Windows and they said oh it will never read and you go back but six months later you say Who does this sap and they go off. We're busy and now what carriers here is bigger Microsoft and they say we've got a bug in your software we've got a paper accepted by reconnaissance next month you better fix it before then it's up there's another thing you can do for your building which is you can sell it to the spies and they will weaponize it and they will use it to attack us and if this spot a case of vulnerability that they're using to attack their enemies that vulnerability is also there to be discovered by criminals and what are yours and other black eyes who can come and use them to attack us on this week. Cameron David Cameron the Tory prime minister speaking of where I live. As you can tell our oxen he said we should have no means of communication that we cannot read. Beyond the New York attorney general has gone on record saying they would might mandates for back doors on phones. That you put this conversion ship encrypted protocols to talk to others but as you saw housing volume Carol. If your computer has a program that is an insecure rented it has a back door. The only way for that backdoor to subsist once you know it's there is for it to be impossible for you were installed a better program on your computer when the F.B.I. says we don't want you wants a backdoor in the operating system of your phone. Well they mean it is we don't want you to be able to change the operating system of your phone that is absolutely necessary as a precondition for you to go for them to be able to backdoor your phone and as we saw a golf ball Carol. And it is a long copyright act. The only way to preserve that is to make a film for you to have a vulnerabilities that would allow you to install a better software on your phone so even if you trust the secret police in your country. What it means is that the vulnerabilities in your phone are going to take much longer for you know. And you may be compromised links it Cassidy Wolf. Former Miss Teen USA who last year had someone stole drive by me or on her phone that she used to hijack or camera and keyboard to incidental new photos of her she'd want around her room and then demanded by e-mail line Sasha's from her eye in front of the camera that he now taking control of or he would use the social media counselors he harvested to put those nude photos all over the Internet and call the F.B.I. who arrested him family get over him forty victims around the world including my own children the E.U. That's what it means to not know there's a. Door of vulnerability lurking in your device. Now this is not a shotty. All of them are all does exist and that state of constant surveillance of the Snowden revelations which encompassed full catcher is a major Internet front lines master stated data from enormous online services like Google and Facebook and the deliberate introduction of flaws into operating systems and devices shocked many of us in Europe especially in the former Soviet states. We need to draw comparisons to the surveillance habits of the stall and security agencies like the Shah's eighty but I couldn't really look at the figures show that this is a remarkably attempt to Paris and at its peak at nine hundred eighty nine the shonky operated in a largely pretty Internet pretty computer era and really how her job at spying on people and ninety nine there were about sixty million people in the G.D.R. and there were two hundred ninety four thousand operators at one point or another. Pish doggie It will be one hundred seventy three hundred seventy three thousand on visual informants snitches. And today there are it's hard to know how big the N.S.A. is but there are four million Americans with a sort of security clearance one point four million of them will tell security clearance and about seven billion people on earth. And the U.S. intelligence services along with the Five Eyes allies in the U.K. Zealand Australia and Canada. And the wider circle of trust that states in the E.U. with much smaller security services that the U.S. just rounding error against the U.S. numbers may just spawn practically all seven billion human beings on earth. If we assume that every American with any kind of clearance is actually different from the N.S.A. then there is a ratio of one stood for every four hundred people. If we assume that we'll deal with a top secret clearance which again would be a very large degree center and say operators is running innocent as a racial once that every vote counts and people are under surveillance there by contrast the shot was he needed one stood for every sixty people. Right they did it retail it was Article surveillance since ninety ninety three prior to me getting their I.C.T. and given the size of us who are going to direct in their surveillance capability the Shah used an army to surveil a mission the N.S.A. uses of its kind as your real complaint. Not in the USA surveillance is a kind of extreme aberration. Because of the sheer number of people their kids under surveillance but we get another explanation for how they use a God or maybe they only modestly increase the resources and staff in their surveillance project but because in my eyes and he's incredible gives to surveillance roughly the same amount of effort gets them as you map. Deodorant a documentary expansion incapacity indeed this is going to be a global war of the most fastest growing U.S. surveillance apparatus has only grown four fold and most of them grown up or mostly man but a living increase their surveillance capacity. By more than a hundred fold me a relatively small investment. Since the recall work will brings us to a kind of existential question which is why bother spying at all or your respect state spot is part of a wired program maintain social stability. They worry that either internal or external forces will compromise the status quo which will destabilize the state and Major those for whom the state's views and get the people who think the state serves them well for example at the time of the Stasi the leaders of those sunk the the Soviet states believed correctly that the US and NATO wanted to overturn not just their governments but their very system of governance. They believe also correctly that there were people within their borders who share this goal and the same courses through