It's my really, really great pleasure to announce the opening keynote of this year's Republica. In the program team, when we were thinking about how to open our 10th anniversary, who should speak first, we thought maybe it's a good idea to have somebody who's spoken of the past and can help us work with the motto and reflect on the last 10 years

but also look ahead. So we started going through all the speakers that we had on this amazing stage and on, of course, the Fridestadtpalast stage in the last 10 years. And we stopped at 2012. 2012 was a really important year for Republica.

It was a year where we transitioned into this wonderful location, to the station, and really made that jump from having a location that allowed us to have that campus feeling, to come together more strongly as a community and build this event. 2012 was also a very, very important opening keynote for us.

We decided that we wanted to have a very strong political keynote after having ventured out into other topic areas in the past years. So we invited Eben Moglen, the inventor of the Freedom Box, and thought he was the perfect choice for this opening keynote, and he was. His keynote in 2012 included such legendary sentences as the day Steve Jobs died was a

good day, at which point at least half the room dropped their iPhones. Eben has been fighting for free and open software for over 20 years, for instance, by defending free software developers such as Richard Stallman and Philip Zimmerman,

the inventor of PGP. Eben Moglen is also the founder of the Software Freedom Law Center that offers licensing and legal support for free and open source projects. But when we were thinking about this keynote, we thought, okay, but he shouldn't be alone, and we feel that this is the absolute perfect combination.

He will be joined today of the veteran by a Republican noob, somebody who has never spoken on our stage before, the most wonderful Michy Koldray. She's a technology lawyer and an online civil liberty activist who's also working at the Michy is originally from India, the country that managed to take a really strong stand

for net neutrality and shove internet.org against the wall last year, and together they are here to examine the state of internet freedom in the world today. Please give a really, really warm welcome and a huge applause to Eben Moglen and Michy Koldray, The Last Kilometer, The Last Chance.

Good morning. It's a great pleasure to be back at Republica.

I can't thank the organizers enough for the honor of starting out this 10th anniversary conference. I want also to thank the German Foreign Ministry for agreeing to give my law partner a four-day visa to enter Germany after demanding real-time access to her bank accounts

in order to allow us to be here together today. So thank you to the government of this very democratic republic of Germany. By 2025, we will have wired up, or wirelessed up, the remaining half of the human race.

This should be the greatest moment of educational liberation, the greatest moment of social justice-making, the greatest economic opportunity in the history of humankind.

But it won't be. Because the net we are making is a net that we don't want, a net of surveillance, data mining, and despotism. When you grow up in India, there are a few things you cannot avoid, cricket, Bollywood,

and some very good poetry. Growing up, I read this poem where the mind is without fear and the head is held high, where knowledge is free, where the world has not been broken into fragments by narrow

domestic walls, where words come from the depth of truth, where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection, where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way, into

the dreary desert of dead habit, where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought and action, into that heaven of freedom. My father let my country awake, where the inventors of internet reading Tagore is what

I thought, but I was only naive and young, and to find a cure, I just started hanging out with smarter people, like the one on this stage. The net that we are building now, the one that the rest of the human race will soon be caught in, is a net which watches us more than we watch it.

Everything we do, everything we say, everything we buy, everything we search for is remembered forever, and we are becoming the objects of experimentation.

We are becoming the subject of the net to which we are joined. Our net now experiments with human behavior, giving a new way of thinking about the human race, adjuncts to a machine which experiments with us, stimulus and response, stimulus

and response. Billions of times a day an experiment is conducted on a human being, show us something, swipe left, swipe right, click, don't click, buy, don't buy. The machine is a behaviorist.

Like B.F. Skinner and the 20th century psychologists who followed him, the machine has no need for a concept of human mind. Only correlation, only mathematics, only the modeling and prediction of our behavior.

Everything we do teaches the machine. In 2025, it won't be Scarlett Johansson taking your orders, but your favorite voice in your language, your personal customized chat bot which learns by crunching data.

