 Just the headline about Mr. Eben Moglin. It says, Eben Moglin is a professor of law and legal history at Columbia University. And he's the founder and director, council and chairman of the Software Freedom Law Centre. But you know what, that doesn't go anywhere near, far enough, in describing the contributions this guy has done for our community. He was Phil Zimmerman's lawyer. He's Richard Stormman's lawyer. He was one of the drafters of GPLV3. He has made a big impact in the way that open source is able to operate today. And on that note, I'd like you to put your hands together and welcome even back to the stage and speak to us. Good morning. It's an honor to be here. I can't thank the organizers enough, starting with Michael and Steve and Cherie, for their extremely persistent, kind, generous, determined effort to bring me back. I found it a little difficult to believe that it had been ten years. It felt to me as though it were a week or two ago that I was floating in a hot air balloon over Canberra with Tridge and Jeremy Allison, and it had indeed been a decade. I think, in part, I found it hard to believe because I haven't had much more than one or two days off since then. We have all been very busy changing the world, and it has been my pleasure to ride along, but ten years it has been, and I am deeply, deeply honored to be back. I will also thank you in advance for putting up with my heavily accented English. The decade through which we have passed certainly involved an awful lot of making good software. There's been no shortage of making good software in the last decade, and it has involved at least some good enough lawyering in the sense that we are in way less trouble than we were back then, except the trouble we have deliberately made for ourselves. And we have fewer, if any, real devoted enemies, and they are weaker than they were in almost every respect. The problem we were confronting ten years ago with respect to patent law which we had been worrying about already for 15 years, blossomed into the full-scale patent war that we have been warning industry for a generation now that we're going to have. And tens of billions of dollars in value have been burned up and thrown away, and the process of innovating in our industry has been deeply and unhappily distorted by the attempts to use state-created monopolies to slow down the path of innovation by incumbents who needed to slow the clock, if not stop it altogether. And yet at the same time, precisely because industry found itself in the terrible conditions that we had warned them about, we also acquired an awful lot of help, and the worst of the law around the world began to change. Richard Stolman and I spent many years discussing various improbable and ultimately inoperable plans to create a free software protecting patent pool, which would allow us to sit at the table with at least some chips and to perform the task of negotiating for freedom's right to invent and freedom to operate, and of course, as Tridge kept telling me, the freedom to invent around, which is the most important freedom of all, if you're as good an inventor as he is. So we thought again and again about how to accomplish it, but without the fear of God in industry, it could not be done. And now the Open Invention Network provides very much the kind of community patent defense based around pooled assets to be used to defend friends in trouble that we had always hoped we would find a way to create. Similarly, as the patent war went on, judges began to figure out that there was something wrong with the patent system. It was performing pathologically in the United States in precisely the pathological ways that we had warned everybody that it would, and the judges began to lose their enthusiasm for the subject. In the course of the last three years, we have won three unanimous decisions in the United States Supreme Court, significantly restricting the ability to patent algorithms and other forms of abstract ideas. And so we find ourselves in the very extraordinary condition that although the patent war is still waging, the effort to stay created monopolies in the behavior of mobile devices is apparently inexhaustible in some people's view. The likelihood that the most stressful patent systems in the world will ever be used against free software developers is disappearing. The tools of self-defense are not automatic. We haven't arrived at a condition in which nobody tries to apply the patent law to the sort of stuff we invent. But the playing field is much more level. Our community-building activities across the space between profit-making industrial parties and nonprofit-making software experimenters have tightened substantially in very good ways. I'm not in a position to say that we have no problem. I am in a position to say that the nature of the problem in those ten years has altered because the world has altered. I am much more interested this morning in talking about the ways in which the world has altered, but as a sort of ten-year catch-up, I will tell you what the next decade will present in the way of difficulty for us in this connection. The largest economy in the world is not now the economy of the United States. And in another ten years, the most important patent system in the world with respect to IT industries will be the patent system of the People's Republic of China, which will contain enormous numbers of statutory monopolies in a society without the working rule of law unless we manage to achieve the rule of law in the People's Republic of China in the next ten years, which does not seem at present particularly likely. This problem will afflict us, that is to say the people who actually make the technology comparatively lightly. It will affect our industrial partners enormously. And their strategic responses to the problem they will face will be the most interesting of our challenges with respect to the patent system in the next ten years. As was the case in the last round, we are thinking more about the nature of their problems than they are because they are dealing day to day with the problems of running their businesses. But if we are all lucky enough to be standing here ten years from now, if we are talking about the patent system and its effect on our work, that's what we will be talking about. In the next decade, it will be very, very risky, probably too risky for a shark to come and try and bite my clients or their comrades and friends throughout the community. We do get bit. I won't tell you that we don't. Every year now, we face a couple of opportunities for patent assertion by parties who think that stopping some free software project from doing something that it wants to do is in that business's interest. But in the world in which we now live, we have a baseball bat. We can swing it at the nose of the shark. And that does actually discourage biting quite substantially. Like every other thing in this world, it all happens in the dark under the surface of the water. You can't see it occurring. But the lawyers with whom I work and I, we know. And we can say that what used to feel radically unsafe to