 Thank you very much. Is this working? Ok, perfect. So it was in April this year when the alarms of the hacker community, the digital rights organizations of the civil society and so were triggered. All those alarms were triggered because the European Union had registered a proposal to create a single secure European cyberspace. What that single secure European cyberspace was, we didn't knew, because that proposal was completely elaborated in secrecy outside the public scrutiny. So here we are today in this talk for trying to know which was exactly the meaning of that proposal. What did the European Union try to do with that proposal? When trying to understand that proposal we will find some vulnerabilities in the power structures of the European Union and the global governance. So my aim here is to offer an insight, a proposal to exploit that vulnerability in order to let's say provide some kind of integrity of the cyberspace and to ensure the respect for the human rights like freedom of expression and so privacy also in the cyberspace. Just before entering the issue, in order to help you understand my approach, I will say just a few words about me. Because of course I was fascinated in the middle nineties with the technologies, especially when I discovered that I was able to retrieve the passwords file of the central servers of my university just by playing. But then you know the power of technology, you have a perception of the technology power, but even more important was the perception of the potentialities of technologies in the social level. So that's why in my free time decided to collaborate with grassroots movements like ecologism, feminism and others in order to improve the performance of their work with the aim to have a better world in the sense of the same values that I shared with them. That was when collaborating with the indimedia network, I was one of the system administrators that were involved in the size of the servers made by the FBI, apart from the personal experience which was something strange. The important thing is that I became conscious about the political importance, the political impact of technologies. So that's why I entered the field of political science first as a practitioner working together with the European Parliament, then with the commission, then taking responsibilities in the government of Galicia, which is the place where I come. For those who doesn't know Galicia is one of the three nations which are in the Kingdom of Spain with Pasque Country, Catalonia and so on. So now I'm in the political science, now I'm not related anymore with any government, this is important to say, but I wanted to say this because of course I have a bias in my approach and my bias comes from this experience, this is just for you to know. So, what was that single European, secure European cyberspace thing? What we know is that in April the minutes of a meeting of a working group of the European Council of the European Union, just a paragraph, were slash dotted. And then became to the public the proposal of creating a single secure European cyberspace in the European Union and that was the first new we all have about that. Of course, the thing was rapidly to the mediatic agenda and we still didn't know nothing about that even when asking the political representatives until an organization, the European Digital Rights, afforded to release a copy of the PowerPoint presentation used in that meeting. What that PowerPoint presentation show it was this, this is a map of the European Union, I'm sorry for the quality, that's the quality of the works of the European Council it seems. This is a map of the European Union where we can see a central database, yes, and the function of that database is writing there. It is for storing the illegal contents of the whole internet and to making them unavoidable to see. The idea is very similar to other projects we saw the Nida Sachsen White IT project regarding pedophile contents, which was very similar to this idea. So a central database and some collaboration agencies which were helping the internet service providers to block those pedophile contents, sorry, yes. Ok, we have there the prosecutors, the courts, the law enforcement agencies and so. It is important to see to talk about the similarities with the white IT thing because they do not only share the model, they share also the issue. The reason why this proposal was being considered was the object to cut pedophile contents of the internet. Of course we can think that this pedophile thing is important, yes, of course it is, child abuse is a very serious thing and there is a German organization here in this congress talking about those issues very seriously by the way. But it's very strange that a whole single secure cyberspace is constructed only to address that issue. But for the first time, thanks to the work of the European Digital Rights Organization, we were willing to know that yes, that was the case because the pedophile contents were only the first step for making illegal content unavoidable in general. And there was no definition, no formal definition in that proposition, in that presentation about what content is and what illegal content was. And that is all because more beyond the subject referring to the technical side there was no information at all. My information was that they will need to be the internet service providers, those who will be in charge of blocking the content, those that elicit contents. And that's all, that's all because after the proposal came into the public sphere, the proposal disappeared, the proposal vanished completely. And that was a very strange thing because in those days I was working in an academic paper here in the university constants here in Germany trying to understand how the cyberspace notion, which is a notion which comes from the literature, from the fictional science romance, which is like poetry if you want, is today in the official papers of the European Union. How that could be possible, my work was trying to understand how that was possible. So I found that from 1997 the cyberspace notion became to appear in the production of the European Union until in 2008 after the attacks, the cyber attacks over the Estonian network, it registered a boost in that appearance which was