 Welcome back on the channel of Karlssonet TV. And now we have an English speaking contribution. And for that, I welcome Pandemonium, who is a historian and documentary filmmaker. And therefore, we will also not have a normal talk, but we will see the documentary information. What are they looking at? We see a documentary, what do they see? A private documentary on English here in the cross zone. And after that we will talk about it. Anyway, please ask your questions and we can take it over. And now the film starts. Because the great promise of the internet is freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of opinion. These are fundamental rights of our democratic values. Only because we have security, it doesn't mean that we have freedom. And only because we have freedom, it doesn't mean that we have peace. We should look for truth. We have to break the unlawful laws. We fight for something. That means, only to be safe. Ok, I didn't get it right now. There is freedom everywhere, but we are only free to see it for a short time. Before the internet began, the communication in the rule of one meditator to many readers. People have the opportunity to reach millions of people. That is a new way to communicate. Facebook and Twitter are the people who see that they are not alone with their opinion. And that has created a critical mass. That is an important role that social media has played. You can see Facebook Square, Tahir Square. And there are people out there who could feel that they are not alone in their desire for change. The great promise of the internet is freedom. We are afraid of it. We are afraid of it. We know it is free. Because it was promised that it is the great equalizer. Before the internet, everything you said was so anonymous. Because the concept is of anonymity. We could discuss things that were not the standard way, the standard values of society in which we were. The question of how to deal with the claim. I haven't been to Verbergen for many years. No, I haven't been there for a long time. Because this sentence is very short, but very perfidious. The speaker who gives me the sentence. I haven't been to Verbergen against Schleudert. He doesn't just say something about himself. He also says something about me. Lisa, I haven't been to Verbergen. Actually often, without the fact that the component is spoken out, you don't do it either, do you? In this sense, this sentence always finds a piece of solidarity. Because at the same time I don't agree with the other who may be to Verbergen. One of the things about privacy is that it's not always about you. It's about the people in our network. I know friends from Syria, people who I met in other places all over the world. Not afraid, but also people who have fear all the time in their home countries and also in the countries where they stay. And I can say that I haven't been to Verbergen. But if you have a person in your network, an activist member, people from countries where that's not the case, then it's about data sphere and security. That's why people are safe. When privacy is safe, because when everything is public, when normal is public, then everything we have to keep is a part of guilt. And that's not the world we want to have. It reduces our freedoms, reduces our democracy. No one should be subject to any interference with their private sphere, family, HMAT or correspondence. That's human rights sphere. Human rights is something that was realized in my opinion about the freedoms of people all over the world. It should be everywhere and completely. And that's what a person does. And they collect data and metadata over hundreds of thousands or millions of people. And a little bit of the data is never looked at. But at the same time you can only, because you're not an activist, then that doesn't mean that you can't be a target at some point. And that's something that's very, very bad. At the moment it's not a problem, but maybe your friends or your family or maybe you in the future. That means we have to think about it now. Not because we're going to dig out our houses in the middle of the night, but because these data, these metadata can be stored for a long time. My observation is that we currently are experiencing the privacy space, the space that remains in the digital world. The private, that should be private, slowly begins to erode. Or it becomes permittable. That might not only factual, but also in the experience that we have of those rooms. Imagine the digital world that is a panopticon. The Jerry M. Benson building, the circular building where in the ring, in the cells there are the prisoners. At the center there is a surveillance tower. And the guard can see the prisoners around him. And the trick is that the prisoners do not know whether they are under surveillance currently. They only see the tower, but they do not see the surveyor or the guard. But they do know that at any point of time, permanently, they can be surveilled. That is, that changes how they behave. I think surveillance is a technology of government. It is a political technology. It is about controlling and how you control the population. It is a lack of power. It is about people who are connected to the state. It is a population management and control mechanism. That means that people have to be convinced that it is in their interest. And not the day of the day. It is just everyone for themselves and everyone just tries to reach everyone. I take my cue from my previous NSC council. He asked this question. Metadata tells you everything about someone, the life of a person. You do not need any content. It is so shameful that it is so. Let's say you make a call. For example, you are wearing a hotline. A few hours later, maybe you call a friend. You call a friend, a doctor, you send an e-mail and so on. Now the content of this call or this e-mail was not collected. But what is recorded, what you did, when you called, different metadata can be linked together to create a professional. You can kill metadata based on metadata. But that is not what we do with these metadata. Thankfully. Wow, I have sweat there