 So our next speaker has a lot of slides he told me. What can I say about Marcos Becquedal? Just a round of applause for our speaker and for the year in review. So good morning. I have 40 minutes and 60 slides, and I tried to sort them out, but it wasn't possible because 2019 was a really chaotic year. So network politics has reached the middle of our society, and that doesn't make it more easy. And what we're missing or what we were missing at the beginning of the year was regeneration time from the Congress because the year began really quickly with a doxing scandal. Doxing denotes outing persons with their personal data on the web. So yeah, basically you're outing persons and you're kind of humiliating them with this, and it was for on prominent people and politicians. So anyone who is active and trying to establish a more open society, and of course the question was why do you do that? And the alleged perpetrator, as it quickly came out, was still living with his parents and did that from home, like from his parents' basement. And he confessed pretty quickly, and the government was eager to say it's not politically motivated, and the perpetrator said that he did it because he didn't like what his victims said in public. So from the official side, this was a lone move and there's no co-authors or co-properators of this. So it's been very quiet about this since a year. There's no criminal persecution, and it's unclear how a 21-year-old could access all of these data, and how is it possible that he acted alone allegedly? But it was a case that showed that we have a problem with right-wing extremism on the web. So we could say it was the first right-wing extremist attack this year. And if you think doxing is OK, let's look into the hacker ethics of the CCC. It is clearly stated there that it is not ethical to out people and to out their private data. And it's a breach of our values. So for anyone who thinks this is OK for whatever reason, it is clearly not. So one of the reactions was a draft bill on an IT security bill 2.0 that we published on netspolitik.org. And it still isn't official yet, like even the draft isn't official. It's clear that we need more IT security. And there are some good ideas in this draft for consumer protection, IT security. But then when you look into the small print, you have all of those surveillance measures and more control in the name of security and more restrictions. So like punishment up to five years and state torsions used against hackers and criminalization. So at the moment, it has halted this draft bill. And there is still no proper strategy to give the power back to the people and to promote open source tools and digital self-defense. And also, there are not enough measures that obligate providers to secure their software and also to make it open source so that anyone can have a look at what their programs are doing. So this is one of many progress processes started by the enormous ministry. And there was also a draft bill for reform of the Constitutional Protection Act. So in short, our Federal Constitutional Protection Office is supposed to get a state trojan supposedly to protect journalists. And if that draft bill had been passed, the Federal Constitutional Protection Office would have had much more power and the power to put trojans on people. But the draft bill has halted at the moment. And if you don't know what state trojans are about, state trojans are a measure by the state that essentially promotes insecurity by using tools that you buy from ominous sources and the collateral damage is immense because everyone becomes vulnerable. And this is one of the reasons why we are explicitly against state trojans here at the CCC. What is also connected to this is the perpetual repetition of hackbacks being postulated. That is something different than the hackback that Edward Snowden talked about two hours ago. It was known that we, as the community, needs to hack back against the system. And our government thinks that they can hack back when they've been allegedly hacked. And it is not clear whether they even are capable of doing that. And it's clear that actually is not a good idea. And it is a challenge also legally because they cannot really know where the attack was actually coming from. So this paper that we received is very interesting because someone from the German army was commissioned to write this paper. So basically, the German army is now apparently doing civil rights issues. And also, we received a restraining order. And I can only say that there was a talk about that today. That more clearly details what it was all about. One thing that is a bit of a running gag for us is the question of digital assistance surveillance systems. More and more people have one of these at home. It's easy. It's not much effort to use them. People who have lived their life with a keyboard and mouse have always longed for speech as an interface. But the current devices are not trustworthy and safe in any way, shape, or form. Because nobody knows where the data is, who has access to it. Our Ministry of the Interior says there doesn't even have to be a back door to get at those because we can just use the courts to get at the people who manufacture those things that people put in their homes because they have the data. But this also gives us a few other questions. Are we training a global voice recognition AI? What if those things end up everywhere? What if we go into business and are identified automatically? No, an offline data retention type thing based on voice biometrics. And if we're training an AI and we adapt to it, do we even have a chance to leave the world of Alexa and Google? Can we even trust these devices? Just not talking about horse seho for any silk. But the producers always say, trust us. Your privacy is important to us. This was a nice development this year. It emerged that somebody has to train those AIs or rather have a look at the training and see if it works. For example, if you have a Thuringian accent and see if Alexa understood that right. So they hired call centers who listened to all the conversations that were recorded, whether intentional or unintentional. And thanks to many journalistic ventures, this has become more prominent how they have lied to their customers and how we should definitely not trust them. Another debate that more or less dominated this year, we personally didn't see that much. But the political areas of newspapers did this. Their foreign internet