 We're good. Hi greetings Thanks, everyone for joining us tonight a few moments ago. We were crammed in a very small Small quarter, so now it feels like everyone's just kind of spread out very very far away I'm Jason. Well, he came the editor-in-chief of vice news Keep these introductions very short, but we're you know, we're here to talk tonight about privacy and secret secrecy Joining us on my left is Alexander DeCru. He is the Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium and all things telecom fall under his remit Next to him is Bossam Heider. He's the CEO of Channel IT Group Started in Lagos and they're a leading telecommunication vendor across Africa Asia and the Middle East Next to him is congressman Darrell Issa. He's a Republican from California He was the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a thorn in President Obama's side So Leo Shetty is the Secretary General of Amnesty International where he's perpetually shaking things up And last but not least is Amira who told me not to even try to pronounce her name, but I'm going to try it's a Yahyaoi, Yahyaoi, Yahyaoi, Yahyaoi, Yahyaoi, Yahyaoi, Yahyaoi, getting there getting there She defies Biographical description But she has many things but this is her fourth talk today and she says she's tired of hearing her own voice But I but none of you are so we're going to talk to her anyway She's a hacker an activist a rebel rouser All of these things But So tonight we're here to talk about privacy and secrecy and and these are two very different things But what they have in common is that they relate to privileged information and now all of us Privileged information has a value all of us trade in it every day some of us In and banal ways by simply giving our name and email address to a social You know something like Twitter and Facebook Governments Governments that are represented here at Davos sometimes engage in surveillance and espionage in order to gain information to protect its citizens or for good old-fashioned strategic advantage and Others use little nuggets of information gleaned from private conversations here in Davos to inform future Investments and things like that. So just as a bit of Get just as a bit of getting to know each other I'd like to just do a quick speed around it like a simple yes or no to this question Should the government be allowed to read the people's emails Alexander If I'm not a suspect no If I am a suspect then yes, if there is a warrant, but otherwise no no way Awesome. I think if the governments ask for the permission of the people somehow to be able to do this then yes We'll come back to the how you pull that and I'll explain how Congressman, I guess I would answer similar to deputy prime minister under the US Constitution and the Fourth Amendment Yes, absolutely with a warrant duly sought and received by a independent judge. Yes, you can otherwise No, you can't Sir yes, if he can read the government's emails Now you've gone too far Actually, you can Amira no Thank you But wait, let's let's go back to boss. Um, how does that work? How does this sort of a? permission That we grant are you talking about granting government permission to read our email the world is changing Okay, initially all before the refugee crisis and migration across borders and so on it was you know Quite simple to say this person's a suspect that person is a suspect right and then try and snoop and find out more information about them Today we've seen it. I mean you cannot never know who's a suspect or not. So somehow there's got to be a mechanism where governments to protect the citizens of its country without using it for obviously oppression and abuse and so on and this is where they go over the line right is to Be able to somehow create some sort of a forum where if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to hide and therefore there's a mechanism for it where you're Eliminated off that list somehow now we don't we are not going to solve that problem here today or or Figure it out exactly how to do it But the reality is we're not going to stop governments doing this we can debate and say we don't accept But that's not going to change the fact. So rather we should actually Try and find better ways If we have nothing to hide what are we concerned about We give our mirror has nothing to hide Yes, because it's a perception. It's a perception We call it snooping now, but if a private company says would like your information so we can provide you better services You would give it willingly. Why would you do this on one side? You never know where the information ends, but when it comes to government because we have a distrust with governments Therefore we feel that information shouldn't get there, but we know it does. Let me ask you a question isn't that then a Similar in that you say if the people show give but you're talking about individual When was the last time the government ever came to you and said I would like to read and have access to all of your documents That's not the way government works Government seeks to get 51% of people to support something and then after that they take it from 100% So if you're talking about an individual request I the last time I saw that was when the IRS asked to see my backup paperwork And and by the way, they were very selective in how they looked at it Look today You can you can write a petition in the UK and you get 1 million people or 500,000 people to sign up They don't want Donald Trump to come into the country now We know that there's 500,000 people and you can gather data on those people so in a way you could create a forum Where people willingly could give their information if they wanted to you leave that to the people to decide We know the government will still snoop. I reckon that's how much do we give them, right? Alexander you want to get in here? Maybe just one element on the idea of I have nothing to hide I found that a strange concept. I mean I have the right of private thoughts And some of those private thoughts might be yeah, it might be some really thoughts that the general public doesn't accept I think I have the right to do that and so it's not about do I have something to hide or not It's about the idea of and that's the idea of more surveillance So we've always in the past When one person and I will just pick up the person right in front of me if we think that you're a suspect of something You can get a judge as you said to have a warrant and we can listen to you because we believe that maybe There is a there is a threat Okay, but let me just finish my thought because The idea the moment you start doing continuous mass surveillance In essence what you're saying is everyone's a suspect So how that is completely different the moment as a government you say Everyone's a suspect well, then you're in essence in a totalitarian society And I don't think we should ever accept that and that's completely against any human right We've always fought for but in amongst the public in Belgium have attitudes about that changed since the Paris attacks You know very often that is the argument you get it's to fight terrorism And and you know there might be in the public some lone wolf which we never heard about and that way we're going to stop And I have not seen any case of that up to now All the people that were involved in the terrorist attacks all of them were on lists and they were on list because they visited Certain mosques that we were But that we were looking at because they were in certain groups and so on so the idea of You need to spy on the whole public because there might be someone who's in his Seller just in his basement constructing something. I don't think that's a good reason because it's not proven as a reason up to now Jason yeah, I totally agree with the I totally agree with the actually normally amnesty doesn't agree with government spokesperson, but I agree with the Belgian Where I grew up in India and my father was a still is a very Firebrand journalist and this was in the 80s and He always used to tell me that because he was very critical of the government and he always used to tell me that our Telephone in Bangalore in the south of India is is tapped You know there was this kind of wiretapping of the telephone and I always used to think he's bullshitting because you know He was I just thought he was just trying to pretend to be really important about This stuff and then one day there was a leak in the newspaper There was an article in the newspaper which actually somehow they found out the list of all the telephone numbers which were tapped in Bangalore and Double three eight five four was number one on the list Which is our phone and and the reason I'm saying this to you as you know governments historically always I mean if you look at all the emperors who used to rule the world over the years They have a very detailed intelligence network to find out who's their opposition. That's how they rule the world So it's one thing about you know trying to find out these terrorists who are trying to You know upset your national security, etc But the majority of what mass surveillance and intelligence is used for is to curb dissent is to kill the opposition That's what Saudi