Guten Morgen meine Damen und Herren,
ich freue mich sehr, dass ich hier bin,
aber Deutsch ist nicht meine Muttersprache,
daher werde ich weiter auf englisch sprechen.
Es ist eine Ehre, hier zu sein.
So the Chaos Computer Club to me is like family,
and it is such an honor to be able to speak to everyone here,
and it ridiculous that they asked me to give the keynote.
I hope that I am not wasting 3000 collective hours
of the smartest people of this planet with what I have to say
in the next 60 minutes.
I want to start by thanking everyone
that is in the audience for being here
and for some specific people,
I want to call out Laura Poitress, who is this
woman here, next to the woman with the camera,
because she produced and edited the videos that we're going to see
I have been working with her quite a lot
and she is a very inspirational wonderful artist
who I love deeply.
And I'd like to start by playing a video,
which is part of an art project we're working on,
where many people are working on,
and if we could play that first video,
I think that would be a good way to start this off.
Fantastic. So, now we have an Idea
about what my talk will be about, right?
Just in case that there is any question
that I was going to change many horses midstream
this is a location, it's called Bluffdale, Utah.
And this is one of the largest datacenters
that we know of the NSA is currently constructing.
And there is the question of course about what it is they are trying to build,
why they're building it,
what exactly they plan to do with the space and
how they will use the space
and I am going to talk a bit about this - nice -
and what I am hoping also to point out is, that this is everyones department.
So in this case, what we see, is the construction of the actual bluffdale Utah Site.
So this is the slow process. But there is not anything particular one might object to.
In this process, it is just construction of a very large building.
And I am gonna read some adresses now that were passed out
when Winni, Laura and I did a show at the Withney(sp?):
2651 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri, 63103 United States.
420 South Grand Los Angeles, California, 90071 United States
6/11 Folsam Street, San Francisco, California, 94107 United States
51 Peachtree North-East Atlanta Georgia, 3030 United states
10 South Cannala Chicago Illinois 60606 United States
30 East Street South West Washington DC, 20024 United States
811 10th Ave New York, New York, 10019 United States
12967 Hollenberg Drive, Richtown
These addresses are potentially domestic Interception points
for the NSA in the United States.
One of them is confirmed accoding to Marc Kline,
who blew the whistle and discussed the fact
that the NSA is doing domestic surveillance.
I and many of the people believe that the purpose of this datacenter is to build
something to store and process massive interception
where some of the calculations by bill binnie,
who was an analyst for the NSA for almost 40 years
he thinks, that this center will be used to store the information
for probably somewhere around 100 years.
And so in theory we might say
that that's not big deal and we have nothing to worry about.
I very much want to make sure that we cover in this talk that's going to happen right now
that this right here is in the back of everyones mind.
A Datacenter, designed to store things for a 100 years.
That seems like a reasonable theory for this.
and if you read the information that is present about it,
you will in fact see that that seems like it is problably an understatement
and probably, since there is more than a single facility like this,
that there is a possibility that the 100 years is just a short version.
and that's an extremely scary proposition.
So, part of the reason I want to show you that is
that I want to lead with that, but I will tell you a quote, which is:
"nothing strengthens the judgement and quickens the conscience like individual responsibility"
which is a quote by a feminist known as Elisabeth Stanton.
This I think is a useful thing when talking about things not being our department.
Because, what do we have to do with the NSA?
What do we have to do with this giant datacenter which is being built in bluffdale?
well, in essence, part of the thing that is so scary,
that with the internet and with communication systems as they exist today,
they really isn't a geographical border,
that really changes what we can and can not care about in the ways that we used to.
The fact of the matter is that the NSAs interception,
those interception points, they will carry not only americans data,
they will carry everyone's data for the internet.
So, caring about this datacenter is in fact a very serious thing that we need to consider,
because in fact it does impact everyone.
But even if we didn't use the internet,
it impacts the people that we care about in a transitive way.
So I'm hoping that in the course of the next 15 minutes
I am able to convice you that these things are your department.
And I of want to start to talk about what Robin Frankin talked about the last few years.
Have any one of you seen these talks that they've given
such like "We Lost the War"-Talk or "How society might collapse"? See a show of hands for that?