larger states today. You know up as modest as the Kim family are not very nice people they are paranoid when they imagine that there's lots of people in North Korea who want to get rid of them run in a few years ago Syria was a really good example. This prior to the civil war. Although people the country moved the enormous poverty the Assad family enjoyed fact spectacular and widely publicized material Well they ran a huge i Tunes bills they bought your clothes off of Paris runways to shop Chelsea for handmade furniture. They spent thousands circumventing this is true thousands circumventing economic sanctions on the regime to import legal copies of the last report movie. And this is also true in the end sense. There are plenty of people who object not just to the current US government but to America's system of governance. There are domestic terrorists in America there are populist movement in America there are anti there are tarrying movements like Occupy America and of course there are jobless in America and they are all point to a state whose best service members have reason to fear the prosperity that they receive thanks to the status quo that that prosperity with a danger and death is not wrong to believe that if you would join a lot of wealth that other people object to and they'd like to get rid of that system that your quality of life is threatened by those legal rights. You'll be done singing about the legitimacy of their rings it just said that that's true. Now with social stability come from Generally speaking people who feel well served by state work for its continuance or at least don't work against its continuance. And historically since it is a combination of social programs and welcome home essential goals called good guard labor poor is about gratis at surveillance national armies police jails and so forth to attain social stability. The states that I want social programs don't need to spend as much on her neighborhood think of the Nordic states and states that all are guard labor generally don't do is not redistribution. My brain. And somehow Most states use a mix of guard labor and social programs like Saudi where you have a certain class who get a lot of money from. In the oil fields and you have another virus or not citizens but who are effectively long term residents of multi-generational starters who don't have those rights but they guard labor and the legitimacy created by that larger pool of wealthy people much like the middle class in Western states or even where there's a lot of poverty that rigid is in certain message really. But now we live in an era of and expanding wealth now. There's profound economic inequality both in the western states the four hundred richest Americans will more wealth for the rest of the country combined over three hundred sixty million people and the majority of the richest Americans since of the fortes top ten inherited that well which creates a picture of a kind of static dynastic form of government where the elites are created by birth and not by virtue of the C.D.C. says Well disparities as were the worst in over fifty years and the three richest people on earth how the network that's higher than the forty poorest countries on earth combined. And these extreme welcomes are the source of real social instability. For example real sunk wealth gas and power gas in danger evidence based policy and the also is a system of the best expression that was Lysenkoism where for political reasons. There was one scientist who had the era Stalin wrote Lysenko who rejected our Darwinian selection and who insisted that people could be perfected genetically through behavioral changes so that you could change people while they were alive and those changes would be reflected in their jerseys your image their children this is obviously ideologically very attractive to install this project and so they used it in Week room. You may remember the fans of the songs here are tens of millions of people ten dollars less a hero read if you can't hear it or two if it is this policy is immiscible in your halls of power then your status destabilized because no evidence. Denying Paul Sheehan pretty says about Americans that's my view based policy so modern states whose ruling elites depend on the denial climate change can't have now policies that are grounded in the reality of climate change any more than States his ruling elites are based on extremist religious doctrines that remain demanda regression and women can allow evidence or in policies that permit the impact of industry on public life in American prosperity of excluding fifty two percent of the population from public life and social instability is a threat to extreme Wow Right big your wealth is only as good as the guns surrounding it and the social consensus that you deserve it historically has been a hard limit on wealth inequality the more equal a society is the more people within its borders and around the world question the legitimacy and so the more I'm going to stand on guard later. Eventually it becomes cheaper to just redistribute some wealth then to keep paying for higher and higher walls. We have a new status quo of M I Z T supercharge surveillance status quo believes in the former Soviet bloc you know enjoyed tremendous wealth and privilege during the darkest days of some Stones fans but remember they had two people one spy for every sixty people and or goodly they were under investigation because after all the Stasi didn't go into a wall came down it was about to come down they weren't spying enough to figure out what was about to happen if the Stasi could again solve it to or manage to deficiency must spend Singham our money and get a hundred times more spying and have every snitch could walk five thousand instead of sixty people imagine how much more wealth the inmates could afford in their gushes. You can look at countries like the opium one of the Greek least developed nations in the world which has become a tricky surveillance state although it has virtually no I.C.T. capability domestically. It was able to go on the global. Market and buy and this is a great survey once capability for its ruling elites which just allow those ruling elites to enjoy enormous privilege concentrated almost exclusively in the hands of government and they have weaponized their security your abilities are more of a bottomless security