Arabia has done with rife, but are we who wrote a blog Against in just expressing his freedom of expression is all he was exercising and this is the biggest concern in this debate It's not about you know some small number of people are involved in potentially terrorist activities It's about mass surveillance and and it's about governments were using this whole anti-terror opportunity To kill the opposition kill dissent to kill journalists kill freedom of expression. That's the core issue and 96 countries according to surveys have now already created Legislation to curb civil society space to curb free expression to start attacking human rights defenders and Technology can't be a new way of killing freedom of expression. That is the issue in front of us I Think I think the Paris attacks Teacher that's a lesson There France is not as it says to be a country where personal personal information are that protected and I was I was I was stateless in France. I was banned from my country Used to live in France and at that time they knew everything about what I was doing in that country So and I wasn't at all a terrorist at the time. So What at the time now become? Sorry No, but but what was very interesting after the Paris attacks is that these guys will were Enlisted and still with that they put the hell of a time to find them and You see a real failure in terms of intelligence. What does that mean? It means that the intelligence that France at least had Was about the people and not the bad people So with this idea of mass surveillance when you see at the end we are all Surveys, okay, we we know not I mean our emails everything whatever you want to say our phone calls So we know what the NSA did in the US and I mean I live in Tunisia, you know We have we have a story about this The US is the only country where when you ask for a visa you don't need to bring lots of paper to explain who you are because they already know so Literally I go I just filled the blood the thing they say, okay, why are you going? I'm going for that Okay, here is your visa because you're cleared Well, if I want to go to Belgium It will take me this kind of this amount of papers to explain who I am and this is because we know it I mean the the US surveillance the Germany France Brazil etc. etc. So this mass surveillance is showing the failure of the Intelligence system because also and this is I think I mean we've seen it after the Paris attacks Policemen in dictatorships for example We're very good at surveil political activists or anti Anti-dictatorship activists and the moment we started having dash putting bombs in a hotel in the beach in the museum in the Parliament They couldn't stop them. They didn't know they were there so we Through the years before we Prepared our intelligence against the people and not the bad people and this is something very serious that we need to talk about something you've been involved with in Tunisia is trying to Kind of serve a watchdog mechanism on the government and I wonder if you think that Conducting that oversight and pushing for greater transparency actually Leads to more secrecy. It leads to people just finding new ways to keep information You know close to their vest if people are just afraid to say anything interesting on the telephone or an email and Information actually starts getting confined to a smaller and smaller group of people No, because you people love to talk. So I don't think this stops I mean look at what happened lately with with Sean Penn and and the drug dealer people love to show who they are and no, I mean I I come I mean I I used to run in a transparency NGO where we're surveilling the governments and And it was very interesting when I compared my work to those who work in democracies and especially in all democracies Myself who was coming from a dictatorship talking to people who only lived in Dictatorship most of the MPs never ever. I mean no one ever experienced a democracy in my country We are more keen to pass a law and it passed to Protect whistleblowers Then my friends who work at my society or other NGOs in the West and in the UK in the US or In other countries in Europe We we were more keen to do progress in terms of privacy and Transparency rather than those who were supposed who are supposed to be the big democracies So and this is showing the fail of the system Because we're we I mean the West I would say and these democracies think it's the job is already done We don't need to question ourselves because we take it for granted Yeah, and it's taken and it's taken for granted. Absolutely, and I'm shocked. I mean I Know we're talking about privacy, but we'll look at what the French are doing now And they're trying to get to two types of citizens the front the real French and the French others and No one is no one is contesting that everyone is okay. So what I'm really shocked and Impressed not impressed. Shocked by is how those who live in democracies are more keen to let their Democracies fail than those who actually know nothing about democracies Congressman Issa, what about in the United States? You've done a lot of work on the Freedom of Information Act there are People who are subject to that law just getting better at hiding their secrets Well, I first of all would say that we did massive whistleblower expansion fairly recently and that's a constant struggle even in a democracy because your whistleblower normally is somebody who's on the inside who was participating in effectively some form of wrongdoing and the law attempts to ensure that they're not Retaliated against except the natural tendency even in bureaucracies and democracies is that in fact Oh, no, we want to keep our secrets Including what's done wrong this happens with police that happens with taxing organizations and so on And we continue on a bipartisan basis It's not it's not one party or the other to try to open it in the case of Freedom of Information Act Something passed all the way back with Lyndon Johnson We just got out of the house a very expansive piece of legislation That attempts to open up as long as it's not classified under the technical term of secret A bias that is a hundred percent toward you have a right to see it unless it's Specifically withheld and we want that to be the exception the rare exception And we won't even be on that and said at 25 years everything's open So that never again will somebody hide in perpetuity anything and they'll know that But that goes back to that question. Do you want to read your government's emails the answer is of course Do we in government to be have to be able to have candid conversations so that it not always look like some open Presentation for television of course you can't have compromise if as soon as you say I could give here you get hate mail but I do think that For all of us who were trying to balance this each time there is an event like the Paris attacks is The best time to say are we doing the failures that actually led to this? again People who were suspects people were radicalized people who had been to combat and come back Prepared to kill people who came in through a system circumventing existing Protections if we concentrate on those well We're slowly thinking of any changes that might actually affect Privacy and the status quo and expectation then we probably do a good job And I say that as someone who after 9-11 in 2001 We rushed through a Patriot Act and we have three times Now had to make changes each of which pulled back some of the excesses that occur After 3,000 of your people have been murdered and so there is a challenge and the challenge is in democracies people will react after a tragedy and say make me safe in Time they will say what about my liberties? We have to make sure that we think about the liberties Well people are screaming for safety and about safety when people think that liberty means you don't do anything And that is a balancing act and I think it's why two of us Specifically in government are saying of course there has to be a way to get private information In a criminal investigation when there's just cause But I think more and more people in government know that protecting liberty in democracies is Every day telling people that their safety will never be a hundred percent if you want a hundred percent safety You live in a dictatorship if you want liberty you have to take some risk This is to come back on congressman I think on the process which you're proposing that you know, let's make it very targeted Let's have an independent judge to sign off. I think we would agree with that But on the other point about you know, we have to respond to the public screaming I mean, you're not saying you should respond to this take the liberty side take a long-term view is what you're saying but The the argument is often given that you know the public after after a major attack want you to do something The public actually screams about a lot of stuff at different points in time and I find leaders very selectively choosing What they hear people saying and this is a big part of the problem We've done surveys an extensive survey on this question of public perception On you know on privacy and the data we have across 13 countries shows that at