politics was 5G and Huawei. It's a discussion that is important, but we were a bit irritated. Like, why does it work this way? Why does some minister do a press meeting behind closed doors and everybody else just only cares about Huawei? Those are the journalists who don't have any idea at all by digitalization. But big transit line debates, yeah, that's their game. And how we're going to get 5G into Germany is still a problem or rather a challenge. But the whole security thing isn't actually what this is about. If you want to make 5G safe and secure, then you'd use enter and encryption everywhere, encrypt everything completely. And do not implement surveillance technology in the network. They're not doing that. So Huawei is more of an industrial and economical debate that shows that we in Germany don't seem to have any or failed at building our own tech industry so that we can build our, buy our own and use it, our own trustworthy infrastructure. So in the end, if you look at Snowden, we know that Americans telling the Chinese that China uses backdoors is completely absurd if you look at how many backdoor Cisco gear has. Well, yeah, 5G was a big thing, mostly to distract us from not having 2 and 3 and 4G. But yeah, well done. Four cities in Germany now have LTE and widespread deployment. 2019. Dortmund often woke up on five. The bad news is the rest don't have it, at least not widespread. I live in Berlin. I got 16 megabit internet. I've met people today that live in Berlin and would be very happy to have 16 megabits. So if you leave Berlin, you're happy to have any mobile internet at all. But don't panic. 2025, we're going to have gigabit internet for everyone. At least that's what the federal government is promising. I'm looking forward to it. And apparently, you have to have that by law. It says so in the coalition agreement. But we've not seen anything remotely in that direction. And until that happens, we'll just have to deal with this promise being similar to all those other ones they made that at some point there would be internet in the middle of the country or in Berlin. And the largest debate from a point of view of the internet was Article 13. Actually, in nice development, I have been dealing with corporate law for many years. One of the most boring things. And 15 years ago, we dealt with this and prevented internet blocking due to corporate reasons. And that was the time when the media industry wanted to take away the internet from people to prevent fair sharing without actually providing any legal alternatives. And suddenly, this year, after a long time, we had a large demonstration for a new copyright law because the European Union, after 18 years, was going to touch copyright law. And they had a presumably modernized version of it under the way. But actually, this just set the old business models in stone and didn't really try it for anything else. And I have a short instruction set for politicians how to make young people take part in politics and engage in political walks. Yes, step one, just defame all the critics as social bots. Great opportunity. Then take your text and replace the word upload filter with a description of how upload filters work. And then claim that no upload filters are in the law. Now, that leads to young people reading illegal text for the first time and seeing that they still contained upload filters even if the word wasn't there. And then describe all the critics as being bought by Google because they were writing from a Google address. And if you've just had a demo with more than 100,000 people, this is a good time to declare that these were all bought demonstrators as well. And these people then all asked for their money back. Point five, get your best informed network politicians out. On the left, you have Axel Foss, the rapporteur. And on the right, Guter Erntiger, previous commissioner at the EU and now who's going to be a lobbyist. And in these two years, Axel Foss has learned a lot. He now knows that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. He has found a site function in Google that no one else knew. And due to he is the one, experts say, who brought the legal framework on the way. And he has studied law. And he is able to put a whole text online on Facebook because that's all closed. And he said, is that possible? He stated and said this was a private copy and everyone else who would try to do that truly would be followed by the law. And that led to people becoming rather enraged, people that had no idea about the whole thing earlier and saw that interests were being pushed through that were not in the interest of the community. And they saw that people were responsible that had no idea about anything. And these are the times when students in school are sued if they put an image that they have to report about in school, put that on social media. And the problem with such an upload filter, which was Article 13, now renumbered as 17, was and still is that automatic recognition is supposed to be there to recognize whether something that's supposed to violate copyright law or not. And that is very, what is very easily visible and the EU has presented it very well. And was Ansip, who was the vice president of the Commission, did Twitter at some point. No one, whoever said we were banning memes was trying to fool you. So no one would ban the memes. The problem is, according to German copyright law, ask five legal people, you get five different answers. But German copyright law, most lawyers agree, would make this picture illegal already because you didn't have the permission of the Star Trek rights holders to simply take a still out of that movie and turn that into new work in the form of a meme. And because, of course, people forgot to put a right to remix into the copyright reform. And in general, copyright law is fairly complicated, so complicated that even EU lawyers and presidents don't understand. So the German Center for Political Education published a long introductory text, and they will probably have to publish a new one because everything will change. And copyright law has been reformed. And while all parties said that they would like to take upload photos out of the national implementation law, it's not that simple. And we do not expect that that is possible under EU law. I will come back to that and give you reasons why. But this is something we should fight for in the implementation in Germany, that we would have a slightly better right to quotation that would