vulnerabilities to attack their dissidents including one American one. Per resident United States who is of Ethiopian origin is an Ethiopian dissident who was attacked in Washington D.C. by an Ethiopian cyber weapon they bought on the open market which they used to sign his gun sessions to find your humans communicating with back and you'll get there he says presently soon the government an American court. The above is very integrated in genders ergotamine bound up with a story my city may believe in states to a certain point self-control at fire sale prices is a key factor in the ability of the wealth gap to spread as wide as accounts. We're in a global arms race between I see these cars spying on Iraq and the appetites of leads to masquerade are virgins placed against my city's power to shield from surveillance and allow effective dialogue about fairness and political change to grow their fear of reprisals and this is profoundly worrying and Internet of a surveillance state will put the spies in your skin and literally inside your bed in your toilet and in your wallet but concluded the conclusion it isn't for a games turns legacy is with us cryptography works in the same way that we find it very hard not to make sure incomplete computers we find it incredibly surprisingly easy to make ciphers that we can't figure out how to break that no one can figure out or break in fact it is the belief of marker Tarver that using the computer in your pocket you can spread the message so they're really that all hydrogen atoms in the universe returned to computers and did nothing from now until the universe ran a marathon by trying to bridge that message that it would never be able to read. Unless you told them with heat. So we have an unprecedented thing I think we're on this earth not just the ability to communicate with one another which is itself a profound change in the polls it but he came up with each other and ensure that only people who choose to share communications with you happen. This is an amazing and astounding thing in a corrupted world. The only sustainable policies must generate economic surplus for the beneficiaries who uses the economic circles to lobby for the continuance of that policy. One of the reasons the Western governments is that spine is conducted through public private partnerships companies like these in elements. Raef extraordinary windfall profits from surveilling on behalf of the N.S.A. which they use to lobby for the expansion of American surveillance every ball garden exists to extract monopoly rents for its proprietors to make printer ink more expensive mention paint him a three D. printer guy or more expensive than Fellaini young and his Amazon Jeff founder Jeff Bezos once said it more is in his more heavy duty moments your margin is my opportunity. The ten million dollars that Apple takes. Apple takes in from the App Store is ten billion dollars that could be taken in by its rivals. If they can operate their own competing on stores and they didn't use that not well to consider too long to continue the policy of allowing people to know how their computers work which is critical because it was already legal to install an approved and transparent code on your devices the states can introduce new modes of Syrians effectively for free they can just quietly visit Apple and tell them that everything still in the OS. In the OS four months from now on how surveillance factors apparently they did with Microsoft and Skype their kernels with Discover those meritoriously are graphic regimes of the world will be able to buy access to those characters on the open market and because it's a filling a job or your i Phone and install the party code those. Arcturus will ensure a walled garden isn't come up to come and always most people can object on corporations and the states are big colonies each other a perverse incentive to make it impossible for users to prevent themselves from being spied upon walled gardens or the pervert for a fuel style wealth disparity. Well gardens on manufacturers to urge early change disable or modify what you can do with your things you need come a content of your I.C.T. not its own or in a walled gardens world property isn't enough only the very powerful. And everyone else gets a license twenty two thousand words that you click I agree to and have never read because you know in your heart that when it senses but being dumb enough to do this you are either were allowed to come over to your house and punch your grandmother and wear your underwear and make long distance calls and you don't know who your fridge. You know and there's no better example of the expansion of this doctrine today in the streaming world where stream of it doesn't require that you not be able to see things it's not as though you would sign up for Netflix download the only free movies ever want to watch and resign and nevertheless they are committed to the idea that if you're streaming things you're not downloading as though there was some kind of difference between streaming and downloading as though there was a wait for a file to be shown on your screen without a free being downloaded to your computer when they mean when they say we are streaming us and not downloading it is we think that your screaming client doesn't say you button and streaming has become so critical this consensus listen ations becomes so critical to the business models of the futile Internet that Netflix the B.B.C. and other large streaming auntie's convince the World Wide Web Consortium which is historically been the staunchest ally we pound for open and free standards in the Internet they invade alone to introduce the already standard feature of browsers to protect streaming media with it and get a very were. Lawrence for the standard. Are the other themselves a secret you have to sign a nondisclosure. To find out what the requirements are for this anger and violating the standard will be a commie as well reporting. Of older abilities in India in this in devices that into the standard and that means that everything that's controlled by a browser will be illegal to know the vulnerabilities and you know the fight here is not about cryptography. It's not about computers. It's not going to the Internet of Things. The real problems that we have today are much greater where the now we have things like climate change and sectarian