Okay, About half of you.
I want to say that they talked about this and they said we've know we lost the war,
the surveillance state war.
You know, basically, so many people have decided to
go to the dark side, as it has been called.
That is working on deep packet inspection, censorship equipment,
Surveillance equipment, Targeting Information etcetera.
This is in fact what has happened.
If you look at the job that pays very well, that people aware of,
they usually are systems of control types of jobs.
There are research positions obviously that exists in the world,
but it pays better to work for Lockheed martin that for a university.
So people will choose I think for sometimes good reasons
or for understandable reasons to do these types of tasks
and sometimes will even moral arguments saying things like
"because of stuxnet we were able to avoid violence or bombing of a factory".
Of course the reality is that these things are not used alone,
they're used together and in concert with bombings of factories.
So, it's certainly worth mentioning, that these guys,
Frankin Robb as well as many other people who did not stand up and tell
the congress about their ideas
that these people were really on to something.
And unfortunately, now we actually live in the world
that they were describing that was coming. And it's an incredibly scary world.
And in the last few years, I had the misfortune of being targeted
by a large section of this world. And I can tell you that it's been
a quite uncomfortable series of days. Just one day after the other
is the way to take it, or the way to deal with it,
and this is not a comfortable or easy way to live.
When Frankin Robb talked about this, they still had some kind of hope in their voice,
and I think that that was important.
So I wanted to do was to try to take that hope and to focus on it
and to try to take it say that and despite the fact that there are these opressive systems
of control. And despite the fact that we do now live in a surveillance state
that it may still - I think reasonably so - be possible to resist the surveillance state
and to turn things around if we wish.
And I think that there may come a time in which that is not true.
I don't believe that this time has yet arrived.
So, Frank wanted me to very much stress this notion that
we can make this choice about what whe do about our time
that is this notion of the dark and the light side.
I personally don't think that this sort of black-and-white, white-hat, black-hat, ethics make any sense
because I don't define my ethical or moral framework by making comparison black and white 1950 cowboys movies
and I'd like to say that there's some nuance there.
But there are some simple things that you can do to decide
if you are working on something which is oppressive,
and one of them is to ask yourself if you are working on a system
that helps to control others or
if you're working on a system that helps to enable others,
to have control over their own lives.
And this is a really simple test.
If you're working on DPI, that will be deployed on people who do not get a say in it,
you are probably working for the oppressor.
It's not guaranteed, because there are many of layers of indirection.
Bluecoat probably doesn't think of themselves as being a tool in a military dictatorship's toolbox
but the reality is that when the Assad Gouvernment
or the Burmis military dictatorship or their eleged free market companies in Bhurma use bluecoat
which they both do, they have for some time and they will continue to,
bluecoat is in fact, part of that system of control.
Now, are they responsible?
That's a good question. I don't have an answer to that.
But I do have an answer to wether or not I think they play a role in it.
And that is that they do.
What role, that remains to be seen.
And what I am hopeful about is that some people,
especially people in this room, have actually made the choice
that is the opposite of that. They've decided to work
on systems wthat help enable people to be free.
When for example we see that Mich Altmann from Noisebridge
has dedicated his life to teaching people about electronics,
and to open hardware and free software,
and we see that he is enabeling people in a positive way.
and this is something that we as a community I think should really step up
commending people who do this. Bhanny Hueng (TODO sp?) who builds open hardware,
he is a hero, when - you can applaud that if you wish -
[applause]
the thing is, that I probably can't do it,
but I wrote list of names of people that inspired me over breakfast one day,
and it's pretty long, so I'm not gonna read all of it.
But the same is true for Lady Ada, Christine Corbit(TODO: sp?) and amazing people everywhere
People who dont have names, who are basically anonymous and
in their community, but we should look to them, and we should look to them with pride
and we should look to them with support and mutual aid and solitaridy.
Because it's not just negative stuff.
Not everybody in here works for FinFisher.
And in fact, more people in here work against FinFisher, thanks for that!
And so, to that end, we can make a choice about what we'd like to do.
And it is possible to make a living making free software for freedom,
instead of closed source proprietary malware for cops.