Balloons playing Looney Tunes would hover alongside drones, beaming the greatest opportunity for humankind, the net. Unparalleled troves of data will get collected and studied to make farming more productive

and control the temperature in your living room while your fridge refuses to put in an order for a pizza and sugar rich ice cream. Siri or Cortana will ensure that you never have to look up and engage in that awkward activity, talk to another human being.

Who runs the world, they say, apps. My augmented reality will have more takers. I have a developing country passport, that's why. Swipe right, swipe left, click or think. Someone will anticipate all our needs and also be our shrink.

By 2025, everything that is deemed basic by Silicon Valley would have been offered for free. My retina and fingerprints will ensure that cashless will also make me costless

and my Uber pool can have more people bent over screens as the driver seat is empty. The political economy of networking now dictates that it is cheap for the platform companies to move your packets for you in return for the ability to surveil them.

Therefore, suddenly it is in the interest of the machine to give access to everyone which really means to have access to every mind. Building out the net to embrace the other half of the human race poses itself as charity

but it's actually the perfection of spying. Access to the net belongs to everyone means we belong to everyone's mind and we are calculating everybody. To add another billion minds to experiment with for Facebook

is cheaper than leaving them alone. And so suddenly the net we do not want is the net we are supposed to wish on the other half of the world. A poor net for poor people. The World Bank thinks that around 70% of the bottom fifth of the population

in developing countries has a feature phone. That feature phone is soon going to become the smartphone because right now it is very profitable to get those packets. We will create an enormous system of consumption

where we all will be turned into nodes for further consumption. In exchange of my boring data, I'm going to get security, convenience and a ton of services. Bad hair, good hair, don't care but perfect filters, prime time delivery and also the fun to ask Siri what does she think of Google

or is a EULA commitment enough that I don't need a partner in my life. All this fun brought to you next door in your developing country. Free basics or basics all that are free. So the network we are building, the network we don't want,

the network we struggled against, the one that deprives us of freedom of thought by operating on us while giving us the impression we operate on it. That network now controls the pace of the human mind. Our space is small, our room is little and our time is non-existent.

The greatest word of importance to the greatest of the platform companies nowadays as one of its executives was telling me last year is latency. But the latency they're talking about is not the time it takes

for a human being to learn after the presentation of an idea. The latency they're talking about is not the years we spend growing up becoming something we've invented out of the machinery of freedom and the opportunity to learn. The latency they're talking about is the milliseconds it takes

for a smartphone to display an advertisement, stimulus and response, calculation of human possibility not by humans but by the machine. The calculating our computers do is not our thinking.

The calculating our computers do is the prediction of us. This network which we're talking about, this network is getting and giving what Silicon Valley designs it for. But it isn't delivering the promise because it isn't promising honestly.

And the great problem with all this altruistic talk to get the next billion online or three billion online is an honesty problem. There hasn't been any candor about it anywhere. And then the states show up and you certainly cannot expect any candor from them.

This network is not delivering what it promises and it could just get lost by greed, nationalism, ill-temper or just laziness. It doesn't mean that fishermen's incomes go up just because it exists.

It does not mean that rural healthcare is better delivered or developed just because it's there. That's not a guarantee. What is guaranteed to occur is the rendering of ads on smartphones which get quicker, swifter, smarter and we're all being tied to this network

which we don't understand the purpose or the behavior of. What is happening with us is not what we want the promise to be delivered to us. We already imitate this machine or it imitates us.

Remember the Tay AI bot by Microsoft? It recently got a crash course in racism, Holocaust denial, sexism, courtesy the Twitter users and that's what we are getting from the network as we talk about it. Four years ago I said here that freedom of the mind depends on freedom of the media

which depends on free technology, which depends on free hardware, free software and free bandwidth. Here today, 10 years into Republica, I tell you before we get to 20, time will have run out.

We are no longer capable of building the net we want. We are only capable of resisting the net we do not want now. We lost our chance to do it right the first time. Now we are in the place where we must decide instead to hold off, to resist,

to fight against the machine on behalf of the machine we need, to struggle against the system that predicts us, to become unpredictable enough that we can relieve the room for freedom of the mind or we lose our struggle forever.