least 70% of the Population almost in most countries. It's not exactly the same number Say that you know Privacy is absolutely most important thing and this is obviously not immediately after an attack This was done at a point in time and the same about technology companies the view generally held view Is that privacy is really important and and I'm not talking about privacy in a kind of libertarian way You know in that sense, it's it's all it's just basic stuff You know that you don't want your your personal stuff to be exposed and misused. It's a kind of basic human decency That's what you expect Awesome to that to that note, you know, you've mentioned that you certainly see situations in which government May have the legal right to access privileged information Of say mobile phone users, you know, you run one of the largest mobile networks there Everyone in Nigeria, for example, everyone's using it including Boko Haram presumably But outside of that legal search, what do you do to protect your customers from those who are unauthorized? Let me let me clarify my view of this. I I'm not saying I support my surveillance and so on This is not what I'm saying at all and What I'm saying is today we focus about Governments monitoring our emails and phones but in reality before emails and phones They were still monitoring the monitor through your tax through your movement through everything I had a I had a thing recently in France where I got a big tax bill on a second home I have there and I was like why says ah, but you know, you have furniture in the house You bought this furniture from this place. This is your electricity bill and so on and my sister just stayed there for a Month and they assumed I was resident So obviously if they're not checking emails and they're not checking phones are checking something else So each means they have been checking this for a very long time Can we fight this is the question? Do we have to find a mechanism to be able to work with this is the issue that we have at hand my experiences from Mobile the mobile business and so on is and this is very relevant to emerging markets, you know Africa Middle East and so on is When we ask people for information, they give it to us Okay, more than 90% of whom we ask information for give us the information now This information helps us to provide them better services. So someone has to always ask Why is it that on one side? They're willing to part with very sensitive information and on the other side They fight against it. So this is the first thing we really need to debate if you today Know how the credit scoring companies work? They have access to everything about you your credit card spends all your bank statements everything without you even possibly knowing about it So that's another thing. I mean your information is ending up in private hands in Governments, perhaps one way or the other they're getting the information So yes, we can fight and we can you know, we can scream about this But I think we need to find a better mechanism and governments needs to come out openly and explain their policies a lot better Because it's like we're constantly trying to say you guys are snooping on us snooping on us and I know no no We don't we don't we don't the denial factor is what's making even people more and more Against the issue and that's that's what I believe Please I Wanted to come back to what you said about if you want safety go to You need a dictatorship, which is totally not right I'll give you an example. I mean if you take Syria, which is a dictatorship it's really less safer than than the US for example, she's democracy and And this is this can't remember when Hafiz Assad was there Hafa, yes, it's still there. No, Hafiz Assad the father the father. He killed thousands of people Yes, but only those who opposed him if you wanted to be safe You just had to put up with the dictatorship My point is that in dictatorships they do provide people absolute safety and no freedom Because you have no freedom to object in democracies you have to have a freedom to object You have to have the privacy to come together to conspire Against your government in legal way. This is this is a shortcut. This is a shortcut because What you said is in dictatorship you are safe and I'm saying no, you're not safe because there are people who are Dying and killed by dictators, but I'm gonna I'm going to move on But you know what you need to do you know what you need to do to be safe in a dictatorship Which is stay out of politics the real the reality the reality is that in a democracy Being in has to be we have to protect your ability to be in politics just as much in a democracy the fact is Is that we we need to deconstruct this idea of we need to to violate a privacy or freedoms So we are safe. I give you an example today the Americans the biggest number of Americans dying is not because of terrorism. They're dying because of cancer They are dying because of car accidents. They are dying because of guns and Thousands are dying every year because of these reasons Maybe a hundred per year is dying because of terrorism. So To say that we need to just lose our freedoms because of something that is less important than The trade-off is has no sense the trade-off we have lot more more to lose Because we will give up our freedoms rather than just give you or I mean give to governments The right to violate our rights just to be safe. I guess I wonder why is it you have a problem with my agreeing with you? The reality is true safety comes from a functional democracy in which you have strong privacy and You take the risk that the conspirator who will do harm is mixed in with in our case 318 million people who do who do give up their right to privacy by putting a Facebook post and doing a lots of other things But they do so on that willingly and when they want to have that private conversation Including talking about politics they can do so Our challenge is when we were attacked and I lived this firsthand I was a new congressman just out of the electronics business We were attacked and the American people strongly supported make us safe and through their elected officials and through popular appeal at the time they said we do whatever you need to do and Congress gave the president authority to do some he immediately sees vast additional authority that we knew about and even more That we didn't know about and it is now 15 years later to presidents and we're just grabbing back what the part we know about So the as the oldest democracy sitting next to the largest democracy They're both fragile One generation that gives up its freedom will give up a future democracy and it's one of the reasons I look I visit dictatorships. I have no desire to live in one. I don't even have a desire to be one The fact is I love I love what we have in the way of liberty and I'm scared that in the name of security People will say well the old rules don't apply When King George would go into people's homes looking for venison and then charge them with poaching on the lands that had all the Deer Okay, of course, he found criminals and he could justify that he was only arresting the criminals But he was doing so by violating all of their privacy We in America have had a long tradition of privacy protection and we're constantly being told it doesn't apply in the electronic age It applies more in the electronic age and I agree with you We give it up all the time But it's a quid pro quo if I don't want a credit card I can still pay cash if I don't want to do certain things I can do it but You're back to the point that you know, that's what people are calling on and I think there that's a leadership moment Let's I think first of all I don't actually subscribe to the view as I said our data doesn't show that but let's Hypothetically say that that's what's called for but I mean, maybe we asked the Belgian deputy premise because they're faced Real threats in the recent past and they I mean I know that you had to tighten some of your rules and your behavior But you could have gone the whole way right and taken away a lot of the freedoms which people had And you made a leadership decision that that's not the route you want to take I mean we could do a you know hands just show of hands here if the moderator allows me to do that How many of you would say that you you know, you're ready to give up your privacy in order to have security I mean just a show of hands. How many of you think? Security is more important than privacy. I think it's a false die-go to me privacy Yeah, I think it's a false die-go to me But if you are in a position that you know you have to make a choice I think in this room it's courageous enough to actually put their hand And how many of you will give out the information to get an iPhone for example in return Everyone I Think that's that bussum on that point. I think there's a basic difference, right? That's I think the congressman said that it's different when people are voluntarily giving information It's it's a totally different picture when the government or companies are surveilling without people knowing it's happening It's not a choice That's that I think that fundamental difference needs to be clear I think