us, thanks to the businesses and the communities which have pulled together over this last decade, has made an enormous difference. So in the last decade, we made a lot of wonderful software. And we did some good work around the world in abating nuisances that threatened us. But more important, I think, than the software that we made, the enormously important innovations in politics and society, which we were creating alongside the software, began to take hold in the world. Of course, it's true that everything from ice cream to weaponry is now described as open source. But if that's an indication of anything, it's an indication, as usual, that Stalman was right. You should be careful what words you use, because other people might borrow them. And so I'm going to continue to talk about this stuff as free software here this morning, if you don't mind. You can translate it into anything you please. But the fact that people took some language and went and applied it to their products and certified themselves open source, this or that, what was really important was that people began to understand what distinguishes 21st century social organizations from 20th century ones. Industrial society loved hierarchy. It had to love hierarchy. It's metaforce the army of the unemployed or the industrial workforce. Hierarchy was intrinsic to 20th century organizations at their strongest as was secrecy or at least obscurity. But the very forms of activity that we created, the ways in which we have done what we have done came to be an important lesson to the world in 21st century organizations work. They are distinguished by three elements, transparency, participation, and non hierarchical collaboration. And these principles are not ones we imposed on the technical work they did. They are conditions that grew out of the technical work we did. The relationship between our activity and transparency is of course so intimate that you can't describe us without describing the concept of transparency. We don't just let people see, we enable them to learn. And so our transparency is not merely that of a business with a big show window. Rupert Murdoch puts a big glass wall on the front of the television studio in downtown Manhattan, it's transparent in Mr. Murdoch's sense, but not in ours. Transparency for us means more than just a free show you can look at, it means a porous community that you can join, which is why participation is also not merely something that we have a value for but something that makes all the value that we make. It is the ability to participate, which is the outcome of the determination to be transparent in the deep sense in which we are transparent. And it is of course the case that we don't merely do collaborative non hierarchical structures, we invented them. A weekend project of Lina's Torvald's called Git, we need to remember the little tiff that created the need for Git. But we can, but we can ask ourselves a question 10 years having gone by, where is BitKeeper now? The onset of real distributed version control is the technology of non hierarchical collaboration. It isn't merely that we said we like non hierarchical collaboration or we believe in egalitarian access to technology. The technology we made has taken over the making of software because it has demonstrated that non hierarchical collaboration is how you have to make everything. Otherwise, you are incurring inefficiency and setting up for failure. So what we did over the past 10 years, and for me that means not just Canberra in 2005, but where I was in Berlin in the summer of 2004 talking about Dige Duncan, St. Frey and the form of politics which we believe in, which isn't utopian revolution, it's proof of concept plus running code equals social and political progress. That has taken over the world in the last decade. Sure, nobody can live without using our software. Sure, there isn't any longer a business on earth that doesn't need us. Sure, even Microsoft now recognizes that our way of software making won. But what is deeper, but what is deeper is that our structures of social engagement, our form of politics that is our question, how do people live together in the cities has also won. It is now clear, increasingly clear, to states and massive industrial organizations and even the people who hold all the gold bars and would love to hold all the bitcoins. It is now obvious to everybody that the particular structures of 21st century politics, what makes the world of now and our human future different is the forms of social interaction and organization of enterprise in the sense of human invention and self-improvement that we have stood for. And this, more than anything else I think is what we have done for our colleagues, our communities, the rest of the human race in the last 10 years. If there has been good news about politics in the world in the last decade, we did it. And if there has been only bad news about politics in the last decade around the world, it's not our fault we tried. However, however, what has also happened because of the broad understanding that the route to better politics in the human future, the route to better, more efficient, more humane enterprise lies in our form of sharing because precisely because of the breadth of our success, we now also begin to understand what our common values are about. We are after all an exceedingly diverse community. We bridge the entire gap between Vi and Emacs, for example. We also, as it happens, speak every language and are a part of every faith and play every sport and climb everything that can be climbed and dive under everything that can be dived under. And we are culturally extremely discrepant, including in the extent to which we self-consciously believe that what we do is political as well as technical, a fact which some of us are immediately conscious of all the time, and another equally important and powerfully inventive bunch of us tend to keep a little bit further at a distance. But as I say, it doesn't really matter how far you feel the political engagement that has been added to our work because the forms of political engagement which grow organically and necessarily out of our technology, the way it works and what that means about how people interact with one another, those principles of transparency, participation, non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program. And whether one thinks of it as free software, free society or not, the challenges in which we now live are challenges which grow out of our own self-made, homegrown DIY, we hacked it together, political aspirations for transparency, for participation, and for collaborative, non-hierarchical self-government. We face now something we are fortunate enough to be able to name in a word and the word is Snowden. For those of us who live in the United States, there is of course a complicated dual meaning concerning Mr. Snowden because national security is a thing that worries people one nation at a time. And so although I live in a global environment in which the meaning of Mr. Snowden is untrammeled by any question about who was he spying on and did he