In at least 38 countries, Facebook wants to provide free internet. How do they want to provide it? Our goal is by buying the packet movements from the telecom service providers and put them through their own proxy servers.

They can offer this way, poor internet to the world's poor, towards whom they have actually acquired quite an odd case of white man's burden as they tell us this in their own words. We stopped them in India. We stopped them by telling the telecom regulator of India that breaking the security off the web,

eliminating authentication for poor people, turning untrusted potentially dangerous net into trust us because we know it and we are only here to help who could be against it is not the route to universal connection to the Indian society.

But nobody is receding from here. Neither is Facebook nor other platform companies. Some of it is only a desire by a CEO who wants to do this. But most of it is just this raw energy of the business. Right now, right now, let's get all of these people online

because their data is what works for us. And then, and then, what happens to it once they've gathered it? Once Google AI has the data of tens of millions of people from the UK National Health Service, what happens to it?

Once we have taken our system of money and turned it into other people's bit streams, what happens to it? The mystery of the back end is becoming the mystery of human freedom. Have we lost it? Where is it? Where does it go?

Instead of storing it ourselves, we're allowing other people to store it for us. And to whom do they give it? Everyone is so struck with the convenience of the front, with the beauty of the top, with that which lies above the waterline.

And of course, there's nothing to see below the waterline. Move along. Nothing to see. Nothing to know. Nothing to guess. Because below the waterline, it's all guessing about you. Did we all get told that this is going to increase democracy? But we've also discovered that democratization of technology does not necessarily mean democratizing of the society itself.

What the net has democratized is the ability to self-promote through Twitter, through Instagram, through Snapchat or any other new big app because the world is run by apps.

What has happened is the democratization of the ability to be surveilled or surveilled. But at the end of it, what we have delivered is the advertisements to eyeballs but not autonomy to the society.

The promises of all this free speech and expression have also now met with an outpouring of the harassment and coercion of which the platform companies themselves are scared. They're all now rushing to study this, find out what is this online harassment and also find a solution, a technical solution.

But really what it means is that we've empowered people to be ill-tempered, who are constantly engaging in now making an actual opposition to the way things are. So what we find is a lot of sentiments in the net, a lot of opposition.

People are using this form of social mobilization, which is harassment of the net, mostly for reactionary purposes. Look what the Turkish mafia did to the university professors or the religious fanatics who are rewriting or trying to rewrite and talk about the history in my country.

You have everybody, everybody beating against women, whether they are video game players or they are sports writers or feminist activists, everywhere there's mansplaining. Everyone is talking about rape, murder, doxxing all the time. That's not exactly an increase in democracy.

This is just unleashing of a tool that enables many to one ways of communication as a way of coercing thought and opinion. This is democratizing totalitarianism.

What we call social media these days has a single emotion it's designed to elicit and that emotion is envy. Post the segment of your life, the best part. Make other people envy your vacations, your beautiful children, your accomplishments.

Leave out all the struggle, all the doubt, all the negative, all the pain and hurt. Let other people envy you. And the social media that build envy in order to increase desire, in order to make an advertisement suitable for you to receive, I want that life here, click, swipe, done.

That envy breeds resentment, which breeds anger, which breeds that resentment of the street, which is now in everybody's eyeballs and eardrums all the time. So as we build this net we do not want, as we summon people to the platforms offering the

poor a discount, come and be measured, we'll help you to have access to what we get from you. As we do that everyone gets interested suddenly in privacy because they must. So let us think a moment about what we mean by the privacy we want to have in this net we do not want.

Privacy is three things. It's secrecy that is our ability to speak and think only in partnership with those we actually trust. It's anonymity that is our ability to use the public space to think and

act and experiment and try out without the association of identity with what we try. And it's autonomy that is the ability to make our decisions and effectuate our lives without the interference with our secrecy and our anonymity.

And this, our autonomy, this root of our democracy is what is attacked by the net that constantly measures, tracks and experiments with us.