conflict and vast economic disparity corruption and poverty but all those things as important as they are more broadly than any fighter we have about the Internet all those fights will be fun fought and won't were lost on the Internet so the policy questions raised by the engineer things are the most important questions I know you want me to say about it but they're not the most important questions. The most of the questions all the other policy questions are contingent on how the answer the policy questions arising from the internet or things and whether we believe that the default posture of our devices should be. Yes masters or if people ask me about the optimist or pessimist. And you know I know that's a pretty tough productive question because they are optimistic about the future of our devices and I thought that we had it within us have the political will to make devices that are responsive to their users and treated their users. There are legitimate. Creators of policy over them in his adversary's I would get up every morning you're everything I could for example in Iraq has mistakenly thought that it chances were slim of your going to end up in a kind of horrific or well the any night mirror by way of cock up by way of by way of possibly. Everyone into exactly the same they have and you have are optimistic. So optimism and pessimism are a useful craft and what's more useful Russian is hope and hope is why if your ship sinks in the middle seat incredible are not because you have a very good chance of being picked up because everyone was rescued treading water until someone came and picked them up. And if your should send in the middle seat and you are with people you love people who can create as hers you know with love and same you hold on to them care prices hard and those of us who think about these issues we are surrounded by people our children our parents people around us or non-students these technological issues who are going to be stuck as subject to the outcomes of these fights as we are and I have enough people to do everything I can to try to influence those outcomes and the fact that my majors have to get picked up on how important this is isn't part of despair or politics crisis heart. So a whole thank you and you're taking your questions thank you thank you thank you all or nearly seven below Are you think about is technically a question but not a good one I like to alternate between men and women that my questions already and then because they tend to be a bit of a sausage The answer was yes we can serve here or what can we do about it in addition to making good choices about working technology is not an important one I know it's hard to choose not to use have these or else technologies like Facebook because your friends are all there. And listen to that you can support organizations that are working to improve this feeling from Frontier Foundation for them just going back to work as an international N.G.O.s that works on this Committee to Protect Journalists and use the Internet. General Free Software Foundation and risotto foundation Europe Creative Commons and many other organizations do excellent work in this and they offer many different ways to participate. You can also avail yourself of the best in anti surveillance technology which has never as I said before really works on the reception a project which is at reception at the org has a pack of tools you can use packed Are we setting up the or which will show you how to use how to turn your back windows machine but yes oh yes or Android device into a much more security bias. It will be secure against the security services deciding that you personally should be easy rebels but it will mean that surveilling you will have a brutal cost and that's critical because one of the reasons the security services are able to serialize wildly as they are is that there's no marginal cost for adding a new person to the surveillance and once the prism is in Google's data center. The next few mail user costs nothing and so only by creating an incremental cost of surveillance we force the security services to surveil in a way that reflects what people actual suspicion as opposed to get it will just you know spawn all of Gaza or rather when there are people who are going to fight as Americans are growing. I guess going at it with the team night make it and sort of visual spot but honestly it will get worse than of anything else because they get an interest in the time line and when it actually happens. Then you're buying how is going to be a new thing I mean the thing is in response from parents one of them wants me. Has the European ministers just basically Kong of course of being here and how to pressure on Google thinks there is and I mean it's very opportunistic. Oh yeah sure it happens. However. So I guess my question is still going on around me rightly. Schering in just the Haitian these days. So our minds. I'm not privy to their thoughts but my speculation is that they understand that because they actually had already correctly identified the assailants in that terrorist attack and are under surveillance and had lost track of them but the problem isn't they are casting an outlier. They think they have in fact somewhere in their heart of hearts you know this. I'm also willing to believe that they also understand that as horrific as the crime was that the actual death toll from terrorism is around her and that terrorism is not as a central threat it's up it's up it's OK with that form of Koran. And often terrorists are not hungry for poltroon like me just that leads arise they're just dumb people who kill people and get killed and that they are known existential threat to Western society but that. And so I think that's true. I mean I think that there are I think that they live in the real world and maybe they have double think and some alterations really do I mean I'm willing to believe like there are Texas oil man who are genuine give me the use the walls of the same time tell your geologist to drill for oil where it would be of dinosaurs were real and they're able to her job over those realities in their head it may be that there are people in the halls of power who are able to unwind and say. I know where mortality tables looks like and terrorists are and are a dog Iraq and I know how surveillance works and this doesn't work among the same