easy to understand because the states, the national states of the European Union and all over the world filled the truth. So it was very natural for me to recite the proposal of a single secure European cyberspace because it was the moment, what was not natural was to see how that proposal disappeared. So I made myself the question, why this single secure European cyberspace now has disappeared? So I went back to my research work and then I tried to find facts to understand what has happened with that. So yes, the Council of the European Union had registered that proposal with the frame of pedophilia, which is a frame of justice and home affairs area of the European Union, so courts, police and the like. Then the proposal came into the public and all surprise in the next development the European Union changes completely the frame to justify the proposal and instead of talking about the cyberspace as an unsafe place for our children, they began to talk explicitly about cyberspace as a war theater of operations, which is a major development and very strange and very dangerous. So I went even deeper in that research and I found that yes, some a month after that we found the first joint meeting between the justice and home affairs area of the European Union and the common security and defence policies of the European Union working together and agreeing on a protocol to address in a joint way the issue of cyber crime in cyberspace. And just one week after that, all surprise, NATO adopts the cyber defence policy based in the notion of cooperation, which was not only coerent with the joint work of the defence and inner security areas of the European Union and states, but it was also coerent with the needing of the industry to obtain a common framework to implement their technologies, their security technologies. Because after the attacks on Estonia, the different national states began to develop their own cyber strategies policies, national strategies of cyberspace, among them the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany. Those three countries at least have developed and published, so this is official, this is real, this is not fictional science, this is not cyberpunk, this is official documents, national strategies for that. But having different national strategies is very difficult for the industry of military security and surveillance system. It is better to have just one regulatory framework to implement those technologies, it is cheaper that way. So the industry has called the different states of the European Union to have only one policy to work together and that was done by the EOS lobby of security and military technology of surveillance in the European Union who wrote a document which is publically available with that title which, oh surprise, again whose content was nearly the same which was presented to the European Union. So what we have here is a near to ten years policy making process intended to militarize the cyberspace. So what's the single secure European cyberspace thing, it is just the European step of that very big policy process, so that's what we have. So here we are, now that we can understand what that single secure European cyberspace is, it is the moment to think about the importance of that notion of militarizing the cyberspace. Because that notion of militarizing the cyberspace, to provide us security is the same thing like bombing cities in order to provide them peace or to instantiate a war to make democracy to emerge. This is corrupted thinking, this is not a correct thing, of course this is a personal opinion. So, yes, what to do, it's political hacking, here we are. So I'm trying to describe to you that vulnerability. So yes, we have this process where we have the national strategies, then we have the industry calling for a unified strategy, then we have the European Union obtaining that unifying strategy and then we have the greatest military, by the way, the NATO is the national North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so the biggest military organization in the western countries, I think that is the definition. So the NATO adopts that coordinated approach for the western country, but again, all surprise, just one week after the NATO adopts this policy, here they come, the United States, and they enact, they publish a new cyber strategy with national level with, very important, says this paragraph here, please I ask you to read this. This strategy allows the Department of Defense to organize, train and equip for cyberspace as we do it in air, land, maritime and space to support national security interests. So in an official paper we have the enactment of cyberspace as the fifth battlefield for this war. Very nice, thank you very much for that contribution to the human thinking. So the process of militarization, yes, what we can see here is that the process of militarization creates tension in the national state level, because when the states need to delegate to transfer their powers to the international level in order to make viable that militarization, they lose the power to operate in their own territories. So it's a paradox because as long as the militarization goes forward, the states lose the power to implement that militarization, which is very strange and which is very interesting, because at the end what we have here is something like a self-defensive loop in the cyberspace, and that is not an attribute of the militarization thing, because when these people go to militarize Iraq or that kind of things, these things does not happen, this only happens in the cyberspace. So it will be really interesting to know how that self-defensive loop works, because in that case if we know how that works, when new proposals like this came with danger to the cyberspace, then we will be able to activate that self-defense loop. That's the idea what I was working on, and in order to know how that works, it is necessary to start from the concept of the nation-state. Nation-states are the sovereignty, so the monopoly of the power over a territory by a nation. So a nation-state is composed by two elements, the first one is the territory, the second one is the nation. Regarding the territory, this image is a very classic image of the Leviathan, so the representation of the state in the