one of the issues is that I think that the sense of what the dangers of a lack of privacy in Europe I think in the 60s and the 70s We were very very well aware of what it was because we just had a second world war Right before the reason why for example in Belgium we have identity cards is because the Germans Instored them during the war just to be able to identify people It's one of the few things that you actually kept off to the war, but so people were very much aware of the dangers I think that I'm of the generation that actually, you know, I was born in 75. So that's a long time after the war I'm Particularly sensitive for this topic, but most of people from my age are not because they've never seen what could actually go wrong And so after the terrorist attacks we had in in Paris. Yes in government. We had long discussions about this And very often you have people who say Stop with all those arguments stop with all those Legal arguments about when can you do a house search and so on and so on? Let's just do what's necessary and that sounds very well If it sounds very good and on the short term is maybe the nice thing to do the problem is that Who is defining? Let's do what is necessary. I mean, that's a very subjective thing and we've always had a system with laws and Judges and constitutional courts who from time to time pull back a political decision and say no, you're wrong This is the basic the basic rule But I think this type of debate we need it more often because we didn't have those debates anymore We we have taken all our liberties for granted We've taken for granted that we can have our thoughts and just discuss those thoughts without without using violence We've taken for granted that we go swim in the same swimming pool men and women We've taken for granted that we can fall in love and even two men can fall in love and there's actually no problem with that And we also take for granted and when women walk around with a shorter skirt that we actually might appreciate it but behave right and and and All those things we absolutely take it for granted and from time to time we get confronted like wow Not everyone agrees and it's good that this debate is taking place Now what about government privacy the government's right to privacy or secrets? I mean, can you talk a bit about the role of secrecy within government? What is the need for such secrecy? Well, I think in general most I mean most governments have openness of of documents and and You have different degrees in that I mean There's a certain type of communication which is just out of the open and everyone can ask it Earth and other things can be questioned by members of parliament and then other things which are parts of the The intelligence services and so on we at least in Belgium have a small group of members of parliament who can basically Investigates that I think that's that's quite a good system and I think up to now. It's been working. It's been working well the real issue of course is is when you know when you are in a situation like right after the Paris attacks and and You have a discussion you need to do a lockdown of a city or not and and this is in a crisis situation and and They give you information Which is not a hundred percent transparent that I don't I don't ask that I mean the only choice you have at that moment is to trust what the intelligence services are telling you But I have to say I never felt very comfortable in doing that, but you have no choice I mean you cannot ask for a second opinion. You're under time pressure. So you just do it But from a conscience perspective, I Hope a lot of my colleagues had the same feelings as I had which was okay We're kind of forced of doing this, but I don't like being in that kind of in that kind of situation Congressman, what's what's your take on this in the States? I mean in some you know, I grew up in Chicago and live in New York now and Are you making your contrast on the two democracies? Yes, one is a dictatorship Yes, I've borne one party system. It's like it's like Mexico in the past seven years but but but seriously folks Sometimes it feels like American second city and everything Americans is I Feels like a lot of us have given a lot of power to the US government and Just kind of asked that they keep us safe and please don't tell us the gory details And and meanwhile there are certainly other people who believe in a radical transparency and who believe that We should know everything that our intelligence agencies are doing even at the risk of Causing us further harm or opening us to harm. I mean, how do you balance these things? Well? You know, I pride myself on being a Republican in the sense that I'm a part of a Republic We have a system in which we we consciously in our constitution made a decision that we would among the many people elect people and ask them to ensure they knew everything on our behalf and I have the honor of doing that so the elected representatives of the American people must have Unfettered in full access to the executive branch from the top of the presidency to the bottom of the bureaucracy With very limited exceptions and not does that happen? We try we try very hard You know The gentleman here noted that on television seen around the world a person who had Brutalized nonprofits in the US Professor innocence said she broke no regulations or rules and then took the fifth But of course she had testified that she broke no regulations or rules So there's a public debate on that but the reality is that was part of a process in which We had hundreds of depositions under oath of people both in and out of government and they They were investigated we asked for and to the extent that hard drive didn't magically on the same day disappear We we got information. Do we get it all? No, it's a struggle Is the system perfect? No, but is it my responsibility as one of? 535 members of the Republic to continue to push to get that balance on behalf of 318 million Americans. Yes, that's our system now I also believe that I need 318 million Americans helping me I funded something called the Gopin government foundation and And I continue to fund it and it gets a lot of independent night ridder and other groups funded too but we try to Get governments to put more of their information Not just in a little form they put online a PDF But in searchable format so that every bit of the detail is there and there before they vote and there Well, they're deliberating and It's a struggle it'll continue for the rest of our lives, but the fact is The government knows more about us than we know about the government and that trend is Dangerous, it's not just dangerous in the sense of the high ranking It's dangerous in the size of the bureaucracy The people who decide if you pay if you've paid your fair taxes and the information Were they looking at you because they don't like your politics or are they looking at you simply because Your sister stayed in the place for a month If if it's you you know if we don't know then in fact there can be tyranny within the bureaucracies Look, I look at France I was in Paris and I looked at the holes in the door and the scrapes in the walls Where those bullets penetrated and and where a lone policeman went in and killed one of the four It's no surprise that there was martial law effectively for a short period of time That people understood that the police would take over they would contain people they would violate the normal rights for a short period of time The question is how in a democracy do we ensure that it is a short period of time that it's measured and that is quickly as possible people Get back to their normal rights if if there is a fire I want them to break down every door to see if somebody is in there unconscious But if there isn't a fire, I want them to go get a warrant before they break down my door Jason this is where you know So what happens is if something like the United States the way US behaves is being watched very closely by countries across the world right so so if the US is using drone attacks to kill Suspected terrorists in Pakistan any upkilling, you know Grandmothers little children then you start figuring out what are the checks and balances on this system of using drone attacks and when so when you ask that Question you will be told that this is a national security issue. We can't tell you what's the recourse? What's the remedy there isn't one so the balance has gone completely the other way and If you if you told me say a year ago if you told me that Asked me which governments are surveilling the Amnesty International System I would have expected the Chinese are probably Surveying us in some way or the other the North Koreans if they have the capability in June this year We discovered that the British government is surveilling Amnesty International No parliamentarian the British Parliament would be aware of this fact you're talking about checks and balances the British government and we Got it through a legal process. We are now taking it to the next level of legal legal battle. They are surveilling UNICEF Amnesty International South African Legal Resource Center. We all terrorists know or what well if you have nothing to hide What are