All this and we want to add another three and a half billion people to this surveillance organism. And then? And then the states show up. When we move to this net we do not want, this monitored net, this

surveillance system, we empower social control in the state like never ever ever before. I stood here four years ago and spoke about the possibility of the end of freedom of the mind in 2012.

And somewhere in Fort Meade, Maryland there is an intelligence analyst asking at which date and time a young man in Hawaii named Edward Snowden watched my speech. Because of course by the summer of 2013 what I had said here in 2012 had gained some news thanks to Mr. Snowden.

What he told us was what we all feared and he substantiated that the states had moved inside this data mining, tracking, surveilling net we do not want.

Of course they did. How could they not? From the middle of the 20th century the most powerful societies on earth assumed that signals intelligence was the true secret of social power in the world. They spied on one another's militaries and every government and eventually they began spying on all international commerce that they could reach.

Because what they knew, the Soviet Union, the United States, the People's Republic of China and all their satellites, what they knew was access to information is power.

But when they have a net that measures everybody and great big piles of everybody's behavior taken from the machine which is experimenting always with everyone, what they gain is power to run totalitarianism on the cheap.

20th century totalitarianism didn't scale very well. It needed lots and lots of people and it needed lots and lots of fear which could only be produced by episodes of serious violence. People had to disappear, they had to be broken, people had to be afraid.

21st century totalitarianism solves those problems. You don't need so many people anymore because the platforms do the work for you. You don't need to create so much fear because envy works so much better.

Because everybody informs on everybody so they can watch everybody else. And the next thing you know power has leapt higher than power could ever leap before. With that increase in power naturally comes an increase in ambition.

The state decides that what it needs, as a guy working in the White House told me only a few weeks after the last time I was here in the summer of 2012, says the man in the White House, you know, we've decided that we need a robust social graph of the United States.

That meant the United States government wishes to keep a list of everybody every American knows. The robust social graph of the society you govern has now become the first level of ambition of the states.

And you can get it if you deal with the platform companies, particularly if you help them wire up the rest of all your society, bring the poor to the poor people's net, thus generating the robust social graph of everywhere.

And don't expect the largest states to be content to leave that information in the hands of the smallest ones. No, no, it's a robust social graph of the human race. Now what does one do with such a graph? What does one make of the power one acquires when one carries an entry to every subject's mind?

Of course, it will depend upon the nature of the political ideology of the state, each forming the net to suit itself, each using the information provided by the surveillance of everyone all the time, everywhere, for its own purposes.

Of course, as we were shown by Mr. Steven Spielberg in Minority Report last decade, a beautifully imaginative evocation of how this works.

Commercial surveillance is the basis upon which this new experience of state power rests. We accept the commercial surveillance because it is fundamentally only being carried out for profit, which is such a thin motive, so lacking in malevolence that we can accept that we should go along with it.

After all, they're like us, they're only trying to make a living. Of course, Mr. Zuckerberg spends 30 million dollars buying all the houses around his own because he needs more privacy. Of course, he says he's not going to allow his precious child to use Facebook in childhood.

Of course, Mr. Jobs didn't allow iPads in his family. But we think that that motive of profit is a sufficient reason to allow what we would never have allowed the states if they had come to us and said, in the first place, we wish to build these things.

We would have said it is without any question the evil that we fought in the 20th century, that for which we died or suffered or sent millions of others to die to prevent that from happening.

But to piggyback that on top of an advertising business, what a beautiful form of camouflage that is. So now we have the states in the position to benefit at the business intelligence layer from the data warehouses assembled by the platform companies.

Facebook contains information about the human race, a sixth wide or maybe a third. Facebook contains experiments with everyone's behavior, generates a social graph of who everyone knows and why they know them.

Then from there, the state begins to put some code in. Those terms of service that you sign without reading, they say of course that Facebook or any similar company may run any code it wants to improve the experience.

It isn't that data comes out of those businesses, it's that code goes in. And when that code goes in, you have no idea what it is or what it does. That's the whole point you're not supposed to.