political science philosophy, who represent this big man having the power, the justice and probably this is the religion, so the truth, over the land we can see the land here of his domain with the houses and the properties of all the people. So this is the notion of the state, the people gives the power to that man in order to protect them from the dangers, and that is the state, so the state needs a territory, but what happens with cyberspace? Yes, we can understand cyberspace as a territory and even as a territory of power, but the cyberspace as a territory is a borderless territory, it has no frontiers. So this is a contradiction with the very nature of the state and that is the first element of the vulnerability. The second element of the vulnerability comes with the concept of nation, what is a nation? I chose this one for obvious reasons and we can say that in this room there will be a lot of Germans and all them are Germans, but all them are different between them. So how the nations work with this being the same thing and being different things? This works because nations are collective identities and as collective identities are also the same thing as ontological networks. So all the Germans have different things, each one, but all as Germans share a core, a kernel of meaning, of ontological meaning, which is the concept of the nation. And as we can see the notion of collective identity is networked, so this is the second thing, this could be compatible with the cyberspace. So these are the two elements, first the territory and second the nation. Ok, so we have identified a weakness on the nation state. First, because the cyberspace is a borderless territory of power. So it is not possible for any state or for any alliance of states to establish a monopoly of power on the cyberspace, which is what they want to do with the militarization thing. And the second one is the identities thing. Through the cyberspace we can enact alternative identities for the national identities of the space and we can have collective identities which are not linked to territories, so which are not national identities. But those which are the weakness of the nation state in regard with the cyberspace are as well the strengths of the cyberspace. So now we have the mechanism of that self-defensive loop. As long as we empower the strengths of the cyberspace, we will be weakening the power of the states to danger the cyberspace. So which is the vulnerability? Is this concept that I am proposing here, which is the borderless collective identities, which are identities, which are collective and which affect borderless places? So, these are interesting because, yes, they problematize the action of the nation state, we have seen that and they activate the cyberspace self-defensive loop. And I choose it three examples of what can those borderless collective identities be. One could be the pirate party, we know that phenomenon, who have representatives in the European Parliament, two or three, I don't know exactly, which have a lot of representatives here in the Abge ordinate house of Berlin, I think fifteen or something like that, and they have a lot in the local elections and so on. And that same concept was not exported in the European and German level. I was the other day talking with the representative of the pirate party in Catalonia and they have acquired also representatives and the meaning is the same. It is a collective identity and it works without borders. So that's an example. Another example could be the anonymous thing. Yes, I don't have any much data in political data to talk about that, but I think that you can understand the example. And the other one are cyborgs. Why cyborgs? So now we are in the last part of the talk, I think we are going well in time, yes? Because in political science this question is very important. What to do? We have problems, social problems, political problems, problems of power and we want to find a way to act in regard with those problems. So finding the answer for that question is very important. But in the same way it is very important to not make the same errors of the people who came before us, like this is the case. So yes, I want to address this question but not in saying, hey, this is what you need to do. I want to address this question in a deliberative way because I think that this is the way for real democracies to work. So I'm going to propose that notion, the notion of borderless collective identities, but I'm proposing that notion under the frame of a cyborg, ok? Ok, if the European Union is talking about cyberspace which was a cyberpunk thing, I have the right to talk about cyborgs here. I'm sorry about that. But I would like to do that in a deliberative way. So I will try to present this idea very briefly in order to allow time for you to ask questions and not to ask questions but to deliberate about this thing. So very briefly, why cyborgs? I'm not talking about robots and I'm not talking about robots who are similar to human beings, which will be androids. I'm not talking about the classical notion of cyborg as a human being known, as a organism, a mixture of organism and synthetic things. And even I'm not talking about human beings with amplified capacities, capabilities thanks to technology. And even I'm not talking about any organism, not necessarily human beings, with mixtors of technology. This is perhaps interesting but those are individuals, those cyborgs. I'm not interested in this thing. I'm more interested in notions like this which was made by Dona Haraway in the 90s or in the 80s. I'm not very sure probably in the 90s. So she is a she and it's important to remark that she is a she because women tend to not be so present in the academics as they might be. So she has made this proposal about the cyborg as a metaphor, as a metaphor of selves. So she told about cyborgs as identities and that's the point where I can connect with this proposal, which is a postmodern proposal, postconstructivist proposal. But it is a proposal at the same time that works very well in this society where we live. So focusing this as a dialectic process where we have the classical cyborg which are that individual which are a man and who exercise the violence to make things. And we have the postmodern thing which