[applause]
But there is a cost to that
so I want to point out something in this next video,
where I am going to be be silent while it plays unlike the last, and it is a minute long.
Speaker: Does the NSA routinely intercept american citizen's emails?
No
Does the NSA intercept american's cell phone conversations?
No
Google Searches?
No
Text Messages?
No
Amazon.com orders?
no
Bank records?
No
What judicial consent is required for the NSA to intercept communications and information involving american citizens?
Within the United States, that would be FBI lead,
that was a foreign act within the united states, the FBI would still have the lead
and could work with NSA or other intelligence agencies has authorized.
But to conduct that kind of collection within the United States you would have to go through a court order,
and the court would have to authorize it.
We're not authorized to do it nor do we do it.
(JA) Well, I think you can all understand the subtext here, which is
that I am protected and you are not.
I bet that makes you feel really great.
So that datacenter we were looking at,
what he just testified in front of congress about,
that was General Alexander, he is the most powerful person in the world,
probably even more powerful than the president of the United States,
or any leader of any other country.
He controls the intelligence structure for the entire NSA and he has ties to the rest of the intelligence community as well.
So what he is basically saying is, that, if there is an american - hypothetically in america - they'd probably be fine.
Which does't really make me feel good, because
there are seven billion people on this planet.
Just a few of them are americans, why should the be treated specially in this regard?
So that giant datacenter that we see, it's for all of you
and it's also for me, because despite the fact that I am an american,
being associated with Wikileaks is like, well, it's not a good time in America.
So, there is a thing to be said here, which is, that,
that guy is a fuckin' liar, first of all.
Because we know for a fact...
[applause]
from Marc Kline,
that the NSA was in fact doing dragnet-surveillance of all of those things.
So straight up, this guy is a liar.
But then on top of being a liar, which is bad engough in this context,
he doesn't even bother to pretend that you have any value at all.
And that you have rights.
And that your privacy is important and your human dignity matters,
becuase of where you happened to be born and
which flag he images you flying.
that to me is very depressing and I feel
like it actually gives the rest of humanity that lives in america a very bad name.
Anbd so I am very sorry for that.
But I want to talk about some other things, that tie together with that.
because when we just think about massive surveillance and isolation,
we will have quite a problem, quite a series of problems in fact,
so let's talk about some things that all have commonality with the surveillance state.
First of all: data retention and retro-active policing which is clearly a human rights violation in Europe.
It's clearly the case that this type of activity taking place creates suspects out of everyone.
and being a suspect is to already not be free in my experience.
And in fact in the 1800s there was a british author who wrote
"to be free from suspicion is the one of the first freedoms that is important for being free in the rest of your life".
when you're followed around, when you're being investigated, because of the whim of someone,
this is the beginning of the end of your freedom.
So, it seems that data retention is the beginning of the end of many of our freedoms in bulk, and that is a very scary thing. (TODO: TIMING)
And when people do retro-active policing, when they apply that lack of freedom in a very specific way,
and when they take these actions,
they depends, of course, on which state you happen to be in, which fiber optic cables happend to be in use when your bits were crossing it,
but how does this actually play out?
It depends, right?
And it depends in a very specific sense.
So for example, drone killings, and I am not just talking about Ironware Lockies(TODO sp?) innocent 16-yearold Son in Jemen,
but drones killings of thousands of people. The targeting information is fed
to the CIA and to other groups from surveillance listening points
from intelligence factories. So there is a direct relationship
between surveillance and support of straight-up murder.
That is something which sounds scary, what makes it even scarier is the way those
drone killings are carried out is that the central comittee, who gets to decide who lives and dies
or obamas assasination star chamber, that central committee which sounds a lot to me
a lot like some of the soviet redaract I remember from my childhood
that central comittee decides non-democratically who gets to be assasinated.
and it is just a hop or two away from surveillance.
So when you assist a surveillance state you are literally helping to kill fucking children.
That is something that doesn't help me sleep at night.
and you can choose not to be part of that; almost every person here has made that choice.
but if you're on the fence I guess you can guess what I suggest you go.
But there are some more ties.