What Mr. Snowden showed us was that the governments, the most powerful governments, my own first among equals. What Mr. Snowden showed us is that those governments will push their way into those platforms, will they, nil they. Buy, beg, steal, hack, tap, it doesn't matter, in they'll go.

And once they're there, how will you get them out? What will you do? I don't need to explain of course to anyone in Germany that there are people all around the world under pressure for insulting the little Sultan.

I don't need to explain that a disposition to insult the little Sultan can get you in great trouble. The Turkish state doesn't have to use its own police, they can use yours. The Turkish state doesn't have to predict that Professor Chomsky or I might say something bad about the little Sultan.

They can just wait and then reach out preemptively or not as local law permits. We are building perfect despotism and we think we're only improving the efficiency of advertising.

Regimes all over, democratic or authoritarian want a kind of a legislated history, manufactured image of the past, glorifying certain aspects which appeal to them while hiding others.

While all this is going on, Europeans have actually not forgotten their absurd demand for right to be forgotten. Paving the way for others to rewrite history. And here again naively I thought that the only forgetting that happens on internet is

that it feels like perpetually going into a room and forgetting what you came in for. But as again I was naive about all of this. So surveilling and predicting human behaviour is the net of the new economy or economy of the new net. Some states support their local data miners, I'm talking about Baidu, Naver, etc.

to try to regulate the net and other try to regulate intermediaries or other people to express their own values. And everyone spies, predicts and resists radicalisation.

States get their pushing around now by the eggheads on Twitter and not people in uniform. They can turn civil society against itself with help from telecommunication service providers who are devoted to scrutinising and memorising the behaviour of customers. Governments are building these robust social graphs everywhere.

This is for the purpose of perfect social control. It can mean better subsidy, better payments, better social welfare programmes, no corruption and also means more effective tyranny and increasingly inescapable prison for the human race.

Look at Bluffdale, Utah where Big Love and Big Brother have become uneasy neighbours or this perfect storm of the terrible administered by Alibaba and Tencent in China.

There is the universal reputation score. It's tied to the national ID of each person in the country and is based on factors like political compliance, hobbies, shopping and whether you play video games. It's also generated not just by your activities but by the activities of the friends in your social graph.

So you can imagine there's negative points for mentioning Tiananmen Square or speculating on official corruption or participating in activities from which state wants to nudge you away like playing video games.

Adhar, the digital identity, this biometric-based unique identification number in my country to provide public distribution services and building a centralised database of over a billion human beings. What could go wrong there?

Apple versus FBI saga is far from over. All the policy makers and the governments around the world are watching what's going to come out of it because everybody wants to find a way to magically break mathematics so that math works differently for good guys and the bad guys.

All this solves the problem which we had in earlier centuries. Despotism was hard, difficult to scale, now there is a solution for all of it. Now everything this just… it just tells us so everything that the net can give, the

states can just take away from raw connectivity itself to freedom of the market when cashless arrives. When we go cashless, we make the free market obsolete in every sense. Everything we buy, everything we sell, everything that moves becomes subject to bitstreams signed

by trust which can be blocked at the point of transactions in real time. Do you want to buy a train ticket? That's very nice but we might not let you buy one.

There is no cash under the mattress because there is no cash. There is no money in a safe deposit box just in case because there is no money. Everything has become a transaction at the will of a third party who can withhold approval anytime.

When we go cashless the day after tomorrow as society's race to eliminate the money that makes freedom. In my neighborhood in Amsterdam, the best grocer and the best baker no longer take money. You have to use your pin card.

In the United States it's a little harder because we have legal tender laws that say that money is good for buying things. India is rushing for cashlessness faster than any society on earth. And when cashlessness arrives, what we called the free market has disappeared forever.

What happens to all of us when this is happening around us? What we do is we internalize this totalitarianism. We organize our internal self so that we can fit into the score. Hunger Games actually becomes a reality.

We internalize the hypnotic sayings, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. The governments have also caught up with the social media platforms. They know how effective usage of this can change their own fate.