was that proposed by Dona Haraway focus on the narrative of the societies. My proposal is a synthesis where I'm talking about the deliberative cyborgs. So I'm talking about with an ocean of cyborgs which are collective entities so they are not individuals. It is not that you can construct in a garage. They are collective so there is people involved. People very normal like you and me. This is very important. Those cyborgs are networked. Ok, so you can't touch them. It's not physical things. Yes. And what they do is to deliberate. So that's the notion of cyborgs which I'm proposing which could be pictured like this. This could be an image of a cyborg, a deliberative cyborg in a given moment. But anyway that's not a very good example. So I would like to present how cyborgs work. Cyborgs in action because once you have the concept you can review the history and how the things happen it in order to understand that. And I think we can understand the patterns thing in cyborg terms. In order to do that I'm using the results of a research of some German researchers Philip Liefeld and Sebastian Hauns who have tried to understand why those hackers and communists and radicals and hippies were able to defeat the software patterns directive in the European Union when that pattern was baked by very, very strong economic and political powers. So they tried to understand why and how that happened and they show us this evolution. In the upper side we have what we can call the no-software patterns cyborg. So this is the different evolution of the people who were working against the software patterns directive in the three times that they have analyzed. And in the downside we can see how the evolution of the people who were proposing that directive was evolving. So we have similar structures or network structures and we have different evolutions. This is from the same research paper this was, no, yes, this is the same paper. We can see now a different picture of those two cyborgs. Now we have here the anti-software patterns and we have here the other one and we can see how they are very differently constructed even when those are networked and we see a lot more density in the cyborg of the no-software patterns directive. And this is another image of that cyborgs. Here we have the no-software patterns cyborg and here we have the pro-software patterns cyborg and what we can see here is how those cyborgs are connected. Because I'm not proposing this to fight or to win or to that kind of war language. I'm talking about the liberation. So here is people who talks about having the software patterns and here is people that say no, we don't want software patterns and the important thing is that they are connected, they evolve but they are connected and in this case the connection was with the parliamentary groups, the political groups in the European parliament and also the commission and so on which is important in order to approach what we need to do with ACTA, SOPA and so on so let's learn from our experiences in the past. But what does the cyborgs do? What the cyborgs do is deliberate, deliberation and deliberation is about narratives the narratives of the patterns and here we can see the main elements of the patterns narrative we can see the frames which were disputed in those moments the basic one which was the competitiveness the other one which was the economic growth and we see how those two cyborgs were trying to co-opt and to take the hegemony over those frames and the red cyborg here which is the cyborg of the anti-software patterns was the one who afforded to obtain that hegemony the narrative and the public discourse because they managed we managed probably you also managed to obtain a better narrative of that thing so we have seen some cyborgs in action and we know that what that single security in cyberspace was and we know that the cyberspace is being militarized but what can we do I think there is a problem here why the cyberspace is being militarized well there are some theories there around about the existence of some plutocracies some invisible hands something that makes that things happens as they do but it is usually said that those are conspiracy theories things of dystopian narratives nothing real, nothing serious or yes well just a few weeks ago it was published a history a research paper by the that kind of a lot of universities understand how the financial crisis work and they try to see the importance of the corporate control in that in those events of the financial crisis and here are the results after analyzing more than 1 million transactions after analyzing 600,000 corporations they found that the 60% of the global wealth was managed by only this small number of corporations and who they are fortunately they have identified them so we have empirical data of scientific research that backs the hypothesis of the existence of a plutocracy so a government of a very few and I think that we all know who these people are and we need to think about how to deal with that and yes, it is a crisis but the world crisis which in Greek means change and here I'm showing you the Chinese word which is composed of two concepts which is danger and opportunity can be applied to this financial crisis because with the plutocracy thing we have seen the danger and now we can see the opportunity because in order to neutralize the problems of the plutocracy as a form of government which was treated by the Greeks from the times of Plato we have the solution yes for the time of the Greeks thanks for the Greeks by the way which is democracy so the way to improve the deliberation instantiated by the plutocracy cyborg is with as democracy cyborg and this is my proposal and my proposal also says that that democracy cyborg is not needed to act it exist, it is working we can see that in the Arab Spring with people asking for democracy we can see it in Portugal and Spain with the Spanish Revolution and the Indignados movement and they see we want democracy now that's the main thing of these people and we can see also this in the United States with the Occupy movement and the 90% movement because they are saying exactly the same thing and these people is people like you and me and these people are fighting for democracy and are fighting against plutocracy and they want