Investigation 2.0
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Number of Parts | 132 | |
| Author | ||
| License | CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany: You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/33543 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
00:00
Key (cryptography)Level (video gaming)XMLLecture/Conference
00:49
2 (number)Keyboard shortcutPhysical lawType theoryMeeting/Interview
01:32
Multiplication signVisualization (computer graphics)Hacker (term)Control flowSpacetimeContext awarenessDifferent (Kate Ryan album)Arithmetic meanInternetworkingInformationInverse elementLaceMeeting/Interview
03:16
CASE <Informatik>Integrated development environmentRevision controlAreaGroup actionRight angleGenderResultantComputer animationMeeting/Interview
04:11
Key (cryptography)MathematicsGamma functionVideoconferencingWindowComputer wormInformationKey (cryptography)ArmBasis <Mathematik>SoftwareConnected spaceVideoconferencingRevision controlWave packetBlogDatabaseInternetworkingYouTube
05:42
VideoconferencingGroup actionMedical imagingTouchscreenTwitterTranslation (relic)Bounded variationMereologyDiscrete groupMathematical analysisCASE <Informatik>Computer animation
07:31
Table (information)Domain nameInformationMathematical analysisGoodness of fitVideoconferencingBasis <Mathematik>Vapor barrierVideo gameComputer animation
08:19
InformationMathematical analysisWaveSoftwareDifferent (Kate Ryan album)Arithmetic meanProcess (computing)Computer animationLecture/Conference
09:13
InformationQuicksortPatch (Unix)Projective planeInternetworkingPattern language
09:39
Patch (Unix)Context awarenessProjective planePattern languageGroup actionCASE <Informatik>Computer animation
10:24
InformationVisualization (computer graphics)CASE <Informatik>Website2 (number)TrailMoment (mathematics)Structural loadConnected spaceInternetworkingComputer animation
11:12
Visualization (computer graphics)Multiplication signExecution unitLine (geometry)CASE <Informatik>Meeting/Interview
11:43
Visualization (computer graphics)WebsiteTraffic reportingProfil (magazine)View (database)Category of beingMassComputer animation
13:10
InternetworkingBitLimit (category theory)XMLComputer animation
13:35
InformationEstimationNumberVisualization (computer graphics)Moment (mathematics)EstimatorRandomizationProfil (magazine)Source codeElectronic mailing listInformationUniform resource locatorEvent horizonOffice suiteComputer animation
15:11
Likelihood-ratio testCASE <Informatik>Set (mathematics)SatelliteProjective planeLink (knot theory)Latent heatUniform resource locatorView (database)Drum memoryNumberInformationRight angleOrder (biology)Lecture/ConferenceComputer animation
16:25
Integrated development environmentProjective planeShape (magazine)Computer animation
17:03
Video gameFocus (optics)Different (Kate Ryan album)Process (computing)CASE <Informatik>Set (mathematics)Computer animationMeeting/Interview
17:34
Pay televisionTwitterVideoconferencingStaff (military)EstimationInformationVideoconferencingLeakDifferent (Kate Ryan album)Traffic reportingGroup actionCopula (linguistics)CASE <Informatik>Endliche ModelltheorieInformationComputer animation
18:00
InformationPrisoner's dilemmaVideo gameFunctional (mathematics)Context awarenessComputer animationMeeting/Interview
18:28
Military operationSelf-organizationGroup actionCASE <Informatik>Projective planeProcess (computing)BitTable (information)Different (Kate Ryan album)Machine visionMetreConnectivity (graph theory)SubsetHypermediaFamilyMeeting/InterviewComputer animation
20:31
Twin primeBitCore dumpSoftwareVisualization (computer graphics)
20:58
NumberTable (information)QuicksortSoftwareRiemannian geometryWordVisualization (computer graphics)MassGroup actionComputer animation
22:12
MathematicsInformationAngleTerm (mathematics)InformationWritingDifferent (Kate Ryan album)CurvatureParameter (computer programming)Multiplication signParticle systemProcess (computing)HypermediaCollaborationismMathematicsTheoryNormal (geometry)Traffic reportingProjective planeComputer animation
24:41
Reverse engineeringReverse engineeringInternetworkingGame controllerExpressionInformationInformation privacyOpen setSpacetimeChemical equationForcing (mathematics)CASE <Informatik>AreaIntegrated development environmentParameter (computer programming)Form (programming)AttractorRight angleComputer clusterLecture/ConferenceMeeting/InterviewComputer animation
25:56
View (database)ForceFunctional (mathematics)Orientation (vector space)WebsiteInformationTerm (mathematics)Acoustic shadowProjective planeMeeting/Interview
27:07
Tracing (software)DigitizingProjective planeCore dumpWaveSource codeConstructor (object-oriented programming)Computer animationLecture/Conference
28:10
InformationCollaborationismHypermediaView (database)Degree (graph theory)Formal verificationScaling (geometry)Meeting/Interview
29:04
Field (computer science)Speech synthesisComputing platformLeakVisualization (computer graphics)Endliche ModelltheorieVolume (thermodynamics)Link (knot theory)Lecture/Conference
29:47
InformationLeakVideo gameDifferent (Kate Ryan album)CASE <Informatik>SpacetimeMathematical analysisMultiplication signMassContent (media)Link (knot theory)Meeting/Interview
31:09
Directed setProper mapComputer programmingLecture/ConferenceXML
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:03
Welcome back on stage three. It's now all about how can individuals, activists,
00:21
journalists use tools to investigate hidden dark things. And it's presented by Stefanie Henke and Marek Tursinski, two founders of Tactical Tech in 2003, as far, right? And yeah, have fun.