you so concerned exactly? Yeah So I mean so the nothing to hide one is you know then also the other argument given is that we are just collecting the data We're not going to use it so yeah I mean it's like saying you know let's put a camera in people's bedrooms. We're never gonna actually use it We'll just film everything. You know, so I mean this is where do you push this argument? You know, where does it end really so we have to be really care? I think and you know, that's rippling through this crowd that thought No, I know I it's I mean so when we have these discussions here. It's an interesting academic You know, it's just a conversation But on the ground, you know when Egypt arrests 12,000 people put them in prison last year anybody who's remotely considered as opposition is in jail You know even if suspected people and so that's what happens in practice once you start surveilling email You start going through people's records. These governments are doing really bad things and that's the really should affects people's lives Let's not wait till the very end let's let's get some questions in from the audience now and go back who's first hand to shoot up right this gentleman right here is fast and And please please state your name and affiliation if you have one Obviously a very popular man, but also let's try let's try to refrain from Manifestos and platforms just questions would be great. Stefan Kaiser from Switzerland. Those are my students. I Think you've been missing a point here. You've been talking about the confines Of your own countries, but I think that's not the reality anymore and particularly with digital age It's just as easy to snoop on People abroad and I think mr. Shetty has just started to allude to that when you was talking about drones in other countries You know what stops governments really from snooping all around the world and start Using that information on people abroad and there's no checks and balances on a supranational level Protecting us. So yeah, it's a good question. So what stops governments from snooping on people abroad or? How do people protect themselves or their citizens from being snooped on by foreign government? I can answer one part of it from again I do try to only answer on behalf of the United States and then recognizing. I'm only one of 535 We have we have what we identify as a u.s. Person in our law. So when an American is identified Including a green card a permanent resident In an overseas operation that may be allowed That material has to be what they call it minimized But it in fact goes off limits because the the idea that you boomerang through overseas espionage Surveiling your own people is in fact something that the United States has dealt with in the in the past and you cannot use Information you glean from outside the u.s. Under a different set of rules your bigger point though is What stops every nation from saying as part of the global war on terror quote unquote? Each of us is going to make sure we snoop on the other one and then effectively Share the intelligence to make each safe, and it's a it's a real concern There does need to be a recognition that each of our democracies at least Has to be held accountable not to participate in effectively undoing domestic laws It hasn't been it hasn't been a subject that the great democracies quote unquote of of Europe United States Canada and so on have actually come to grips with as to drone strikes I had a man who worked for me for many years before Till the last two years he retired But in fact he was a sniper who had Osama bin Laden in his sights and did not get the kill order He was literally in that group from the CIA I don't know that he would say there's any difference between a drone other than what often is called collateral damage But the reality is that war is ugly and once a people Authorize use of force abroad they've made a decision to violate another country's rights And that is going on but it's going on With everyone in this audience probably belongs to a country that's participating in it and the rules are not well defined I do think it's not within the scope of what we're dealing with here tonight But it's certainly within the scope of how long and how will democracies allow this to go on how much will we invest in Over 10 million displaced Syrians rather than having an argument about migration. What are we doing to deal with a Disaster of these people caught up in a war zone. I want to get to Alex here So how does Belgium protect its citizens from being spied on by? allies friends and allies Well Well, it's hard. It's hard. You want me to say we do it in a good way or in a bad way And we would be better or for entertaining for us. Well, no the whole mean we've had one case of our big telco that Basically came out that well, there's a Belgian telco who has a company that is it's called bigs. It's doing the the whole sale For the whole of the Middle East and and a big part of Africa. So obviously that's an interesting interesting company And yes, it seems that there had been infiltration The whole question is did we agree or not infiltration by who infiltration? Well, it's not not defined German, but based but based on this now based on the Snowden slides You could infer something the whole question, of course is and and and even me I mean, I'm not the minister of justice. I don't get access to to everything. I mean my question was Did we agree or not? It might very well be that the Belgian intelligence services said, yeah, why not? Please go ahead and and so the whole question is who is Who is giving an okay to that or not and and and actually I do not think that this is something that You know, the whole of government needs to needs to discuss I think there needs to be a few people who can who can be trusted in making a judgment call there and Those people need to be people for whom you're sure that, you know, they cannot be compromised They know the rules, you know in a society from time to time You have to give trust to some people and and that's how a democracy works I mean a democracy works on trust and it works on humans and humans make mistakes So will we be this debating this in 10 years again? I'm pretty sure we will and and and democracy is something where you're navigating all the time. There's no perfect democracy But on the question on Doing it abroad. I mean we all know that that's in the IS territories I mean there are Services from from Western countries or active obviously Is that something that you're allowed to do or not? Well, it's it's under the condition of of a war and of protecting your own your own your own population So on your question, but you suggested that you didn't know whether or not the intelligence services had allowed that I myself don't know that I'm pretty sure that Some people in government will probably have made a call on that and I think that deputy prime minister and telecoms kind of falls under your watch Yeah, but this was this was this is foreign telecoms So it was not on on the domestic on the domestic network. I'm not bullshitting myself out of this But but what I'm saying is that for these types of for these types of things. There's a few people Who know about it? There's a few people who need to make a call from time to time and if there is really a problem, okay? Then you could confront them with that but the idea of you know, everything should be completely transparent and open for everyone. I Don't think in the world of today. This is this is something that is feasible Can we ask a poll the polls have been helpful because we've got nothing we'll do a poll and we'll go to Syria if How many people here believe that your government whichever government you belong to Should in these areas in which ISIS is growing and planning and threatening whether it's Syria or other countries Your government should be in fact spying on Isis in order to keep you safe. How many people believe that should happen? Looks like for those who can't see at home the large majority And that ultimately is what democracies do respond Alexander has to cut out Is not just you're leaving me alone this Thanks, thank you for joining us But here's he here's an interesting thing though is why would we accept that? We could spy on another human no matter what and we would not accept to be spied on ourselves That is the big question. We need to ask ourselves because we feel that provides a safety But also safety or insecurity could be hiding within us and we're not aware of it And the proof is what happened in Paris which comes back to my original point is There should be no differentiation because if you're gonna spy on ISIS, which are maybe 30 or 50,000 people You're actually gonna spy on all of Syria to figure out who those ISIS guys are You cannot say I have the database of 50,000 people and those guys are gonna spy if you have the database Then you don't need to spy on them because you already know who they are So the question is I mean, why would we accept it to be done on certain places and not in our country? As you know that is actually what happens is you get a suspect you follow that specific communication And there are thousands of leads related to ISIS that that foreign and US and