for a second. For conducting this kind of surveillance. To go after, yes, at least. And obviously, that you are looking for terrorists. That many people have understanding of it. But there are some problems. The first is, they have not proven that surveillance actually works to prevent terrorists. It did not work in Paris. It did not work in Boston. It did not work anywhere. So that is the one part. But the other part is, we waste billions of dollars for surveillance, but not for the reasons of terrorism. These values ​​do not stand against each other. And the purchase of these propaganda no longer exists. I think power is hidden around surveillance. I think power is hidden around surveillance. That is our interest to keep us safe. And there were cases in the populations that fought against this surveillance. And I think that is a kind of mystery around this technology. There is this intuition, there is this technology. And it is there to do that and it works. But the power relationship is hidden. For whom is it there? That is the problem. It is not the overwhelming majority of the English majority. It is against white people. It is not the white people. It is about Muslim populations. For example, at the airport, the other passengers say, oh, this Union speaks Arabic. And that is why this person is a subject. The goal of this surveillance. This type of surveillance of each of us. On the other hand, because of this culture, this culture of fear, which has been strengthened in a way. And it is growing around us. This fear is that I think it goes from being concrete to being brave. It is another way to have a connection of control. It is about identity. It is very, it is very easy to define. There is a lot of fear when you use the fears of people who are justified. And where you also repeat racist stereotypes. And I think it is very dangerous to give more and more to this. Also, because I think that with this, the negative instincts of people are strengthened. The exclusion of racial profiling. It is inherently disenfranchising. It makes you feel differently than others. That is why surveillance and things that are possible by technology are extremely harmful. And they cause you to feel differently as a subject. Because you are a target of the region. This program has been kept secret for years. If they are necessarily so meaningful and effective. Why has no one been justice for this? Why is everything in the secret of secret courts? Why does the Commission of Secret Service, which has imposed its own Obama, not a single zero of the cases of terror or terrorist attacks through these huge telecommunications and metadata were only explained in action? In trying to stop something from happening. If you try to stop something before it happens, you can enter a measure. And that will probably happen. But you do not know if this measure has prevented it. Because it has not happened. You cannot check it. You cannot measure it. And you cannot say with 100% certainty that it did not happen. But after 9-11, after the catastrophic attack, politicians were in this impossible position. The people were scared. They did not have to do anything. One of them is that every objective has to be checked. And a kind of panoptics of surveillance. No, no, we can see everything. Do not be afraid. We have all the information. We just have to find the needle in the haystack. But then, obviously, we have to talk about it. We can see it clearly. When we go to your door, you saw something, called this hotline. And they have listed things. The neighbor who goes to a vacation very often. Or the other neighbor who always has the curtains. It changes how you look at society. And it changes the assumption of innocent to danger. It does not start with a problem. If he wears a spring belt and already holds the belt in his hand. Or if he has already bought parts for a spring belt. Or if he has only been informed on the Internet how to build a spring belt. When can the state intervene properly? For me, it is very central. The very problematic question is whether someone who has been put into a potential danger or a potential terrorist suspect without being a terrorist. Yes, yes. Whether someone like that is allowed to wake up right away or even be arrested. That means, whether certain people because they could create a specific danger for the community fundamental human rights should be discussed. First of all, let's face an unequal threat that will last. Two days after the attacks in Brussels on December 22nd, 2016 John Claude Juncker and the French Prime Minister had a joint press conference. We are living in our art. But we also think that the Union of Security and all the elements... In this, Juncker called on the Minister to take a proposal of the Commission to protect the outer borders of Europe. For over 15 years now, we have observed a big... Over 15 years, we have noticed that there is a lot of pressure to form more surveillance measures against the attacks of the last years. That was not possible. We have a new proposal that is only based on ideology. The Supreme Court passed the law. The Green House President, Jan-Philippe Albrecht, wrote a statement on netpolitik.org which defines the guidelines as terrorism could be used by the government to criminalize political actions or political protests. These rules, these laws they are very discriminating. When you talk about a politician on the level of a local politician this problem is known to us for a long time. We always deny everything that is unpleasant to us and that is unsightly to us to set the horizon. That is strange to us. We don't do that. And if one of us does it, he has to be crazy. This is Edward Sayed's point of view that Western self-definition has to be defined against the other Eastern self-definition. Everything that is Western is not the East and vice versa. And that is... Western self-definition and its... and that is the dichotomy that continues. For the first time in the context of the French Revolution the Jacobins who were under Robespierre who had established the rule of law or terror were the first terrorists, that's