00:49
Good morning. I am just testing the microphone. Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Is that better now? It's kind of a, do you understand my accent?
01:01
It's Polish. It's horrible. And Stefanie is British, and it's going to be even worse in a second. So we brought this title investigation to 0.0 because it was the most silly title we came up with that would bring the most interesting people to the room. It is a shortcut in a very interesting way
01:23
because investigation is generally understood as something that is done by investigative journalists or law enforcement, people who are specializing in investigating issues and spend time on it and expose wrongdoings and so on. Or it is associated with Hollywood films like Erin Brockovich or big breaks
01:43
through the political situations and army wrongdoings and so on. What we've been observing recently, however, is something different. Is a lot of individuals associated in different groups and that being hackers working with journalists, journalists working with visualization people and so on
02:03
are bringing to the light issues that are not visible. And we call this project that we're going to talk about in a second, exposing the invisible. We will be looking at individuals who are utilizing new tools, internet, and all this new space
02:22
to find out evidence, information, and data that is out there in public, but nobody's looking at it in interesting ways. Or they collaborate across different disciplines or they use devices like mobile phones and so on.
02:40
This is like a totally new thing and we will be talking about the individuals. Specifically in the context of an individual versus institution. We will be looking at issues that are supposed to be investigated and looked at by governmental
03:00
institutions or non-governmental institutions or other that were created with this purpose of letting a light into issues that are vital and crucial for general public or activists or individuals. But they for some reason are uncapable of use this new environment to investigate.
03:23
However, individuals are quite amazing and we will focus on the specific area at the beginning which is looking at the military. How military can be exposed in different ways. And the first case here is Brown Moses. So this is Elliot Higgins.
03:42
He's a 36 year old unemployed finance and admin assistant from Leicester in the UK. Here he is sitting in his kitchen. He has no military background or specialism in the area but he's now become the most trusted and widely used resource on the question of the Syrian conflict in particular about arms
04:03
outside of the military. He's used by journalists from the New York Times, journalists who used to be a Marine and by groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. So how did this happen? Well Elliot uses the fact that there are thousands and thousands of videos now on the internet about Syria
04:22
which is now the most documented conflict in human history to look at the question of what arms are being used in Syria. So on a daily basis he goes through about 450 YouTube channels, looks on Twitter, uses a network of people that he communicates with
04:40
in different ways to find information and he goes through them systematically to try and identify which particular arms are being used in what way. So here's an example from his blog which is how he gets the information out there. And what he does is he goes through and he identifies exactly what arms are being used and then starts to ask questions about how these are getting into the country and starts to break some of the myths
05:01
about what's happening there. This is all really useful information but it's also being used very specifically to expose and to ask certain kinds of questions. So for example, one of the things he's been doing is looking at the question of cluster bombs which apparently are not being used according to the Syrian Army
05:20
but he's amassed a database of 500 videos now of cluster bombs being used. And he's been doing other things like looking into the question of where these arms come from and he's uncovered that a lot of arms have come from Croatia and were brought in by people from Saudi Arabia. So he's been exposing some of these connections that people didn't know about. I'm just gonna show a quick video of him talking just a minute.