Because let's say drone killing just seem a little bit too far off.
Right? Well, in Uganda, there has been a proposal for some time now,
which seems to be almost pushed back, but not quite,
where they wish to make a death sentence for being a homosexual,
where aggrevated homosexuality is a crime. I think that is where you continue to flip your wrist.
I am not quite sure what aggrevated homosexuality means.
But this basic notion that someone would be forced to report on you or they would also go to prison,
this is something which surveillance will impact greatly and it will make a huge difference.
Of course, we can talk about wider things, such as the chinese suppression of the tibetan people,
we can talk about police backdoors and so-called lawful interception malware
we can talk about wars on agression in irak and afghanistan,
the surveillance state touches everything,
and it is more than that.
It is the fact that the surveillance state is part of the system of control
that causes much suffering. It may also bring some good things
into this world, but with the secrecy,
the surveillance state becomes totally unaccountable.
So, we can look in some other things that are quite concerning.
We can see that there are ties that are not as obvious.
The military trials of political prisoners in Egypt,
the genocide of the syrian people right now,
the british and swedish justice regarding Julian Assange,
the right-wing nazi-sympathisers here in germany,
that gave murdering nazis passports and help
and are still not held to account,
the oppresioning crackdown on wikileaks related or WL-tainted people,
companies that sell equipment to brutal dictatorships and authoritarian regimes,
for both surveillance or censorships, sometimes both
the reality is that secret police and spying agencies
actually change our ability to govern ourselves freely.
And they do it in such a way that it is not obvious,
and it is seemingly impossible to resist.
Because these things itself are secret, it becomes extremely difficult for us to know
where to begin resisting.
Add it's core, in the United States, where this has gone,
is that there are secret laws, with secret interpretations, and a total lack of accountability.
And fundamentally, what these things are, is that they are oppressive, vanguard approaches,
to authoritanianism, they are insultingly paternalistic and allegedly above the law.
If you ever had the opportunity to meet the people that work in these intelligence agencies that are still there,
some of them are quite good, they're fundamentally awesome people.
But then, when it comes to their job, they're in a pretty terrible place.
That is if they wish to keep their job they are not really free to dissent.
If we look at people, for example like Bill Binnie or Thomas Drake, what we see is
that when you dissent, you'll get crushed.
Your Family Life will be ruined,
there are huge costs to telling the truth.
And there are huge costs to asking for a more just system.
Bill Binnie actually really blew my mind in a peticular way.
I thought surely a way working for the NSA for 40 years, we wouldn't have a lot in comon.
But it turns out, that he said to me that he thought that the spying was actually an immoral things,
but that maybe during the cold war it was a neccessary evil.
That is, he thought that maybe they could prevent total atomic warfare.
And at the same time he recognised that it was not the right thing to spy on people.
that this should not be the end in itself.
I was really touched by that, because
usually it is the case that someone would say
"except for americans. you can spy on everyone but not on americans."
And for him the turning point, as i understand it, was that he decided that it was wrong to spy on everybody.
And when they decided to spy on americans, it was clear
that they couldn't be trusted to spy even on any single person
and to do it in a way which would be producing justice.
That was very surprising for me. It actually made me change my mind about the people who might work for the NSA.
but then it turns out that he suffered a great deal as a result of having that opinion.
So maybe it doesn't change my mind that much about the people who are still there.
But, fundamentally, human rights, in theory, should be something that we can work for collectively as a human race.
As a group of people.
And yet it doesn't really seem that is, what is happening.
There is a lot of rhetoric about it.
But when you kill hundreds of thousands of people it is very difficult
to talk about the benefits of technologies in a way that doesn't seem like grouping.
So, it happens that we develop these psychological defenses to it, so
half of the people I that i have met and discussed this with,
when this is the first time they considered the surveillance state,
they talk about it in terms of their initial reaction where they've put it in five minuts of thought, and they say
"well, it doesn't concern me".
Or "it won't impact me. In fact the only people who are getting it,
are people who deserve it."
you know they are under a legitimate investigation."
not actually sure, what a legitimate investigation is,
when you can't hold people to account when there are secret laws, the rule
by-law and the rule of-law is not the same thing. Rule-by-drecree doesn't mean it is just, simply because it is written down,
especially if the interpretation is secret.