time we are still feeling of visceral gut level her that doesn't drive but I'm more inclined to believe that they are opportunistic and I know that's a cynical thing to say but I think that they're opportunistic and I think that they're opportunistic and that just like Peter it's seven hundred pages long Peter it was not written in the forty eight hours. After September eleventh but was instead written not because I'm playing in southern Lebanon eleven but because there is a kind of person in power who would like more surveillance and who when they contemplate a disaster on the horizon rather than making contingency plans for how to help their neighbors they write legislation to what to do when their neighbors are scared. And I think that there are people in the halls of power who do this and I don't think that events are related particularly to the response I think that the response that that to the extent of the events related to the response. It's there's a there's a volume of there's a real stat that is about how much surveillance they think they can call for after the event I think the endgame is a lot more surveillance for the reasons that are going to talk because there's a business model over Syria months because there's great social instability this occasion by wealth disparity and policy is created by by it really elites than they are the more wealth disparity there is the more that holds is dictated by ruling elites and even the status quo and they also destabilize it might be so wealthy and so I think that's the underlying cause. The way that we've addressed that in addition to having an evidence great game based good government the way that we get there is might in Park change in the tactical and political realities ground right understanding of what true completeness means means that you hit up the nonsensical nature of the. Call to force devices have back doors becomes more widely apparent the more we understand how safe signal the signal processing language processing algorithms work the more we understand it is a nonsense to say design Google that can find terrorism right in designing your Facebook filter for terrorism read it was one thing that perception is more widespread the political facts of the Bill Hall Tika saying it changes right there. Nobody who reveals about obesity suggests removing gravity is solved. Red but people who have a little bit of terrorism suggest moving tribute is to solve it and we're already entering completeness or on the order of a same level of confidence in terms of the skilled practitioners and there are who study them who believe I'm right but then a sensible major or remove trigger completeness result terrorism is not as apparent the real quality of a response to a terror attack would change in the face of that in the same way that people who are accustomed to using her to secure himself or people they don't trust they trust their governments my voice hearers like for incise like corporate rivals like offshore corporate espionage where all those things that they were about to be said that they don't understand that there's two kinds of crypto crypto other works and good job it doesn't cripple that works doesn't have a back door. Those people will be able will have a different kind of response to a whole Titian you won't look brilliant in principled. And reasonable and taking a middle ground as David Cameron manages to do or I just heard Boris Johnson's The Muppet who runs London on the radio say go back to them well they don't want to abolish privilege just one key to their job and there's only one Peter signs the part of his building there go along he has a hard words. This is not river on the B.B.C. Radio four said globally keyboard. So Jonathan Rees Well it's sad how did this all obesity normal change that we can we will change the poor treatment of students as. Some where their focus is near Oh yeah there is all the other posts here really be have focused on this for them and. So we have the good of the Spirit which is Great Britain its golden core and it has the I don't think my kids are going to get in additional it and he called the number go read something and character in the mirror is so sad the ruler of it is. As I am downloading this say they're happy gods. Beat. I have a good condition or none of that in all. This is a rational system and no matter how good to prosecute good you want to go and braided is huge because I think they're only the eyes that it has got it's made me feel good it doesn't give us one who cares. And who act and the thing about me feel beat up who in their right to speak to him in here because they're sitting idle. There's a big move to sink or yeah yeah I'll. Something to the PSNI you just described the formation of the Pirate Party and some for instance right of political consciousness among people who view what they do is normal or cool has been at the core of every social change movement since early this days. I am not saying when the whole little movement grounded in something that is illegal. Not because I don't think that's a way to get political or get off the ground but I think that its members are and are a first order risk that is not in the in the political confluence of other movements that went. When every member of your movement is a result of criminal good means that doing things that are a lawful like organizing and being a leader can those people can be targeted not for their lawful activities but for their prison to unlawful activities and this creates enormous counterbalances that makes those sorts of political movements very difficult. Not saying that they're hard Portman on a good thing to try but they're but they're very big they're frog in ways other words aren't an example of this is culture in in the US The penalties for culture very strong as you know and in the mid two thousand as there was a young computer science students with more College in Pennsylvania who was maintaining a piece of fried open source software called Flatland as a search engine for research the local networks and indexing files so it does what Google does for ish T.V. file sharing for Windows function and you run it on your campus networking friends will professors Powerpoint tax and all and be free of all lectures. But also music and videos that the students and George are sure what you are just like Google has all the torrents