05:42
So you'll see for yourself. We're in the kitchen of Elliot Higgins, otherwise known as Brown Moses. And he's just gonna take us through what he will do when a new video comes in from Syria. How do you go about verifying it Elliot? Okay, so in this example, this is just a video someone's sent me on Twitter.
06:02
I've got quite a few videos from. So I'll just put this full screen. So what we've got here is a group of rebel fighters. On the ground is a heavy machine gun. It doesn't look like a normal Dushka but it's unfortunately obscured. So it's one of those things I've had to go through a lot of images
06:21
and check all the tiny details on. So I'll just play the video. There's something very interesting in this video. So there's the heavy machine gun. There's the heavy machine gun. Just there, you see two rocket pods for the M-79 Osa, just there. That's the creation weapons that I've shown recently in Syria.
06:43
Now we wanna look at the group who's using them. So good old Google allows us to translate stuff into English with a mouse click. So according to this, it's the Ghaled Ansar al-Islam, which as far as I'm aware, are a pretty serious Salabist Islamist group.
07:01
So then I would ask, you know, I would go try and find out how, if they've been working with the Free Syrian Army, I can go back to the channel that's been posted on, which is here. Have a quick look and see that there's other videos from the same group that's been posted on the same channel. So then what I would do is go back through that channel, see what weapons they're using,
07:21
see if there's more of these creation weapons showing up. Get an idea if they're working with any groups in the Free Syrian Army as well. So there you see somebody. There you see somebody kind of sitting at the kitchen table just literally going through videos, which is something he's only been doing for two years. He had no specialism before that.
07:42
And what's fascinating about what Elliot's doing is, it's in the analysis of the aggregate that this really works. Is that me or is this sound? Okay, it's not just me up here, good. So there's a question of the analysis of the aggregate data, you know, going through thousands and thousands of videos
08:00
on a weekly basis is giving him this kind of knowledge. And it's also the quality of the work he's doing. He's actually cross-referencing and checking this and making sure that the information he's putting out is authentic. And this is really important in a domain that's normally closed, that we know very little about, and that there is very little analysis of outside of the military.
08:20
Okay, so this is Trevor Paglen. He's quite a different character. He's an artist and a geographer from America. He's most known for his analysis of CIA rendition flights, around how people got to Guantanamo Bay. And he works with investigative journalists with the principle that anything that happens in the real world leaves a trace somewhere, somehow.
08:43
And that's how he covers these stories. Like Brian Moses, he's looking in unusual places. I'm not sure if that sound is just here, but now I see some reactions from the audience. Kind of like, maybe it's because of what we're talking about. It's something about the subject.
09:02
Okay, I'll persevere, but maybe you can wave at me if it's getting worse. So like Brian Moses, he's not only looking in usual places, but he's also using networks to find information. So this project in particular, called Symbologies, he's looking, over eight years, he collected 750 patches worn by military personnel
09:22
who were on classified missions. And then he took these patches and through access to information requests, asking collectors, putting them on the internet, and asking people to try and identify them, he's basically found a story behind each of these patches that he collected, usually from markets or sort of trade stalls and so on. And these are some examples
09:41
so you can see them closer up. This is one called Project Zipper, you make threats, not promises. And he goes down to the very specific details of what this is. So for example, in this case, he knows that this is from the 413th Flight Test Squadron. So he knows specifically, in what context these patches were used, and then tries to ask questions about them. This is my favorite, which is,
10:02
I could tell you, but then you would have to be destroyed by me. So these are kind of funny or strange to see in one sense of like, what is this subculture of the military that's actually funded with public money that's emerging, but more importantly, it allows people to look at the question of how the budget's being used post 9-11 for secret military actions.
10:21
So he raises kind of much broader questions. Yeah, and that was a case where an individual, an artist actually is using a parallel track to access knowledge that is being kept secret. And this is an example, I'm gonna play it from the website for a few seconds
10:42
so you can actually see the visualization because it's quite important how it reveals itself. So just bear with me for about 30 seconds when it loads, and hopefully HTML5 will impress us all, including the internet connection.