other nations Intelligence are following they don't look at everyone in Syria. There is there's enough a bandwidth They look at areas where they think that there is but again, I Have a constitution that says I cannot let my government Spy on the American people. I have to respect a 240 years of law and Constitution that protects people's privacy. I have no choice. So they'll where can you tell us what? You think the baseline should be for rights regarding privacy I was gonna say exactly that in relation to the question because you know, there's in International human rights law we follow the principle of necessary and proportional and that forms a sort of foundational Principles on which these decisions are made. So and you're absolutely right to say that we need to have some norms and standards We are in a new space here. And so now we have a special rapporteur for the right to privacy So we have the rapporteur already for freedom of expression and there's a whole debate on countering violent extremism So we need to bring all these pieces together And to have a set of standards which which I agreed and this is also there's another discussion about industry standards So for example when the first Egyptian revolution happened Vodafone turned off the phones and and Bassa will know a lot more about as a telco operator about this and there was a whole debate as to why did Vodafone Suddenly decide to do that without having anything in writing from the Mubarak government. So GSMA, which is the Telecom sort of association has also come up with standards now on the political side of course the standards the enforcement of the standards has to happen through the UN and As we know the richest countries in the world don't necessarily listen to what the UN is saying So often what happens is the sick even the Security Council only has power on poor countries I mean they if it's happening and even in Russia, they really can't do much It's one of the permanent five members of the Security Council the Security Council can't do anything So it has to be relatively weaker. You know if it's Central African Republic the Security Council can go and thump It's you know even Syria now. It's become the playing ground for all the regional and global powers. We're watching So there's a big question. We need norms and standards. We need international principles, but who's gonna enforce that? Mira you want to jump in? I mean You know we can we can do lots of polls for example I will ask this room. There are ten ISIS in In Switzerland, are you all okay that we spy on you? Who's okay that we spy on all all all the Swiss citizens, okay? They are only five so it's always easier. It's always easy to spy on other than their hours It's always easier to be okay to To throw in the garbage the human rights of others than ours and this is this is totally Normal, but this is why I think it's very we are in a very interesting time We are in a time where we can Requestion ourselves about the meaning of democracy the meaning of a human rights and the meaning of Universal human rights universal human rights doesn't mean that I come from a country that is very powerful and can by my incredible constitution Protect my rights So I don't do it on my citizen that I can do it on other citizens that they don't have a country That is us powerful to protect its citizens. So today we're talking about this open this Davos 2016 and we're talking about this fourth industrial revolution and one of the words inside the forum that has been a lot Discussed is the word globalized standards and when we talk about the globalized standards We're talking about globalized standards for autos for I don't know industries, etc But it's real time to talk about the globalized standards for human for us Okay, and For me for me what I'm when I'm seeing and this is this is the difference is that you we had the vice Prime Minister we're having a congressman who are not allowed to information while they are elected while the bureaucracy has the right to know and The people who are appointed to the most critical Critical places which is the head of the NSA for example, they had to see a CIA the head of the air Belgium Intelligence are not elected. They are appointed So those who decide on very fundamental things and those who have all the rights And I have all the power are not elected while those who are elected They don't even know what's happening and this is why it is time to discuss. What is democracy? This is the dictatorship of bureaucracy. What is that? Let's get back to the audience who's Who's got a question, let's go to let's go to the left side of the room I don't mean that politically just geographically. Thank you My name is Thomas Yuli congressman have a question if you find out that one of your best friends your buddies Is spying on you? well, what you do and Why could it actually beneficial for your relationship with your body? That he continues this practice. Maybe why should it be different for governments? So somebody is peeking in the window of my house and Taking pictures with their iPhone and you want to know if our friendship will remain strong and happy not so likely The the the answer though, and I'm gonna pivot to her question her statement It was a good one. We do need to have Standards for a great many things and we need to globalize them the way that sovereign nations though globalize standards is through voluntary acceptance and treaty and So whether it's your question about what I let somebody peek in the window or not and would it affect our relationship? well Did I leave my window open? Did I say look in on me to make sure I haven't fallen? Before you know if you just want to walk in the front door walk in the front door because you're my friend I can have that discussion But as we try to get the first world and I'm not saying economic first world But the first world of democracy of human rights of rule of law We should be in fact forming treaties About what we will or won't do commonly in the way of protecting our people When I came to Europe this time I went to France. I went to Belgium and then I came here Those other two countries like Switzerland are part of visa waiver a situation in which we Know a lot about the country's ability to tell us if there's a problem with the citizen who might want to come To the US as a result the stock is very short. It's very simple either to have no check at all or Potentially if you've been to a foreign country just recently and a very limited group of them to say well We may want to have a little bit more, but we're still going to Mostly make it very quick and easy for people in our countries to go to the other country That's because we have effectively a treaty relationship an agreement So I would call on everyone to ask their country Why are you not negotiating with the United States with other members of the EU? to ensure that we do in fact agree to common standards as To your country versus another country France versus Germany United States versus each of the members of the countries here and if you're from a dictatorship Maybe we don't have that treaty if you're an a country that spies on America that steals secrets that is Constantly trying to undermine maybe we don't have that but for much of the world We could establish these best practices of protecting against unfair intrusion In people's privacy and that should be a goal that tonight We look and say how do we get more countries to treat each other the same as we treat our own citizens? And it's part of what the trade promotion is never to negotiate It's at least data retention, but just looking at it from a human nature perspective What would inspire any government to give up an edge that it has? I mean we can set all this you know best practices that we want but I Mean any country that could be a hegemon in one way or another certainly would be so What's how do you incentivize compliance with something like that? Or how do we? Regulate it in force. Well, there are two things that will get a democracy to do something Mutual self-interest will be done sometimes even over public opinion and public opinion if If people the United States say of course I want to have A recognition that Ireland will not spy on me the Germany will not spy on me that France will not spy on me Then I have to be willing to tell my country that they need to have a reciprocal understanding now that might mean that When the United States has a serious concern about somebody they go to the French government and ask them to seek a warrant that Ask them to to do a portion that cooperation But we're not going to get there until people first agree that what you give to the internet so to speak is your decision What is taken involuntarily and unknown from you is in fact something that? The first world has long ago said we shouldn't do and now little by little in the name of safety people are doing and The debate as the deputy prime minister said the debate will go on for ten years from now But if you want to maintain your freedoms, you're going to have to speak loudly for them I think Interesting situation now in relation to the tech company. So when we started this debate with them a few years ago We were not