They invest very heavily in their web-based propaganda infrastructure. The bots are created by the minute, spamming weapons including armies of trolls now drown out genuine online discourse.

Comments section or Twitter news feed where you go if you want to lose your faith in humanity now are crowded by propagandists. Some people are more sophisticated than the others. The Chinese political weathermen, as this Harvard's research study shows, comments which are critical of the leadership, they're allowed.

What is not tolerated are posts that may spur collective action. Those are blocked. Complete blackout now is becoming a common practice during elections. Many African Union member governments have recently adopted.

Look at Burundi, look at Egypt. In February of this year, as many people in Uganda were headed to the polls of the presidential election, come and cut off internet services. No Facebook, no Twitter. But this is because there is a threat to public order and safety.

And when asked, telcos, they crawl. In January of this year, Etesalat shut down access to internet services in Egypt. Before in Morocco, they blocked web services. In 2016, since it started, five states in India have seen a complete mobile internet shutdown.

Everywhere on earth, the governments are exhaustively destroying all forms of privacy. And today, unfortunately, most of them believe that people who are followers of religion of Islam have no rights to keep secrets anymore.

Quite honestly, that's disgusting. Whatever free speech they are trying to prohibit by prohibiting secrecy, they're in the end prohibiting freedom for all of us. And there is no government on earth that any longer considers itself bound by principle to respect secrecy of its own citizens.

All that is left is our ability to encrypt. If we lose that, we will no longer live in a free society anywhere on earth. So what do we do? How do we deal?

We are no longer in a place where we can construct the net we want. We can only resist the net that we don't want. We can no longer accept network neutrality. We are compelled to resist network hostility.

In such a world, we must concentrate ourselves now on the piece of the network closest to us. In that last kilometer, that last mile, that last hop, lies the barricade that we must erect if we mean to keep a zone of freedom around ourselves.

The telecommunications service providers of the world are the entry point and first locale for all the tracking, surveillance and spying. In that anonymous beige cube at the corner of your street is deep packet inspection running its way for the maximization of telecommunications service provider profit.

A little super computer on a street corner measuring everything you're doing in order to figure out how the TSP could make more profit, slowing down that which isn't profitable to it and speeding up the special services that are.

But that cube on the corner, that little piece of the entering wedge of surveillance, that business of retailing by the telecommunication service provider is where our barricade must go. So what do you want us to do?

You want us to cut ourselves off from the internet and just not use any of these services and sit in a small corner never using the internet? No, we're going to have to build a net that begins in privacy for us. Imagine at the top of a pole in every village, every hamlet, every farmstead, every rural community, every city neighborhood,

a little box whose job is to route for everyone with privacy. You could call it a freedom box but you don't have to. It should mix everybody's packets up, masquerading as we say about routers, so that everybody's packets in the village are indistinguishable, upstream, encrypted, made private, linked only to the places that they need to go.

If we route in common everywhere, if we encrypt everything all the time, if we carry for one another and keep them from seeing anything,

we make the telecommunication service providers mere wholesalers of transport services. They just move our packets and that's all. But if we do that, how do we actually get any security? Terrorism is a real thing, so is ISIS. You don't want us to be secure and only talk about privacy?

Everywhere we fear, we fear things of which we ought to be afraid. But everywhere we fear, we fail to fear the things we should fear most, which are the things we cannot see. When we have made our technology strong enough to defend us from the strongest,

then we can start to worry about how to defend ourselves against weaker criminals. But if we leave the largest powers uncontrolled, their effort to protect us against the smallest evils will do us little good.

Well, it's all great to say this, but what is it really going to do? Snowden told us much, but what has really changed? Everything has become legal now, the governments know how to go around this. Nothing really changes, everything goes on. And anyway, even if we do all of this, what are we going to get out of the net?