11:00
If it won't, then we go back to the picture that I prepared, and so on. Let it go. So what you're gonna see hopefully in a few moments is the visualization done by the studio, visualization studio that specialize in visualizing data who took the evidence from the Bureau of Investigative Journalists
11:20
that is looking at all the drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and now, 2013. And they look at hundreds of cases. And that's not gonna work, I guess. As usual, never trust technology when you try to do something technical. What happens in this visualization,
11:40
you look at the timeline between 2004 and 2013, and it's visualized in such a way, if you haven't seen it, that all the strikes are visualized if you were witnessing strikes coming down from the sky down. And when significant data are coming up, you have a highlight in the text like this one.
12:01
For example, when Obama become a president, and then you can see that all the strikes are intensifying massively. The other interesting aspect of this visualization is that it shows you the consequences, that only 175 individuals were high-profile targets.
12:21
There were civilians and other. And what's interesting, everybody asks, what is the other category? Who are these people who were killed? This other category. And those are, by US Army, defined as anybody able for military combat.
12:43
So it may be me, it may be a neighbor who've been killed, and because he's a male that is built healthy, it's being classified as a military target. So in their report, it looks like it's super precise weapon. What the visualization is showing you actually
13:03
is extremely unprecise. And when you also go to the victims, I give you the go now because we got the cable. And the cable usually means internet. So let's see a little bit of it.
13:21
I already told you the rest.
14:02
So it is the moment when Obama is sworn into the office and so on. The rest I explained that the thing is that you can look at this data also through the victims and you can see per event who are the actual victims and what happened, and where was the location and so on.
14:21
The thing here is that it is based mostly on Bureau of Investigative Journalism, but also on New American Foundation and to other sources. It's not from the Army sources. So it's all estimation. And the studio who visualized that, they took very pragmatic approach. They visualize the lowest numbers,
14:40
not the highest, not the middle numbers. Is that the immediate question there? Yes. High profile are the number of, there's a list of people that should be targeted. Those are the high profile. The low profile are people who surround them, but are still the targets.
15:01
The trick here is I think important to raise that this visualization is exposing how little do we know about what's going on. And it's still fairly abstract. So the next case I would like to show you here that is illustrating the same problem
15:21
and is based on the same data set is James Bridal who actually is having exhibition showing his work in today's in Brighton. This is a project called Dronestagram, like Instagram, Dronestagram, where he took all the data about all the locations
15:40
and look for satellite views on Google Maps, Google Earth and so on. And every strike is being visualized with a specific location so you can see it for yourself where the strikes are happening. And it's important because when you talk about drone strikes and so on, it's all, drones are quite abstract. They're somewhere that you can see them. They are somewhere else.
16:02
We don't even know how it looks like. And they're doing something that we don't necessarily know what it is. So it's all invisible. And what he is trying to do here is to make the link between the abstract and the real and in between what is being reported and the actual evidence because all of these pictures are associated with the specific information,
16:22
where, what, who and so on. And the other projects he's doing is this where he's doing a marks shades of drones in cities. This is in London and in Istanbul where he's trying to expose the public
16:42
in the different environment to the problem of the reality of a drone. What if you were living in the shade of the drone? This is the actual size of the predator that is used in Pakistan widely. And he's kind of exposing again the problem of how little do we know about something we should know more of.
17:04
And I would like to close this set of issues that we're looking at that are exposing different military hidden processes and doings and so on with Bradley Manning that you know of. And I don't want to really bring the case here.
17:22
There's a lot of discussions about his personality, who he is, his private life and so on. And it's not enough focus in our opinion on what he expose. And just to, so you remember what that was, one of the leaks he brought was the video of a corratal murder,
17:42
which is looking at American army killing a couple of Reuters reporters and a group of civilians. What he have done, he expose a criminal wrongdoing of American army that should have been investigated by the army. It wasn't for different reasons. And I'm bringing this case only because some of this information that we talk about
18:02
you can get from public, but some still has to be exposed by people who risk their life. He probably will be imprisoned for life. And I would like to raise kind of the awareness of the proportions in between how much effort is being put into prosecute this individual
18:20
and how little effort, frankly none effort, is to actually look at the case and prosecute those who did the wrongdoing. And it's interesting I think for all of us here why this proportion is twisted. And that brings me to move from the subject
18:42
of military, which is quite sad, to other subjects that we're trying to work on. And the project that we're working on is called Exposing the Invisible. And it's a project that is looking at different groups of people, hackers, activists, artists, looking at different hidden sectors. So military is one of them. But Polarado, who I would like to introduce you to,
19:03
as you can see is a new project. We're still in the process of developing it. It's going to be a film and the resources and the story of his work. He works for two organizations that are investigating organized crime. It's a very similar problem to military operations
19:24
because it operates in height, if you like. And he's looking at how organized crime can be exposed by following the money. When you have crime, somebody's making money somewhere. And he follows that. And there's a case here I would like to talk about.