on the same side. I think because they felt that you know It's still not an issue now the whole issue of the right to privacy But now they're starting to feel more pressure from their customers as well And I think there there's a real point of leverage to change their behavior Encryption technology for example, which is one of the best things that you can have in place to protect your privacy I think more and more companies are more open to it. What's up is pretty good on encryption Some of the others are not so I think as users we can start putting a lot more pressure on the tech companies And the same with backdoors I don't know how many of you follow the conversation on this But essentially a backdoor is when you're allowing governments to peep into your databases and your customer data So, you know now and I think even the companies are now Facebook's and all the big guys are starting to say this is problematic You know and they're starting to challenge governments more and I think the more pressure They feel from you guys saying that this is not acceptable for us I think that will because the thing about backdoors Of course is you think you're opening the back doors to some government on a specific piece of information But actually even the so-called terrorists some governments are so scared of are also using the same back door So it's just a disaster all around you know So I think but I think pressure from the people I don't believe that any government or any company has well Maybe I shouldn't put it so strongly rarely do governments or corporations change their behavior without pressure coming from outside We've got about 10 more minutes. So let's take another one from the audience This silver here gentlemen has had his hand up since the very beginning. All right. I May regret it, but let's give two questions The question for you you are a friend of Obama Obama when he come in power. He said yes, we can Now at the end of the period we know yes We scan this is a difference and I come to another. I don't want to interrupt you, but you didn't hear the Sorry was a nemesis Okay, sorry. I give it back. It was a mistake from my side. I've come to a question It's not only security. We become like a consumer is for going to the internet What you do your whole behavior is? Registrating and you we buy relief we are informed we become like a consumer not a personality We become like an object and this is a great danger not with personality an object or consumer and a slave And I have another question Obama Martin Luther King said I have a dream Obama said now I have a drone and it's a big difference And this a question to the coming to the and the international when you survive everything and you kill by this is also a big Problem because you have no security by your own because you don't know what really happens though These have two questions in the deeper sense information in the hand like in a god who is Doing since okay, I got it. I'm gonna try and synthesize that Don't leave the one liners out though I Like that I have a drone What I heard somewhere in there was Was that Information about what we do is turning us into products. We are being bought and sold Is that so wrong Is that a good thing is that a bad thing I'll meet as good of you And the those who speak French here, do you know who's etienne de la bohissie and I should learn that in school This is a young guy French guy who wrote a book called La servitude volontaire the the volunteer servitude and this is what we're doing I I tend to always say it's the government's fault But sometimes it's the consumers fault and then what you raise the fault is ours. We are bought and Sold because we accept to be bought and sold we are servants in the hands of Companies when you when we are okay to give our private to give to give our privacy to give our Informations to give our photos to give everything then we should not complain after we are the ones who accepted that so I think I mean There are that it's a dual discussion first There is the problem with the top The top is using internet and blaming everything on internet. It's because of Isis is because of internet I don't know who is because of internet and we citizens are also blaming everything on internet while we are also Doing our own harm actually to ourselves so I Think something that you can take to your home is to read this book about The volunteer servitude and you will hate yourself Thank you, who's next Way in the back there Could I weigh in with just one thing? Go for it before you start. We'll let I just want to weigh in very quickly because You have premature gray hair. I I assume you just don't remember that At least in most countries when you bought a house or bought a car Even a generation ago even in the 60s and 70s and 80s as soon as you did so Everybody that sold curtains when you bought a house Solicited you Everyone who could sell insurance and car accessories Solicited you when that you got a new title for your car It is not new for you to be an object of public information for the sales force The question is are you willing to to delete emails because someone's soliciting you or to put them in the spam In some ways, this is it. This is not a new question. It's simply a question that it's now cheaper to send an email When they discover something about you and try to solicit you then it was a generation ago when they had to print something and send it to you And that's one of the reasons we're noticing it is is practically free to react to data and bombard all of us with the output of it Vice news is selling ads against this live stream right now. So you are all being commodified To the gentleman in the back. Yeah, so my name is trucker and busk bill. I'm also mr. Kaiser student and Thanks for credit. Yeah so Let us assume that The population so we are willing to give up also y'all on stage We are willing to give up our privacy which also includes our secrets Is the government also ready to give up their secrets? so for example Conspiracy conspiracy theories which are spreading through the worldwide web so that we are able to solve this This theories. So what do you think? He wants to take it We'll leave that to the government officials Oh, yeah, I'm sure this is because you're for gentlemen reasons I mean, I think I Think governments are for now a bit smarter than we are And that's weaker than governments and this is something that we should look at ourselves in the mirror and Ask ourselves why why are we willing to give up our secrets? I'm not assuming it's a fact most of the people here do have a Facebook account with their photos, etc For me it was a question, you know that should I should I put informations online? I Think and I I've been a hacker in the at least 10 years ago and and we can Whether you hide it or not they are able to know you know and this is also another problem And we're not pressuring for that. So there is a Volunteer servitude that I would add also a fatalism. We're facing because we cannot Really today we are not today really willing to like take the fight and do it So we keep on voting for people that we know are corrupted for example We keep on voting for people that we know are pro Antiprivacy well while you can be pro we keep on doing the same system and we keep on Explaining democracy the same way democracy supposed to be the power of the people that do you feel powerful? I don't think so I mean maybe not Switzerland because you have your referendum, etc. So this is completely different But from people in other countries where actually in our life in our daily life We do vote for everything. I like chocolate or I like milk chocolate. I like black chocolate. I want to this doctor I don't want that doctor. But one thing we elect the president for four or five years and during four or five years Actually, we're we're out of the game. We already elected that guy. So What is happening? I think and this is why technology is also a very good thing technology is disruptive is disrupting the power of the elected and The those who have power it is it is changing that because we are not the native tech babies But the new ones who who who know the true meaning of democracy who who know the true meaning for them It's normal that they can choose everything and they have the right to decide on everything because we cannot Give that argument of it's impossible to do a referendum. This was have been doing referendums forever with papers So now with technology, it's always easy to decide So that power of I gave you the power I voted for you and during four years You are the or five years You are the one her deciding for everything is not working anymore And I'm we we experienced that in Tunisia and work it very well now when an MP should vote for whatever article it is Before that there are 24 hours where people can vote for that article before So the MP can be against what the people voted for but it's so Transparent that he cannot just go then and vote for the opposite that 90% of the people voted for so it is I mean Technology is also a great tool because we are Requestioning everything with it and maybe in a good way So we'll you want to drop it the question was on secrecy though Yeah, and I