to avoid the problems of militarization of cyberspace in other fields just as you and me and this fight is the same fight of the other one this is a fight for democracy it's all the same problem and what I'm trying to say here is that it will be nice to join the democracy cyborg which is working now in the same way that we've seen empirical evidences of the plutocracy cyborg I show here some photos and logos about the existence of a democracy cyborg and it will be important because well that idea of militarization that idea of militarizing the cyberspace to provide us security which is the same thing as bombing for peace it's wrong and about that wrong idea of bombing for peace I don't have nothing more to say that what those girls say in this message and that's all by my part it will be nice if we can talk and deliberate about this I think we have 15 minutes or something like that so that's all for me thanks thank you very much for your talk as usual now we have possibility for a Q&A session and I have one mic here in the foreground and there's another mic in the background so we'll come to you if you have questions just raise your hand and we have the first question here thank you very much for your talk it was a really great talk I really like the cyborg take on things just a few short remarks first of all I think you said it already but I think it needs to be said you said that cyberspace is borderless I think there is a border between cyberspace and need space I don't want to call it no reality and virtual reality because in that case we would be saying that well in virtual reality there might be no laws but it is a border between need space and cyberspace and this border is I think is becoming a trench right now because all nations are trying to somehow make cyberspace in their own image and those borders are actually being enacted right now and another thing I would like to say is that you said that cyborgs not meaning that somehow people's abilities are being amplified I think it's a little bit not exactly like that because somebody said that I really like the thought that computers for the first time computers are something that amplify the brain so that amplify any other organ we can think of but computers are something that actually amplifies the brain and maybe it's just something we should think about right and maybe use it thank you yes very interesting remarks yes indeed I see this the thing in a very similar way and yes I agree that with that idea of computers amplifying the human being but simply I wanted to extend that notion to the network so it is not just the computer but the network anyway I'm very aligned with your view and refer it to the separation between virtual and the other level yes yes I can see that as well but in the same way I see I might call here the conclusions of poster in his book about cyberspace where he I don't know when it's a he or a she but anyway poster says that yes cyberspace was created as an illusion we have that definition of a collective hallucination it is the definition of the cyberpunk literature and then we have the political first political movements in relation with cyberspace so the independence manifesto of the cyberspace it was Periwarlo I think who wrote that and in that political view that first political view it is possible to see how they say hey we are we do not have nothing to do with you the real world we are a different world we are different I don't know nation I don't know if he uses that word no separate part but at the end the cyberspace relies on an infrastructure which is the internet and that infrastructure is owned by corporations so there is a linkage in the property structure between the notion of a virtual cyberspace and the cyberspace let's say the real world so that was a weakness in the proposals of the cyberpunk way of thinking in my humble opinion and that weakness was solved by the postmodernist people because in the postmodernist way they put the the point in the narratives in the meanings and they say that against the hegemonic narratives let's say of the neoliberalism there is a way to solve that with fragmented narratives which are the narratives of all of us as different individuals and they propose that notion of cyberspace as a metaphor as a metaphor that's the way that that Harrow Way does and I think that postmodernist thing is a very interesting thing even when the postmodernist literature is sometimes sometimes you know a little cyberpunk in it's best categorization but I think they made a a greater contribution I don't know if other people want to because I don't want to be here the one who says the truth I don't know if I'm explaining myself he said very interesting things so so there's another question there in the middle you started your talk saying that the EU has proposed a single secure European cyberspace no, you registered the proposal this is important, I'm sorry I'm working in the political science this is very important because when you look at documents in the council register you see that what was initially said to be a proposal by the presidency such a registered proposal has been corrected later on to say it was an expert presentation by one Hungarian expert and so what you have shown as proposals on the slides are the power point slides of this expert and in spring members of the European parliament have asked questions to the council how this would be followed up and the council has answered officially that there has not been any follow up to this so there is not a surprise that the proposal has disappeared because it was just an expert presenting it as a background one expert in the Hungarian representation in Brussels working on cyber security has been drafting the cyber crime convention in the council of Europe so there was a more or less personal interest in these issues as far as I've learned and so just to put this into perspective that this is not an EU proposal which doesn't say that we don't have to pay attention to what's going on but just to lower the importance of this kind of proposal and then you redefine to the other part of your presentation you redefine kind of what network analysis would call clusters just as cyborgs and I don't think this is really helpful as network analysis actually tries to clarify