19:46
You've heard about it? Anybody had beef lasagna recently? Did you? So the whole case was very interesting because at first it was said that there was some Polish company and so I got a bit nervous because I'm Polish
20:01
that brought this meat to the UK. And I was like, wow, the eating horse. How horrible that is. But then there was some Romanian and et cetera, et cetera. But they as investigators, they asked different questions. They were interested about the outreach, which meat is better to eat and how you should actually slaughter animal to be able to eat it.
20:21
And all these stories that were in the media, they were interested how it happened that we can track who put this food on the table of Europeans. And that's a very significant twist in the whole story. This is one of the visualizations that they look at because hello to Dutch friends in the room.
20:43
One of the companies is actually Dutch that was in the core and Jan Fasten who owns this company is actually leading a network of offshore companies that one owns another one and another one and another one and another one. So I may even be able to show you a little bit of a,
21:01
it is funny because they called DRAP, DRAP is the name of the company. But it's, if you read it backwards, and correct me if I'm wrong, that means horse actually. Somebody has a sense of humor there. But you can see that this is how some of them, it's the number of small companies that they own.
21:22
So it's a massive network of dependent companies that enable them to function in a shade. And you can really pinpoint who is the institution that is putting the wrong thing on your table. And the investigation that Paul is doing is very interesting because the breakthrough
21:41
was published by The Guardian and only exposing the DRAP trading and a few companies in Cyprus where they will register. But what Paul is doing, he also brings along the article that is for general public. This visualization, so even if you don't speak Romanian, because that's in Romanian, you can still look for institutions
22:02
that are based in your country and so on. Yeah, move on. Sorry, I was getting excited about that. So the next one, okay. We're kind of wrapping up now. So through those examples, and this is a project that we're working on right now,
22:21
we're launching next month with the film about Paul Radu. We're looking at the question of what's changed as well. So the question of who's asking the questions right now, as you saw from those examples, the individuals, their hackers, their artists, they're not necessarily the institutions that we consider that are doing this kind of work. And they don't have the kinds of resources or background
22:41
that you might have imagined. And of course, in a way, this isn't new. Many of the most famous kind of investigative journalists or investigations that have been done in history are not done by professionals. They're done by people who perhaps come at the question from a different angle. But we're also seeing changes in the questions that can be asked.
23:01
And also, perhaps most importantly, where to find the answers. A lot of the information that's available, people are not necessarily looking for public information or saying, oh, the government doesn't publish this on the other and so on. They're looking at unusual places to find answers or to at least ask the question. And to do this in a way that says that asking the question
23:22
may be as important as having the full answer. So they're not put off by the fact they don't have the full answer. In a way, this is just the start of the process. Just to quickly recap on the beginning of where we started. So we're focusing on that because the arguments
23:40
that you cannot do investigation is not relevant anymore. And there's a lot of work going on promoting citizen journalism, but it's promoted in terms of promoting commentary or reporting per se, which is short-term engagement with the problem. What we're trying to look at is individuals who are spending significant time and effort for investigation, and investigation takes time.
24:02
You have to go deep, you have to be patient, and you have to be able to connect a lot of different nodes. And you always will be suspected of believing in some conspiracy theories and so on and so on. But as Paul says very often, all these people that you're trying to investigate are normal people, and everybody wants to make as much money as they can.