think I think to that point I'd like to say something because so it was too genteel. I don't I mean we can question Governments as much as we want about information and so on but I don't think realistically we're gonna get everything and I have the proof to that recently I was trying to read something about the conversations between Tony Blair and President Clinton and Other governments and so on and what has happened is it was so redacted you said hello, Mr. President and then oh, I'm fine and nothing and then you had another word there So in reality is the release information, but you couldn't make any sense out of it No matter what you tried to do. It was totally redacted So there will be a lot of questions that we can ask and a lot of information and be a conspiracy theory or whatever The reality is if the information is not meant to be given to us Then it will not be meant to be given to us and it will never be given to us So from a human rights perspective sort of amnesty internationalist position is very clear on this So when it comes to individuals We always advocate for maximum privacy when it comes to governments We are position is that there should be maximum Transparency and accountability. That's where we stand on that spectrum now the question of course is are there exceptional situations where the government can withhold information for national security, etc. That's legitimate. It can happen, but the process is Increasingly unclear in most governments as to how this happens. So it is the it's incumbent on citizens to hold governments accountable They are servants of the citizens not the other way around and in many countries in the world The people become the servants of the government. So we should never allow this to happen We should keep that that space of where they can claim that, you know, this is a matter of public security, etc Should be minimized absolutely minimized with very clear process and To try to answer your question from a US perspective, but I think it applies anywhere in the world When it comes to what you should know about your government And all of the people are saying there is some legitimate hold back But let me just say it this way because this is something the Open Gov Foundation and other organizations Sunlight Foundation other groups I work with are trying to get people to understand And I'm gonna use a hypothetical 99% of what government has you should have access to it should be there Even before you ask for it if they're if if the government pays a dollar for something There's no reason that you shouldn't be able to know who they bought it from how much they paid It's your money if there's a bidding process, of course, they can keep it secret so that It's a blind bid once the bid is open or finished you should be able to open it up and see what everyone bid This kind of transparency that the vast majority of what you don't have now if it's systematically made available in Computer-searchable format and the entire in my case 318 million Americans have access to it then we can begin arguing about the 1% But the lowest-hanging fruit is the vast majority of what government does that they simply Don't bother to make available to you and then you'll go through a long and expensive process to get it Whether you're the New York Times or a congressman or an individual citizen That's what we need to make available When you get that you begin making a democracy make much more honest statements because and I'll Use Nigeria because I was there only a few months ago as an example Nigeria was losing half a billion dollars worth of oil every month for sure between when it was taken out of the the ground and When it got sold and they knew they were you losing it? Holding accountability is opening up the books so that the people understand that that by the way not just helps the citizen It helps undermine Boko Haram who talks about corruption because it's hard to admit that it isn't there of course It's there we've got time for one last question He was the first one to give his hand up there My name is Mark Miller Another student of mr. Kaiser Thank you. Thank you. Not a student. Please raise your hand Now it may be it may not be a very popular approach to the to the subject and Miss Yahya we She she already mentioned it and that is Amount of money we spend on a program which is absolutely not backed by the population so it's unpopular and If The government were really concerned about our safety Then wouldn't it make more sense to reallocate this money? We spend on those programs and put it into for example cancer research or or Traffic safety. What sort of programs are you talking about? Well those surveillance programs? Okay, of course and It this question also implies that There may be also another motivation for the governments to survey its citizens despite the safety and If you think that this is true or this is a fact and what are those reasons? Thank you So Switzerland famously neutral Are they Safe enough to just kind of stop Surveiling Its own citizens for you asking me anyone anyone who has to jump in no no I totally agree because you know this is a kind of knee-jerk reaction that when there is a problem Then governments have to show that they're doing something So they just throw the kitchen sink at the problem and it's not about the money Which you're spending only on surveillance the real big money is going on Indiscriminate bombing so you have 9-11 then you attack some empty rocky spaces in Afghanistan Then you bomb Iraq and then later on you start figuring out what really happened with that You know and this is not this is not ice and 9-11 is just one example I mean we constantly are doing this you have a problem That's why the question about is it necessary is it proportionate? What is the basis on which you're taking actions is very very important? And I think from a standpoint of money I'll bring up a program that most countries have it's enshrined in the US Constitution. It's required Every ten years the United States performs a census Now to some people that's an intrusion you have to say who you are and where you live and there are a Massive amount of questions that are in are the US census that allows us to understand People their their backgrounds their national origin Their their race now we wipe away the individual information But we keep the cumulative information and it's expensive many many many billions of dollars and yet I think most Americans enjoy the fact that they're constantly able to find out what the population their city is What the population of state is when we allocate for? for Welfare and other social programs we do so based on income and Population based on the census so not all that government does is nefarious Not all the government does is against terrorism a great deal of what happens Happens because in fact it is in the public interest and I'm going to close with this You can go online and you can get the CIA fact book. It's public It's this thick what it's in paper By the way, you're you see it used every day for populations and per capita GDP an A arable land of countries every country in the world There are some things that we spend money on that are in the public interest and it does take a little bit of our Privacy, but it's handled normally so that it doesn't take individual privacy It strips that away and again That's part of what we as citizens have to do is we have to insist that our governments collect information in the public good and Minimize the loss of our privacy Something that I think at the end of the day is you're right and you should not be ever forced to give it up Unless you choose to No, I just wanted to go to just to finish this point just to quote from the Guardian newspaper just William Benny who is a former technical director of the US National Security Agency told a British Parliamentary committee earlier this month This is just last month that the British governments plan for bulk collection of Communications data tracking which is everybody's internet and phone use. He said a 99% useless because they swamp intelligence analysts with too much data It's absolutely not cost-effective So I mean people who know a lot are also saying you need to be doing really smart Collection not random. We're over time to Amirah last word to you and then we're done I'm going to return back to my globalized standard logic logic Saudi Arabia beheaded as much people this in 2015 as dash More people more people than dash Saudi Arabia treats woman as as bad as dash Saudi Arabia is a hell for Populations as much as that Saudi Arabia's bombarding Yemen killing casualties collateral damage hundreds of people 2500 oh, I love amnesty International as As much as dash these people are Even more but Saudi Arabia is an ally dash is not so that the Islamic State So before they before Gilbert brings out the cane and starts pulling us off. We have to cut it up Saudi Arabia is an ally to All of these countries all these democratic country ISIS is not and somehow I wonder why and I think because ISIS is not doing a lobby as good as Saudi Arabia All right. Thank you very very much for joining us this evening and thanks to everyone walking Let's give a hand to our