things how network structures influence processes and by just redefining one of the elements of network analysis as cyborgs you're kind of blurring what science tries to make more clearly you are making more blurry and I'm not really thinking that's really helpful thanks for your insight yes you are in the right way when you talk that about that social network analysis first I didn't told about that but the work of Houns does not talk about cyborgs at all that's an innovation made by me upon that research work and yes it's the way that you are talking they do that work in exactly the way that you said and yes there are some criticism about the social network analysis for those who tell that no this is only structures that does not say any meaning and well but anyway it was very interesting for me to find those research work because using the tools of the political science it was possible to see and to understand how an alliance of resource less groups were able to defeat the software patterns in the European parliament ok next we have one question from cyberspace from the IRC chat so yes so the question means or the message I would say thank you I wonder what you think about the tools delivered by JILTS the laws for an elosing these problems I'm thinking of this move versus the created space in which nomads built war machines for fighting the state ok thanks ok and there was another question here in the front hello so you propose that just by having networks with more nodes and more connections we can win I'm proposing to first delete that a war language of winning, losing and binary logic which does not work in the real war so that's the first thing I do not want to win nothing I want to improve the quality of the liberation because I think that's the fundamental need for a real democracy it is the liberation so answering your question it is not so much a matter of a volume of increasing the number of nodes of having tighter connections than a matter of addressing frames as a collective identity in a networked way and in order to obtain enough performance to let's say win as you see but in my language it will be proof the result of the liberation in order to obtain that result what we need to do is to be able to address the main frames of the narrative involved in that struggle in a clever way that the people who share values which are antagonic to our values so it is not a thing about good people and bad people it is a thing of if or way of thing if our values are let's say better than the values of the other then they simply work but not because they are just better it's because we want those values to go into the public the liberation discourse I don't know if I'm too abstract here ok thanks there is another question there is another question from here do you think software is also a narrative sorry if I think that software is do you think software is also a narrative analytic sorry software narrative oh very interesting thing well yes yes it will be my answer I never think about that I am doing this in real time yes because I have the idea that technologies are not neutral I know that there is a lot of people probably here also that do not share that vision but I think that technologies are not neutral because technologies under my opinion are constructions of a given society in a given moment so those societies have ideology have values and those technologies are constructions of those technologies just the example of linux we say yes we have linux and we will make the revolution with this I believed this in the past but yes we have a network system we have a freedom system yes which has in its deepest place installed a hierarchical system because the file system of the unix system the extended threads or any other one any other one are hierarchical systems so when I was playing with the anarchist people and we were using these liberation tools in the next politic block there is a very interesting reflection about that about the liberation tools I think when I was playing with those people we think that that technology will make us free but technologies are not neutral so answering your question as long as software is a technology and as long as technologies do represent ideologies then yes software can be understood as narratives but that's my view about that and it will be interesting having more views about that question which is really interesting ok we have another question here do I not get to hold it? ok can I just hold it? sorry about that thank you very much that was a very beautiful lecture, thank you I wanted to ask though have you considered the risk of following legislators into this strange narrative about cyberspace by construing their opponents as cyborgs might distract away from rights being taken away from them in the real world like the right to a freedom of association or privacy if they can stew themselves as sort of cyborgs so if I have considered please the risks of following the legislators in what exactly? into this narrative about cyberspace so they talk about cyberspace so you say then we should construe the opposition to that as becoming cyborgs a network cyborgs to fight that but I was just worried that if you think the protesters sort of having rights in that space would they then forget about their rights in the real world like privacy and freedom of association is that clear? I don't really have an answer for that sorry I can't identify the references for provide you an answer perhaps do you have an insight about that? yeah no I guess my insight was that it might risk that people worry about their privacy in the real world or the right to freedom of association in the real world which are coming under threat under sort of laws pertaining to be about cyberspace which I think is what you were talking about a little bit in your lecture and then I was just worried that encarging people to think of themselves when they protest against that as cyborgs might sort of force them you know not force them but encourage I don't know maybe I'm not making any sense but that's kind of does anyone get what I'm talking about? ok ok thanks thanks more questions? yeah are there any other questions from the public? ok it doesn't look like it so let me thank you again and let's have another round applause for speaker