Those candies are not going to crush themselves and who will keep up with the Kardashians? We don't need all this thing about education and everything. Let us just use the net and go on doing our business the way we do it. It's true, of course, that what Mr. Snowden did in the first instance was to bring us knowledge

and the most organized parties in response were the secret worlds in every country. And it's true that what they did was they went to their legislatures and they said, please immunize us for everything we did wrong in the past and let us move directly to what we really want. Mr. Snowden proved that the strongest governments on earth were scraping everything, listening to everything,

analyzing it later after taking it now and what the governments did, whether the military platforms bill in France or the snoopers charter in the United Kingdom, what they did was to say, okay, let's go straight to the real-time monitoring of everybody, which is what we really want.

And every act of public violence only reinforces them in their certainty. This is true. On the other hand, while we were on our way over here, thanks to the German foreign ministry's willingness to give her a visa if she gave them real-time access to her bank accounts,

while we were on our way here, the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously to strengthen the privacy of e-mail in the United States. Politics is working two ways now, but we can't wait for politics and law. We need technology first. It's time for us to create facts on the ground.

It's the young people of the planet who must save us now. They have to write free code. They have to use cheap, free hardware. They have to make the routing of privacy work. We can do it.

We've spent 30 years making the code we need. We've spent decades pushing for freer hardware. We have unlicensed spectrum we can all use. The Internet of Things should be the Internet of People first.

We can do that. The choices we make and the technology we use will affect the politics. Is everybody going to keep up with the Kardashians? I don't know. I don't. I've not got a Google ID or a Facebook account. I've never used Twitter. I live a life in the net. It works pretty well.

You can do it too. We have to get off the platforms. I still want to share my pictures with everyone. I also want to talk with my friends. You don't want to share them with me. You want to share your pictures with your friends. We need sharing that works without a super friend in the middle.

We can do that. Surely we can do that. We've done it many times. We just haven't promoted it the way they promote it. And we want to make the net free and accessible to everybody too. But we want to do it in a different way. I wouldn't push you about this.

I wouldn't be confronting your desire for convenience and your need for security if there were time. But there isn't time. By 2025 it will be over. Technology is path dependent. We can't reverse it later. We made a great mistake when we made the TCP IP stack in the middle 1970s.

We didn't engineer anonymity in then. And to engineer anonymity in afterwards meant making TOR, which is terrific. But it's cumbersome and awkward and it's vulnerable and it can fail.

We need to architect the net we want and lay it on top of the net we do not want so that there is a choice. If we don't give people a choice, we will run out of choices. One of the most important engineers in the making of the internet in that 1970s period of immense scientific optimism, a man who now works at the fringes of the secret world in the United States,

he says, and I agree with him, this is the last generation in which the human race gets a choice. Most of the human race doesn't know what the choice is. And if we here who do know don't help them to understand,

if we don't give them proof of concept plus running code, the revolution becomes impossible. Time is running out. I'm glad you're here. Thank you very much.

Before you all leave, if this is the last generation that gets to make that choice, then this is the decade for that choice to be made. The components of our technological freedom, whether it's free software, free hardware or free bandwidth, they are differently concentrated and constituted.

People pushing for them have to get together, one single concerted effort. The free software movement, the movement for free hardware, the maker power, the people outside, inside, bathrooms, everywhere. The ones who are individuals who actually empower technology or improve.

The ones who campaign for the unlicensed spectrum to stay fully free. These are all different corners of the world, but we all have to come together. In a single movement, quickly for the net we want. For a system of technological relations that does not study us, that does not surveil us, data mine us,

thus prohibiting our secrecy and our anonymity, thus eliminating our autonomy. We are all separate strands of this technical and social thoughts. We all come from different geographies, have different colors of skin and other things,

different fields, different worlds, software makers, access campaigners, lawyers, telecom engineers, hardware engineers, all of you. All of you, if you are my age or younger, you all know and understand this technology

and you know what we are talking about. You cannot afford to spend your youth any other way. A world in which your children will live will otherwise be an unfree world. It's very easy to mobilize citizens if it's war. You put it out propaganda machine, you put up recruiting center and then you just go.