So, After people recognise - maybe - that it may impact them,
there is a fantastic set of things that takes place,
and one of them is that people will try to minimize their role in it,
saying lines like "well, it won't be possible to sort me out or find me in this massive data set"
or "even if I do stand down, nothing will happen to me".
And then, eventually, if they happen to be as unlucky as I have been in the last few years,
they'll say something along the lines of "well, the system works and no injustice will occur, because this state is benign."
There are not many people who I met who have gotten to that stage who actually continue to think that for that long.
it might be worth considering that perhaps we have to get to that point,
to recognize that there is great foldey in that set of thougts and plan to thinking that.
It might be the case that the surveillance state that exists
in fact is negative even if we do not yet understand fully its negative effects.
So, you see this also as social defense in groups,
as a reaction, I think probably the split between wikileaks and openleaks is the greatest
example of the fact that groups, even effective groups, will split and then have bad blood
and then in fact they will deliver utter failure, and it is very sad, tragic even,
and this kind of stuff is something which, even trying to resist,
that we aren't quite aware how these types of things happen.
History shows us certain ways how these kinds of splits might occur.
But it isn't the case that we fully groked this historical lessons
so it is quite sad that we focus so much of our energy on degrading things,
like something does a great thing and someone sais "Ah yes, but this one thing"
and the discussion becomes about this one thing.
I think in fact it might make sense to focus on the good things
as well, it is true that sometimes people produce free hardware but it has one binary BLOB
that does not mean that we should not thank this person and give him credit,
in fact to really praise them for putting so much effort to make everything as open as possible
and it's too bad one thing is not open, but maybe we could put in some effort to open up and free that one thing.
It is basically the same statement, but the way it is stated allows us to think of it in being in it together.
And it helps to keep people together, and it helps to keep people motivated to work together in fact.
I think, it is a useful idea, to try to take this tact.
We also have these psyhcological defenses about the physical world, which I personally have experienced quite a lot.
For example, that notion that warrants are required to enter your house.
Your physical location is somehow protected is a very quite notion I certainly don't believe that anymore.
it is a little sad, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
In the United States, there is a thing called the Patriot Act,
and section 2.15 of the Patriot act essentially sais
"Something" and it's interpreted completely differently.
that is there is a secret interpretation of section 2.15 of the Patriot Act,
and if you ask Bill Binnie about this, what he would say is that everything is fair game.
That is to say, regardless what you thought, the constitution said
(regardless what you think the united nations declaration of human right sais)
that's not what is really going on.
And so, this defense that the people have, they're journalist, they're protected,
no one will do anything to them, it's nonsense.
every journalist in the United States that is subject to the warrantless wiretapping's tentacles,
is being surveilled, regardless of the journalistic protections.
Every member of congress, everybody in this room, probably especially everyone in this room.
And of course people will say "You know, don't cross the border with anything".
That's so stupid, so for example, when I cross the border with a telephone,
I am actually not allowed to tell you what happened to my telephones. And obviously,
it was a mistake to cross the border with a telephone,
it wasn't so much of a mistake, because the telephone connects to the telephone system,
and every phone number in that phone had been used to make or receive calls,
so it's not like the data wasn't already in the hands of the oppressor.
It was in fact the case that it was just slightly better indexed.
But it also had some extra numbers in there, just for fun.
I mean, if you're going to have a surveillance state,
that is going to get people for guilt for association,
you might want to make sure that there are a few jerks in your phonebook, right?
But the reality is, well, I can cross the border without anything of consequence
that is, me deciding to become subdued, and it is me, deciding to except the oppression.
And everyone here can make that choice,
But I say "Fuck that! That is not a choice we should make!"
That's in fact a coping mechanism, and these kinds of coping mechanisms
are a responsive a lack of agency, a response of total helplessness.
For example, people run throigh their mind, "How will I eat, How will I feed my children"
"How will I educate them if I don't play along, if I don't comply?"
They'll make my life hell".
Part of the problem here, and it is funny to say it here in Europe,
becuase it has a much different context,
part of the problem here is the state.