allow remixers memes like this and put them on legal footing if we adapt the citation right in the implementation in the way that Austria and other countries have done because they have been able to do more. Because for now, we can't really do anything. And also connected to copyright law, we have these two people. Hardly anyone, none of you will know. On the right, we have Paul Spalham. He did copyright law. He was a producer for Sabrina Settler. He was a music producer. And on the right, we have Ralph Hutter. He used to be a member of Kraftwerk, the famous early electronic music band, and Pelham sampled a two second piece by Sabrina Settler for Kraftwerk. And they were fighting in the courts for years, whether this is legal or not. And that is a decision that upload filters will make in real time. And it took years in law. And the decision was actually finalized this year. And the good news is that sampling is not prohibited. And if they hadn't gone all the way to the German Court of Justice, then we would have still wouldn't know whether things like techno and hip hop are illegal. But this European court of law, European Court of Justice judgment said that upload filters cannot be taken out of the national reputation of the copyright law. So if you understand that, it doesn't matter to me. If you just take a look at something like this, this is an issue in copyright law as well. You know that this is all crap. You know it. You can easily buy these things on eBay or whatever. And you can easily see how with a copyright violation you can make a constructive contribution because you can constructively remix, take the firmware out and put it into this piece and have a nice Bobby car copyright law, be aware. So that shows you that we need a right to repair because this should be legal under the law if things that we buy don't work. And we should be able to repair them. And that should get us out of that dependency from the makers. And why shouldn't we be able to turn a toaster into a dishwasher through a software update? Another thing, finally, we have a federal data protection commissioner who is doing his work. Does any of you know who the last commissioner was who was in office until June this year? I have to think about it every time. Her name was Andrea Foss. She fortunately is no longer in office. And he finally is taking his office seriously. Yes, and you may applaud to this. So for a long time, we have the first data protection commissioner who's actually doing his job on. He will speak here, actually. So many people were afraid that bloggers would receive warnings. But we had the first cases. For example, Deutsche Wohnen got multimillion punishment because they completely ignored their renters' rights, their tenants' rights, and didn't take them seriously in terms of data protection. And we will see what comes out of this. But large providers that this regulation was made for are still sitting in Ireland. And we still have to see them in Ireland wherever they are. But we have motivated people like this person who won in front of Irish courts and who will continue to do his awesome work. And I congratulate him. So then we have the ethical commission. We were a bit skeptical about a commission shared by two parts of the government. But it was interesting that they actually published a report that reads kind of nice, which we didn't expect. There was a directive on algorithms by the EU and also on social media platforms. But the way it's going to be implemented is at least drafted or lined out. But it's not clear what our government will actually do with this proposal. But it presents a nice overview of what we can do with data. Then the anti-Cartel Office is fighting against, like, for example, Facebook and Instagram and what's fusioning into one big corporation. But it actually still happens. And the Cartel Office is still checking whether they can actually do that. But maybe they can only just file a complaint. And there was, well, they put a stop to this at the court in Düsseldorf. And we are interested and excited to see how this will go on. Then we have the state contract about the media. And that is also something based on 25 years old false decisions in my point of view that we federalize everything. And it was roughly parted by Helmut Kohl and distributed to the federal states. And now they think that they can level it up with Facebook and Instagram. Now, not everything's bad about this. Because before we had this contract, more than 5,000 users needed a license to stream or to use media. And that would require everyone to have a license of that sort. And now we have a draft that says only if you have more than 20,000 users at the same time for a certain period of time, you need a license. Now, it gets exciting when it's about intermediary platforms like Facebook. So for example, what if Facebook displays media articles or press articles? According to the federal laws, Facebook has to reform its timeline. And the media contract forbids Facebook from disfavoring local media or smaller media. But the interesting thing is who will control this and who will actually make sure that this is implemented. The way it should. Then our new director of the EU Commission was at our fund align. She has tremendous experience with data protection issues. But you should know one name. And that is the Digital Service Act. It is going to be the debate, the data protection debate for the next five years. It's about contracts being changed that the internet, as we know it, is based on. So there's going to be a reform that will make websites pay for illegal content on their websites that they're not even aware of because they're from third parties. And this is what the whole fight will be about, finding ways to regulate the big players on the internet without hurting smaller websites. Then on an EU level, we have a whole range of other debates, Christchurch, Halley, and so on. It is so easy to postulate easy measures. But we still have the whole debate about the Terrorism Act. And a whole lot of propaganda goes along with that. And I've talked about this often. It is a political debate that defines what terrorism actually is. Because in some opinions, the people protesting against forests being killed are terrorists. And for other people, people on the web can be terrorists. Even a blog with a commentary function can be labeled as terrorist. And whoever publishes the blog must react within short notice. So if you have a website and you can't