What we do need is a moral equivalent of a war, but a moral movement, not an immoral one. It's not about violence, but it is about technologies of freedom. And we need to enlist everyone, everybody, so I hope you are all with us here.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Mishi. Thank you so much, even, for this perfect opening and this call to action. We have time for one or two questions and there's a hand going up right there

and there's a microphone coming to you. Thank you for a wonderful talk and I have a question for Mr. Moglen. Besides encryption, what other solution is there to move packets freely

across the infrastructure of the telecommunication providers? I mean, is encryption the only possibility? Do you think there's like a convention or something else that could impose the free movement of masqueraded packages across the infrastructure

that is being owned and dominated according to the surveillance dynamics that you just sketched? So what is there besides encryption? We are completely dependent upon encryption the way we are completely dependent upon electricity.

We are not talking in this case about the final product of our technology but a component which is indispensable to it. Everything is made of packets in our network. Those packets can be taken by anyone with infinite money and all the computing power they need.

And there are enough such parties that we cannot assume that any legal regulation or any form of technological design which leaves those packets open to be read is safe for human thought.

Encryption is simply part of the way that we make it possible to hear ourselves think without being overheard. Encryption is what creates the space within which we arrange to do our own thinking and save our own souls. Encryption is to the 21st century what literacy was to the 16th.

Without the written word, no reformation. Without no reformation, no freedom of thought in the European world. Without encryption, no human autonomy by century 22. And we have one more question up here in the front row.

Thank you, the two of you, for this wonderful speech. I have a question. Is there something else but encryption like legal possibilities?

For example, that you must not depend on predictive technologies when you get health insurance. That you have laws that these predictive technologies should not be used to get a certain government service

or a public service or a service which is really necessary for your life. Well, international covenant of civil and political rights does say something about right to privacy, but each national jurisdiction is now using it to perhaps erode away

which are the existing rights. Some of the jurisdictions actually are not even certain whether they want to give a right to privacy to their citizens or not. But yes, a lot of lawyers are sensitive to the fact that legal instruments will have to work in tandem with technology to get those civil liberties back and to enforce such rights.

So various such efforts are going on. The UN has appointed a repertoire to study right to privacy. But yes, they are much slower. They move with so many components along and national security or other people always want to give us or present it in two binary forms.

You either get privacy or you get security. That nuanced conversation is definitely happening where legal people or the legal forces sit. But I do not say that it's going to be that fast until people actually get together and make it a public movement. It is happening, but it's at a much slower pace.

Meantime, in India you cannot get a propane cylinder to light or heat your house without an Aadhaar number which is reference to your retinal pattern and soon to your genome. Sure, we can say that there may be legal restriction in one direction against the use of predictive technology for one government benefit,

but all other government benefits and most of the operation of economic life will soon be subject to precisely the predictive activity in the social graph to which you object. The kinds of legal regulations you're talking about, Annette, are more exceptions than they are the rule and always will be

once we've made a change we cannot readily undo. Thank you so much to both of you. Can we have another really big round of applause for Eben and Mishy?

So, and now we're going to kick off the program on all the rest of our stages. As you heard, there are many. We spent many, many hours putting it together, so we really hope you enjoy the program. Of course, many of you will also be playing an active role in that. I see many faces in hall one here who are going to be speaking

throughout the three course of the day, so thanks so much for handing in sessions to the call for papers. Thank you so much for coming here and being a part of the show. Just to highlight a couple of things that are happening today. The track ReLearn, so the track that focuses on education, educational initiatives, is going to be happening all day on stage eight today.

We're about to kick off our music day on stage L in the laboratory. You heard Andreas introduce in the opening a new location that we've expanded to this year at Republica. And today is the focus on music, but there's going to be a focus on a creative industry and arts track every day.

Tomorrow focused on immersive arts, and on Wednesday on fashion tech. We have one of our annual returning highlights, the sketch note session happening after the break. So if you want to learn how to draw along to conferences and develop your practical skills that way, I recommend...

and you visit that. And of course, we also have the media convention program starting in a couple of minutes. I really look forward to seeing you back here at 12. 15. Our next speaker is going to be our very own Marcos Becquedal. Thank you very much.