what they were called. The first terrorism was the terrorism of the state and of course the systematic surveillance of counter-revolutionaries. The proposal, the directive says that it has to do with human rights. But it's not because of these surveillance measures to feel secure. But we have seen that these repressive measures do not mean higher security. And to sell that to people you have to have a fear around the insecure world. Everything could happen at any time and if something can happen at any time, what can we do? You have the feeling that this text wants to make sure that police authorities are able to use any kind of communication to prevent anything from happening. You have to know what happened and also the future. You can get as much information as you can at any time. It's about no risk. Democracy has a kind of concept that is called surveillance measures against each other which means to respect the rule of law. This is part of the private sphere. In Germany it's very high-ranked. But it's also very low-ranked. When we are afraid to speak about the government or about a partner or a boss or a boss, all possible surveillance is caused by a sensor. When everything is monitored, you think twice before you speak. When all the likes are collected about you, that changes your behavior. Of course you think about if you like something or don't, then social consequences are possible for you. When we look at the history of the rights to violence, all these rights were illegal by law or by culture. And when we have these mass surveillance, we would have these movements if all the laws were absolute and we would never have changed if we had the same rights. Women had to break the rights to break the rights to break the rights to break the rules to break the rights to break the rules. And that's the same here. All our laws historically have the most harsh consequences on the most disadvantageous ones. From the very beginning it was my fault that I came here last year. Especially the former boss of Google, Eric Smith, who is familiar with the fact that he actually said that. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you might not want to say it. But if you really need that kind of part, when you need this private part the truth is that search engines like Google can back up information some time later. Big corporations that companies that have this business model have interest in you raw material. Your information is raw material and you work on it to create a profile about you. If I know enough about you, if I have so much information about you that I can create a very life-changing picture of you, a simulation, that is very valuable. The economy of the Internet to say human behavior, to say, to control the eyes. This system is set up to sell our data, our demography for advertising, to sell something. These companies know more about us than we do about ourselves. Now we feel the beast. There is very little overview. It has to reach a person just like others. If you buy a soda and buy it in the afternoon and you immediately get a ad about pizza and where the soda comes from. And that's what advertising is about. I always laugh when I'm on the side. When I want to buy something, when I see the sweater on the same side. It's very strange that the biggest people, the biggest thoughts, they only think about how this surveillance business starts here and ends not only here. For some people, it doesn't seem so disturbing. And we don't know who the whole data exchange is. A whole company, a whole environment that has thousands of data points to collect and create a profile to create. And then you don't know what happened with this data at all. That means it's hard to say which implications exist before it's too late. Stasi in comparison to Google or Facebook are beginners. Stasi had to use people to monitor people and to play in the night. That's expensive. It cost a lot of money. They had to choose people. It was very expensive for them to pay all these people to play in the night. But on Facebook and Google they don't have to do that anymore. They are algorithms. That's the mass surveillance. And we can monitor so many people. That's conspiracy theory. We have a business model. When we talk about rhythm, we usually talk about a logic. For example, if we want to buy a book at Emerson, you always see a few other examples. These mistakes have been prepared for you, depending on what things you bought in the past. They learn that they make mistakes. It's okay if you sell dog food. It's about going to the police station to do activities. If you build up a matrix, you will have criminal actions. That's not okay anymore. We have to make the whole discussion about how we have to realize this whole thing before it's carried out. One consequence of this is that many street groups or people who have little manners can't talk about it anymore. And if you don't listen to them anymore or if you suppress them, then they will always be stronger in their opinion. And the other thing is that you never hear a voice. Our data is not waste. Our data is not oil. Data is human. Maybe you don't do anything wrong today, but maybe in three governments, if you implement a certain law, what you might do today is then illegal. And people who can collect these data can look back, look back 10 or 20 years and then people will follow. And everything we buy and everything we even do, even the people we meet and the people we meet and are chosen by these algorithms, is the amount of power that we accept, something from these firms. It's more than we accept it from the start. And that is where the representative democracy has a obligation, to press the government against these private firms, to at least publicize them to a certain point, how much data they can extract. It makes it clear that the technology is still much more slipped into our lives than it is without a hitch. So, really technically in our body, in our clothes, in the devices in which we sit, in which we carry all possible areas of our life, our working life, then that is definitely the wrong way, because