When the state has the power make you make those kinds of thoughts appear in your head,
and it allows you to create that, and make those choices, we become less free.
So, maybe, recognizing those coping mechanisms and trying to progress to the next one,
trying to progress to the next thought could be helpful.
I think that it is helpful.
For me, and what I have tried to do is that I have tried to recognize that
I am trying to cope with a situation that is impossible to cope with at times.
there is really nothing quite going your night like feeling an entire State is stepping on your throat.
It is not even great at talking about on parties.
I mean, there is not really much that is good about it.
But, there is some good that can come of it. And that is to show other people that it is not total.
That it does not nearly end in tears. I mean, It might, but it doiesn't every single day.
You have to choose how this goes.
I had the oppoertunity to meet the Dalai Lama in India,
about two weeks ago, and to me, the tibetan people who had escaped from tibet
under the opperssive chinese rule, people who had been shot, their stomachs ripped out,
there skull cracked open, their teeth knocked out, their families jailed, you name it, they experienced it.
And I realized, I had no problems. By comparison especially, but I recognized something:
these are the friendlies, niciest people you can imagine. I mean, it is really quite a touching thing,
despite the fact, that about a hundred years ago they were a brutal theocracy, they certainly have learned since then.
And it is the case, that we can decide how it is we cope with these things.
We can become increasingly cold and atomized, we can become destroyed, we can undermine our communities,
we can work against our own interests in the long run or we can try to find joy in the life we have,
and we can try to have a better world than the one we have just come from, that we have experienced.
When I look at Bill Binny and Thomas Drake and Justelin Radcliife and john Quircue(sp?),
who are some amazing whislteblowers in the United States
and three of them are in fact in the audience here and have a talk later that you should attend.
That is the best, I think, at the congress.
And I'm including this talk.
These guys and Jessalyn are amazing, and I recommend that you hear their story.
Because they will be able to tell you about what it is like
to stand up for the right things.
And to do it in the most straightforward way possible, exactly by the book:
they basically took a decade working through the system itself,
only to find out that the system itself isn't working to take care
of the problems it is supposed to take care of.
So this is a guy who, in my opinion, went through every possible hoop that I wouldn't even have bothered to jump through.
But he proved to me that I wouldn't bother for a good reason.
I mean, it does not work out well.
And there is something to be said about this, but their story,
I can't do justice by talking about it.
Just the same way that I can't do justice for the story of Bradley Manning.
I can't do justice to the story of Julian and what he is facing right now.
But what I can say about these things is if you compare and contrast them with Robert Bales,
the alleged Kandahar massacre-er, I guess you could say, is that when you things in service of the state,
even if it is killing, allegedly, twenty Afghanis, they will whisk you away, give you time for your family to move and
instead of in the case of Binny having a gun to his head while he's taking a shower.
They just make sure to take him to the general population of Leavenworth right away.
Compare that with Manning, for example, who instead spent, you know, months in being tortured in Quantico
before moving to the general population of Leavenworth.
So there's something to be said about these kinds of examples that have come before.
And I think what it is, is that there are people who will have a very hard path when they choose this path.
It is worth choosing that harder path.
Bill and Thomas and Jessalyn have worked very hard on trying to show the world that in fact
it is not completely worth giving up on.
But it is not an easy task to go through.
I was talking with Thomas about what the impact has been on his family. It is clear to me that the state intended for that hardship as one of their tactics.
But the return is that it used to be that people would think that me or someone up here talking about the surveillance state, talking about the Utah Data Center that we were completely fucking crazy.
But now that's not the point, no one thinks that anymore. Now we understand that the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program is real.
We understand that the data center is there to spy on all of us.
We are no longer wheeling from that fact, we are no longer denying it. That is the reality.
It is because of the things that they have done that that is the case.
It's because of the bravery that they have had in their hearts and the sufferance they have endured.
And the point is not to make it a pitty-party for them and the point is not to say that anonymity is not important.
It is simply that anonymity in itself is not enough. It takes more than that.
Anonymity will buy you time but it will not buy everyone else justice.
