 So thank you everyone for coming. Thank you, Peter, for inviting me and for Future America. So I am a weird individual for an academic. I'm actually trained as a political scientist, but I do law and I do ethics and I do political philosophy. So I like to merge all these together to think about new technologies. So today my job is to tell you how we can look back 200 years to somebody and help us find some information to help us in the future. So this is how political scientists think about war. This is a bargaining model. And what it assumes is two rational actors making rational decisions. And this is literally how political scientists think about war. But this, of course, and this is how they think about cyber war. But this isn't really how it works. We don't really face off in cyberspace with our adversaries. We don't look them square in the face like this. For those of you who don't know, this is Xi Jinping. So we don't square off in the face. In fact, we don't even really do good battles, like fun battles in cyberspace. We hit below the belt. We do just enough to be irritating, but not enough to trigger what we considered an act of war. And this is really telling. And so how do we figure out when all of these below the belt issues are coming out? Well, it would be really nice if we had something like a dark mark from Harry Potter that told us that when our networks were insecure, that we were owned, that all of our data would pop up on the screen, right? You're owned. The dark lord is coming. But we don't have any of this stuff, right? And it's really hard to try to enforce our rights claims in cyberspace. So this is where I think Emmanuel Kant can come to the rescue. I actually think when we think about cyberspace and we think about rights claims and enforcing our claims of justice and making sure that the state can protect us or protect our data or different types of things, right? Kant tells us a couple of things. One, he says that the state needs to have the monopoly on coercive force in order to protect our rights. And to do this, right, you have jurisdictions, you have borders, you have laws, everything's great. But in cyberspace, right, we don't have the monopoly on coercive force and jurisdiction's a problem. So then he says, well, when that's a problem, what do you do? Well, you go and you actually fight with other states. And that's how you prosecute your rights when you don't have the jurisdictional claims that you need. OK, you go to your army, you go to your navy. They help you enforce your rights. But this is even a problem. And it's completely insecure. And it's not a good bet. And so he says, then what you need to do is you need to create what he calls a free federation of states for a defensive community, much like NATO, right? And so we have NATO. I call this social contract NATO style. If you know any of the people in the back of that, I have Photoshop faces and kudos to you. And if you can plan out who Hobbes is and you know where he's sitting, even more kudos to you. But what I really think is happening here is that we need our friends. We need our allies. We need to get together and have cooperation. That's what we learn from Kant. We need trust. We need allies to trust. But when this happens, when we have these defensive communities and we have allies and we have trust, we can't do certain things, he says. In fact, we can't spy on our allies. And he makes a really, really big claim about not involving what he calls dishonorable stratagems, and to be involved in spying is to be engaging in a dishonorable stratagem. And so we know that all of these reports that come out over and over and over again about spying and different types of things, breaking down trust, right? We have all of the different leaders of state saying that they are breaking bonds of trust necessary for allies. And this is huge when we think about cybersecurity, because the claims of justice that we want to enforce are rights that we want to protect require our allies. And it requires we trust our allies. But now we're kind of not doing so hot with that, right? In fact, Google's executive chairman Eric Schmidt famously said, we're going to break the internet if we keep doing what we're doing, right? So we have to really bring it back down to building trust. We can't be what Kant would call an unjust enemy. That is someone who is engaging in these dishonorable stratagems and who's threatening the very, very fragile bonds between allies and peace. And so to be an unjust enemy, to square off, to fight against another unjust enemy, is ultimately to go back to a state of war, right? What he would call in a state of war. And this is huge, right? Because all of the international agreements we have, all of the international law we have, all of the cooperation that we have, so we don't go and involve ourselves in interstate war, is based on very basic rules of trust. But if we keep breaking those bonds of trust, we will undo this great thing that we've created, that this great thing, the internet, that has given us communication, shopping. He actually was a big fan of shopping in commerce. He thought that it would create bonds of trust. He said, if you go visit somebody else's shores, you're gonna learn about them, you're gonna learn about their culture. So we need to continue to engage in the sharing of ideas in commerce. And we have to stop, I think he would say, we have to stop thinking about short-term goals of militarizing cyberspace, spying on our enemies and breaking down the very basic relationships that we have to enforce our rights claims. So the way that I like to think about this is if you were to quote Neo from The Matrix, right? I can't tell you the future, but I can tell you how it's begun. And we need to stop militarizing cyberspace. We need to think back to what Kant tells us about the claims of justice, how we enforce our rights, how we utilize our allies, how we make laws, and stop engaging in what he would call dishonorable stratagems. Thank you very much.