it ultimately leads to natural disasters. If you think about it for a few minutes, you would think that the actual dichotomy from control to freedom is there and a fairly controlled society can be free. Hello. Welcome back from the movie. Welcome back from the movie. Well, welcome to our producer. And it was very, yeah, showing very good what information. It shows very good what information can do and what we can do with information. And I think that the Germans still have a little bit of time to ask questions. And in the meantime, I could ask you why. If you want to ask questions in German, you can simply put them on the usual channel at C3T. Yeah, films were not shown at first. What would you do differently? What might have changed in the past since the film was produced? What I would change, I would try to secure money to make a better movie. To have more time, to work it faster. It took a very long time. And this film, as it was just made, was financed by some very great people who supported me on Patreon and who supported me with their private money. And almost no budget. And that would change. This documentation in Germany is very difficult to get money in Germany without a television or if you don't have a name. But I still wanted to make this film. And I'm still very happy with this direction, with the general direction. But it was mainly recorded in 2015-2016 and some new developments, especially biometric surveillance and police, and especially in the USA, body cameras. I would still talk about colonialism and racism in this discussion about surveillance and privacy. And there are seven extreme groups in Germany that we see in discussions about hate messages on the internet, in the Metaversum, how to call it. All these things are already in the film, but I would focus more on it if I had known more about it six years ago and how I would do it now. But I would generally do the same. Fascinating that you did it with nearly no budget. It's fascinating that you did it almost without money. And it was also an interesting point. And it was an interesting point where we have now finished. Basically I understood this idea that these bodycams should protect the people against the police, not vice versa, as it appears a few times. Exactly the problem with bodycams or with other surveillance methods is that you think that the video shows the reality. You always think of the angle, of the way of view. And people always have prejudices about who might be the right and who might be the right and who might be the right. And these pictures or videos have, even if they were objective, the objective reality. It's exactly the same as with a film or with other photo recordings that we make. For this film I have put together quite a lot of interviews. They took a very long time, a lot of hours. And I could put it together in many different ways. The same film that would have argued in the other direction with the same material. And that shows very strongly how important it is that at the end of the day we as judges, as police, as normal people, that we overcome these prejudices, these surveillance that is possible at a technical level. Because it's always connected with the way we view the world. I actually remember an old talk we had several years ago. I remember an old talk a few years ago. It was about a freedom of speech demonstration. And there was also a case where someone with a blue T-shirt was beaten by the police. And it was very difficult to gather these various videos to explain the story. What happened? Maybe you should be able to find it. Where it was constructed in some way. I will definitely search for it. I can't remember which year, but you should be able to find it. And now we have some actual questions from the audience. Can I find the movie anywhere? Can I find the movie somewhere to show it to someone? Yes, it's on YouTube. You can find it if you enter the title and enter my name Teresia Reinhold. That's very good. Is the 21st century short attention span for non-technological friends, non-technical friends of the front? I don't really get the question. I guess... I don't really get the question. But it's about... If there is a way, if there is a way to explain that there are non-technical people. What's the problem if you say you have nothing to complain about? Yes, if there is anything in your life... If you are happy that nobody can see it. A embarrassing YouTube video, or if you don't... Or if it's about singing in the shower. Then that is your right. That you don't... Nobody has to judge you about it. It's the same as with mass surveillance. Or surfing on the Internet. Or walking on the street. We have a basic... A basic security zone. And that's human rights. Or if it's in the technical or analogue world. If you're in the shopping mall. Or if you don't want to know that other people know what you're buying. And you should have the right that it's private. That it's not known to others. If you surf on the Internet. Then everything is analysed. Everything is monitored in real time. And our movements on the Internet are sold to the biggest bidders. And there is a big... A big industry behind it. And that's immoral. And people should always have the opportunity to share what they really want to share. They want to have it public. And if they... If there aren't a lot of technologists from the East, then just talk about the stars. Yes, thank you for the... I don't know what it's about in the film. Since it can be stored now. That it can be stored now. It can look at a story in the future and attack it. And... No... The question has been improved. And it doesn't matter if I asked. The question is... Could there be a teaser? Could there be a teaser that you could send to your friends? Okay, yes. And that's also on YouTube. And also on Vimeo. I'm sorry. I didn't get it from the question. Very good. So, Zen, I guess we are through with the questions. And I thank you. Zen, this... Talk is over. If there is feedback, use the hashtag C3Lingo on the whole platform. Or... Go to the world, look at other streams or have something to eat. See you later.