It certainly won't even buy them justice and it wouldn't have helped them anyway because in the long run
it's easy with a total surveillance state to try to deanonymize people.
In fact I think it would be quite easy to deanonymize almost anyone in a total surveillance state.
Because our behavioural patterns would give us up, our writing will give us up.
In theory the things that I've said are not probably new to anyone here.
And you often hear that as a tactic for dismissal:
well, it's nothing new, it's nothing special there.
And I hear that and I'd like to raise you a please stop [missing] talking.
Because it is true that some of these things are not new.
But the reality is that we need to actually do something about it, regardless of how long we've known that it is wrong.
So there are things that we can in fact do. And it is worth mentioning that this is not just happening to people that are whistleblowers or associated with the most dangerous people on the internet or anonymity or something like that.
This happens to regular people.
And I will tell you briefly for about two minutes an example of this.
It's a very personal example which I sort of have debating about whether or not I was going to mention.
And I think I'll mention it, just because I think that it is important.
In the United States, probably not surprising to the most people here, I have a mother. And my mother... I know, I know.
But my mother and I are not particularly close and unfortunately for her, she's quite mentally ill.
And it's a very sad story and her life is quite tragic. More tragic than any person that I've mentioned so far.
But what is most tragic about her is that in the last two years, about the time that my harrassment from the United States government started but probably not related, she was arrested and jailed.
And the state broke basically every law that you can imagine in arresting her, including breaking into her house without a warrant for arrest or for search.
Despite the fact that she was arrested under totally bogus circumstances and despite the fact that her life has been utterly destroyed, where her house has been taken and her property has been taken from her.
And she has literally nothing left.
She was forcibly committed to a mental institution.
And as a result they decided that they can hold her for three years without a trial.
Now being mentally ill is not in itself a crime but because she was arrested for something else that is allegedly a crime, this means that they can keep her until she's competent(?).
Thus, effectively criminalizing insanity. Which is too bad, she is legitimately mentally ill and could use help.
But the way that they decided to help her was by destroying her life such that when she gets off on the charges that she faces, she'll have nothing to return to.
So these are the effects of a totalitarian society that goes after Bill Binny, Thomas Drake, Jessalyn Radcliffe, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and myself.
And she told me and though she is quite insane it's difficult to know if it is true that she was interrogated twice about me and WikiLeaks.
Once before she was being treated and then once after she had been forcibly injected with anti-psychotic medicines.
Now, that's a pretty upsetting thing to say the least.
But the most upsetting part is I don't know if it's her crazy ramblings because she is quite crazy or if it's true.
But the important part is that if we just take it as it seems, which that this is a person which has fallen on hard times.
What we can take from this is that this is everybody's problem.
I mean it's also technically my problem but the important part here is to recognize that she is what is happening to everyday regular people in American society.
And that's a really upsetting reality, to have that happen.
So, what can we do about these things?
Right? I mean, if you're still not convinced that this is what happens to regular people and that you will skate(?) by just fine, I don't know what I could say really to convince you.
But I suppose I could say to look to the children who have been killed by drones who were also innocent, and see what kind of justice that they have.
But it seems to me that rather we have to fight against things.
But we have to do more than just fighting against them.
Because merely fighting against things becomes corrosive.
And my mother's situation, fighting against her unjust imprisonment, the same for Bradley Manning, the same for Assange, the same for all the people that have been unjustly harrassed or worse,
that burns you out and it destroys your life.
And it destroys your ability to feel hope, to have fun, to be able to relax.
I can't even remember the last time that I did not go to sleep wondering if I would wake up with a gun in my mouth when living in the United States.
Because that's the kind of world that we live in now.
And maybe you're lucky and you don't live in that world.
But the reality is that lots of people do live in that world.
And whether or not they deserve it, there's something to be said about people who are not arrested who have to worry about that kind of stuff.
Maybe that's not the world we want to live in.
So, what if instead we tried to not just fight against things but to build alternatives.
And specifically to try to build sustainable alternatives.
And to come to terms with the fact that we are losing our democracies around the world.
And that we are losing our agency.
We are increasingly depressed about the kind of democratic oversight that we have.
And feeling like we don't have representation in our respective parliaments and congresses.