24:21
So you can expose them equally easily. And what we're looking at also is the collaboration between different skills, hackers, activists, journalists, and so on. And you can see that in the old media, there's still this tendency of silencing people and trying to do investigating within themselves. And you can only see that they're successful
24:42
when they open up and collaborate with others. So yeah, some of the things that we'll be thinking about, and perhaps we can open up the questions to the audience as well, as for the last five or 10 minutes that we're here, is this surveillance in reverse that we're seeing? Is this a question of the amount of data
25:01
and information that's out there in different forms being used differently by individuals? And in that case, will we see greater punishment of those who start to reuse this information to put together stories and to expose the invisible? And one of the questions we're thinking about, of course, increasingly is, will we see tighter controls on those who track this information
25:21
or of the information itself as it becomes clear that it's being used? This is a very open space, and there's a lot of experimentation in this area right now. And one of the concerns we might have is that the initial euphoria about freedom of expression on the internet that was then quickly cracked down, you may start to see the same kinds of checks and balances in place
25:40
when you think about people who collect this kind of information, especially if they're doing it in very different environments. Well, the last thing is, I think it's self-explanatory. I don't have anything to hide is the usual argument for this privacy, post-privacy where you can do everything in open and so on. But if you try to understand how things are functioning,
26:01
ask difficult questions and expose those who may not be happy with your exposures, then you have to ask yourself the question, would I be able to know if everything I do is out there and can be interpreted in different ways? And the problem is that when you're doing this kind of groundbreaking work,
26:21
if you're targeted by somebody who want to silence you, they won't silence you, arguing with you in terms of the quality of information. They will target you because you have different sexual orientation, because your taxes are suspicious like with Ai Weiwei and so on and so on. They will try to undermine you as a person.
26:40
And if you live in an open, you have to do it consciously. We're not saying we shouldn't do it, do it consciously. That's it, that's it. So, well, we have five minutes. So, this is, we're organizing a camp, evidence and influence you may have a look at. And also, we have this project Me and My Shadow
27:01
that we run a workshop later on and look at our website. It's in the questions, please. Yes, tomorrow we're running a workshop on Me and My Shadow, which is looking at digital traces tomorrow afternoon. Any comments or questions? Please, there. The microphone is arriving.
27:21
Thank you. Hello, my name is Nadia. I'm a journalist from Denmark. I thought it was very interesting to listen to your, what you had to say. And you seem very positive towards this new wave of investigative projects. Do you remember to stay skeptical towards these projects?
27:42
What was the core of the question? Do you remember to stay skeptical to the projects? Yeah, remember to, I mean, how can I as a journalist analyze if this person is doing some good work or is obsessed with some conspiracy? I think it's a jungle out there and if I should use these talents as a source,
28:02
how can I use my skepticism in a constructive way? That's a very true question. So we brought the examples here that are also a collaboration if you like non-professionals and professionals. So each of them, the information is published and used by trusted media.
28:22
If that's enough for you, then that's how you can verify it. But also, if you look at the way they work, for example, Paul Radu work is all in public. Every single document, every single evidence is out there, is scanned, is copied, and you can look at it yourself and make your own conclusions. And they have much more of it.
28:42
Actually, they say very little because they also think that for public, it's better to say a few things than show everything. But they make everything available so you can actually check if they miss something, if you have better information and so on. So we very carefully look at verifications, one of the aspects of dealing with evidence.
29:08
Last year, we made everybody laugh when you were talking about visuals and this is like silent room. Are you thinking all about your next investigation? Hi, here I am. Thank you. I'm Philip, I'm an Italian journalist
29:21
and a researcher in the field of innovation in journalism. And I'm very happy that you mentioned Bradley Manning in your speech. And I'm wondering whether also whistleblowing platforms as WikiLeaks as becoming a model that can be used for investigative journalists. Do you have any other example we can mention here?
29:41
Yeah, there are some examples, like we collaborate a little bit with Global Leaks and there's other platforms. From my experience, leaks are about 5% of evidence that is actually used in investigations. I think it's extremely important in the groundbreaking cases. Some of the leaks are like cables
30:01
were just commentaries of secondhand information. But Iraqi case and collateral murder are firsthand information that is necessary to have a space for looking at. And so we encourage that and we also give access to that. But for us, really the key thing is
30:21
that you can do hell of a lot of work using public information, evidence that is out there. That's why we show these ways that you don't have to ask directly a question or expose anything risking your life. You can find a way to tell the story in different ways. Yeah, I think it brings up one of the issues as well that you see this with the case with Syria. The problem anymore is not necessarily
30:42
the access to information, but the massive information. One of the problems we find with different NGOs and activists is that they can't literally go through all those thousands of hours of footage or they can't go through the massive leaks. So I think one of the challenges will be not just getting the information out there anymore, but also the analysis and the understanding of what it is that we're looking at and whether it makes any difference.
31:04
We don't have any more time. But we are here if you want to talk to us. If you want to talk about conspiracy things, talk to me, if you want to talk about like a proper background stuff and talk to Stefani. She's reasonable. Thank you.