and all the documents right. And it's not illegal to do reviews do it. But the recording industry didn't like it and they wanted to make an example of him so the R.A. went after him and he knew he was faster because he was an American. I'll shoot and see him take it in they said. The last of the other thirty thousand students they targeted. They didn't say your penalty is you give us all your money. They said your penalty is you have to change majors. You can get a computer science degree because we want to send a message to people pursuing your pure science degrees that this kind of research is not good for your health now he bears me took months of plenty of got to we have barest. Jammed into a drug. Plane but it shows you what happens when your result of legal team already before you've done anything political that has your this tremendous risk in fact up parallel might be marijuana legalization and I knew people in the Americas are on legalization movement who stop smoking pot while they were campaigning for one legalization because they understood the good clean hands two different possible game might include people who smoke proper going to the reasons he's there to control our policy or serious conditions they allow those conditions to worsen because they do good or believe they could do their work and so if you wanted to create a who've been around for sure political consciousness I think your first action should be to stop Walsh or at least illegal file sharing not because whatever views I may have a question because tactically it's a self who maybe one more question from someone with a puzzled look at the little bits of books on the journal. How does NOT about the bait and switch and its fundamental hearts and minds see because I love the way you guys through a technical structure as you know there's no such thing as a good back door dropped possible or happy or just again. I don't know that there's not much possibility or internet of things that's based on reality. Our economic models. It is the Middle East. This is mine. That is a big fraction of the risk consumers buy and yes this is me on top of Dan's no sure I needn't disease that is not as parallel in what you're talking about there's a big splash who profits and pays and who gets hangs in that in the end it isn't built into the architecture how these things are being built. I totally agree but the Go get back to why I actually feel like we might win this one is if you assume that I ot companies are offering green ecosystems that are effectively like their fair transfer across again and read your statement on the right expression on my T.V. Go systems. You know use eco jerk here basically lets them read off the people who buy right. Then there is a business model in geography because all of the things that you are being charged to do in those Io T. go systems are things that you could get for yourself for FREE if you can install any code you wanted and the things that they want to charge you to do are things that are on lawful They're just things that are. It's more profitable if you have to pay to do them right is a kind of it's a kind of helplessness that isn't small and is as it happened I believe very strongly that the nonprofit sector can do good but I think that when the nonprofit sector is aligned to a for profit sector that sees an opportunity for windfall profits from doing what the nonprofit sector wants it then you can get a lot further Now there's a huge risk right and that risk you can see in green washing right which is like you know it is a basically you can take on the formal characteristics of one of the other. Cause oriented nonprofit project and then none of its goals. But hire jacket and use that to and maybe get the same profits and you've got be the new bosses the old boss. That's something we need to be vigilant about right and he don't want someone to get over it here I felt a lot he would say their ecosystem. He was of a geography here I thought so that you're not you can use whatever software you want and trust whatever expert you want to certify that the software that you use is fit to use Media example right going to Apple was so sure that its users really trusted it didn't trust anyone else they wouldn't need it through to the a felony to trust someone other than Apple to install software here devices. So there is nothing intrinsic to the technological model of the internet of things that says that the things must treat you as their adversary. Right that this is MIT needn't be necessarily treacherous. That's the business question and the reason that Silicon Valley venture capital is on the side of the surveillance business models not to have an ideological commitment to surveillance is out of the total howling void where their ethical center should be right and they are just as happy to play the other side of that right for every investor who's willing to invest it up in a moat in a wall there is another one willing to invest in a bridge and a battering ram. If you know and and they're happy to do that and you know again. I know there are parts of my talk that real life. You know Marxist economics that this is hype right this is what high tech thought would happen. This is pure market economics if you work if you are pulling in with full profits and above the marginal cost competition will drive the goods down to them or will cost of the benefit wider society right. That's like not untrue in some cases and this is one of those cases where it can be true and even more so it's one of those cases where the corruption has prevented it from being true which good biography I just mean policy to pursue not because of evidence but because of influence from powerful moneyed interests that provided there is surplus capital available for corruption in the service of jailbreaking. Just as much as there is in the service of her hitting children. So I don't think it's a foregone conclusion and I see a plausible way for here or there and I think that again like the foundational question of how do we solve all the other problems of corruption starts with not having devices that are already corrupted that come through surveillance ready because you're never going to fight corruption. If her devices are already signals for we have to we have to have the infrastructure first. All right well thank you all very very much. Thank you.