react within one hour to a bad comment on your website, you have to take it down. And then we have the e-evidence debate about cross-border access to evidence. Because this poses a large problem if the rule of law is being overruled. And if Hungarian police wants access to what Hungarian people store on German service, this is not going to be nice. And people are afraid for their basic democratic rights. But the debate has caused Facebook to, in the background, want to react to hate comments very quickly. And they want to deliver data more quickly. Well, a month ago or two weeks ago, we had a new debate pop up about how we could counteract Nazis on the internet. So telecommunication infrastructure providers should be obligated to surrender passwords. This is going to be a major debate in the coming years because it will lead to more surveillance measures. Jens Spahn has introduced the digital data. There will be a central database of health data of the publicly insured people of Germany. And what could possibly go wrong? Well, except for socially unequal data protection problems with algorithmical examination of the data, especially if you only have publicly insured people, pseudonymization can be easily broken. You can't object to use of your data. But as we saw in this Congress, what could possibly go wrong? Anonymization, downwork. The health system is relatively broken. Something should be done about this. There are other debates. The Internet Society has decided to sell the registry behind dot org domains to a hedge fund to make some money. And to spend in the next years for other stuff. The problem is, dot org was created for organizations oriented towards the public good. I'm from a platform called netpolitics.org. I have a bit of a weird feeling if it's a hedge fund that gives us that address. And this year, too, we had a debate about Julian Assange. Chelsea Manning and Jeremy are sitting in jail again, but to force them to testify against Julian Assange. There's a lot of criticisms one can make, but this is not that. What people say he did is something that people could say I did, well, except for releasing secret information from the US. But publishing leaked secret documents is of a public interest, has been, and will be. If he is punished because of his journalism-like activities, the work of the press will be severely endangered. So that is why we need to protect him, because this is about freedom of the press. But 2019 was also the year where nerds were suddenly role models for protesters, from Rizzo to Greta Thunberg to Joshua Wan. There were three role models for young people protesting. They were all nerds. At the same time, we have large protests for or against climate change. We're working for basic rights. We have freedom. We have democracy. But the best freedom and the best democracy doesn't help if what we do makes parts of the Earth uninhabitable. And we make our environment drastically worse. Net politics doesn't help if the ecosystems are falling over. So that's the danger of permitting this. The effects will be devastating. And that's why I like that this Congress has put such emphasis on the climate crisis. Then we have, I got a hurry bit, we have this big sort of damocles with the state deciding that certain organizations, such as attack and the federal union of those persecuted by the Nazi regime, were not public good organizations in the legal sense anymore, which causes stress with the courts and financial institutions. And that allows them to persecute these organizations. We do our best to remain public service organizations. We want Freifunk organizations to become ones. And with netpolitik.org, we basically have to say we're doing consumer protection, which is pretty absurd in times where journalism is under attack the way it is. There's also good news. The transparency law in Berlin took the first hurdle. They got 30,000 signatures. We'll see if the Senate actually does something or if we have to keep going. And well, there's something from the SPD led in a ministry not that good. Now they have someone for leading their party that apparently sees to know something about net politics. The guy next to him did something with whistleblowers because he paid for tax data back when he was Secretary of Finance. Then Angela Merkel realized that there is something that's a digital civil society. And normally, if she talks about it, she would do that with businesses. But here at the Internet Governance Forum, she held a huge speech and said how important civil society would be. And she was going to discuss this with everyone. So every time that she forgets civil society, we should remind the German government how these things work. And we had this funny situation as well. We have been calling for a long time for public code for free citizens. Free code for free citizens, that is. And suddenly, the Christian Democrats, the Conservatives and government have discovered open source and called for public tenders to keep two principles of open source and open standards. And this, again, is something that we should remind every single CDU parliamentarian of. Their party conference took place this November in these very trade fair halls. And we need a large alliance against face recognition and for mass surveillance in the public sphere. We're glad that there has been this initiative called Gesichterkennung Stoppen DE, so stopfacerecognition.de. And the risks, people have to realize, outweigh the potential benefits by far. This is a high-risk technology that will threaten our democracy. And we need a clear moratorium. And it's not an illusion to do that. San Francisco has managed it, so we need more protests to get San Francisco to Germany with a clear prohibition. And apart from that, digital freedom, we have a band now called System Absturbs. So System Crash translated, they have great lyrics. They may have a third appearance at Congress here, go and see them. And there may be more material from them. So we celebrated our 15th birthday this year at the Volksbühne in Berlin. We went to the parliament and thanked them for their great cooperation. And while we had the opportunity to use the chancellor's office to point to our party, that was good. But the party has now taken place. We are completely financed by donations. So through your support, you make our work possible. And we are motivated to keep on going. But we need your support. So thank you for listening. And have fun with your devices. Yes, and have fun.