do a bad thing, in my home society, of course, there is a lot of such discussion which is why when I want to write about Mr. Snowden or the consequences of his activities, I am so grateful to Alan Rusperger of The Guardian for giving me a place in which to do the work. But outside the boundaries of my home society, the meaning of Mr. Snowden's activities is far less complicated. What we have learned as a result of what he has taught us in the past year and a half is that even in a very rare society with strong legal controls or apparently strong legal controls over listening, there is no longer any hope that we can directly prevent power, whether it is private power or public power from turning the net into a procedure for totalitarianism. We are now living in the question for which people like my comrade Mr. Stallman and my former client Philip Zimmerman have been trying to prepare us for a generation. I walked into Mr. Zimmerman's life in an email message in the summer of 1991. I saw PGP appear on the net on a July evening on a Fido bulletin board in New York City and I wrote him an email message and I said congratulations, you've done a wonderful thing, you're gonna change the world. You're also going to get in a shitload of trouble. And when it happens, I can help you here is who I am. And it was because I was working for Mr. Zimmerman and a story appeared in The New York Times by John Markoff about what I was doing that Richard Stallman first got in touch with me and that was how Richard and I professionally met. Now let us take ourselves back to 1991 and let's imagine that Mr. Zimmerman does not have adequate legal help and that PGP is intimidated out of existence by the United States government. We now live in a world without PGP which means we also live in a world without SSH which means we also live in a world without my clients open SSL and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I think you would agree with me that if that's the world we lived in now, we would be facing the irreversible movement towards irresistible despotism. Towards political power coming into existence in one or more places around the world that would have the power to predict the behavior of people and to prevent the coalescence of political dissent, decapitate movements and create a kind of immortality of unfreedom. There are of course a lot of people who had nothing to do with making software to share who have helped us to prevent that from happening. But we must, I think, understand that we now live in the world we were afraid of and that what stands between us and the things that we were most afraid of is ourselves, our own inventions, which we have now a responsibility not only to use ourselves and to improve and to keep vital, but to spread as widely as we can and as effectively as we can. We are required, no question about it, to have the wisdom of serpents if we are to use the technologies we have invented in order to prevent the fastening on the human race of a despotism it will not be able to shake. We are moving towards a single exoskeletal nervous system embracing the whole of humanity and the neuroanatomy of that system is constructed out of what we have called the internet and we will soon in another generation simply be able to call the nervous system of the human race, whether it is built to be controlled at its end points by the things quaintly known as individuals or whether it is built to be directed from centers of scrutiny and data mining and prediction is the political decision we make for the future. We in this room will not determine what happens to the climate of the planet but we will determine the physiology of the nervous system of humanity, the functional behavior of the everything we are building and as was foreseen by some of our most wonderful crackpot visionaries at the beginning of this process I need mention no names. But as was foreseen by the most wonderful of our crackpot visionaries, freedom itself depends upon how we make use of the technologies we are creating. If the politics that we think about as characteristic of the ways we work, transparency, participation, enablement, non-hierarchical collaboration are to survive the onset of the immense data society with listeners inside everything. If that set of values is to survive we must continue the process of building the political and social theory that emerges from our tech. I'm not going to say we all have to therefore become primarily aware of the political significance of what we do but it is part of the wisdom of every project. It is part of the skills that we all bring together into every group of which we are part that some of us are always thinking how do we turn this to the political advantage, the social advantage of the desire of the human race for each individual mind to grow and invent freely. And we must understand that the forms of legal control, the forms of government power that will now concern us most are not the handing out of real estate in the patent offices, they're not the questions of how much copyright law you can have over interface declarations. Though I must say that now that the Supreme Court has delayed for another period the decision whether to take Google against Oracle, we could find ourselves in that situation once the Solicitor General of the United States is weighed in but these are lawyers' work, right? We do lawyers' work, I train people to do lawyers' work in this world and we will handle all of that but that is not where the real political, social, and legal action now is. Mr. Snowden did for us crucial work. You see the numbers, 61% of the part of the human race connected to the internet is aware of Mr. Snowden and what he means and between 39 and 45% of that, nearly two thirds of the human race connected to the internet wants to do something to improve its privacy. All right, they do. And that means they want to meet us more badly than they ever did before. They didn't wanna meet us before because people who make proprietary IT showed them it was quote, convenient to close quote and they went for it, it was convenient. We, of course, were not convenient. I don't remember why it was that we weren't convenient, I think it was the command line or something but we weren't convenient, okay? So lots of people, their eyes glazed over. They were our friends, they were our brothers and sisters, they were our parents but their eyes glazed over when we talked about it. No more, no more, no more, no more, no more. Everybody wants to meet us now and we need to put on our nice best and go out and politely explain to them how we save freedom together. It's very convenient to save freedom, we're going to tell them, right? If you give away your freedom for convenience we will have trouble getting it back for you but now would be an awfully convenient time to help us embed freedom in the network we are building, your children will thank you. We know about network effects. We don't mean everybody has to use office because everybody has to use office because otherwise how will you open the office documents? We mean that it is hard to sustain freedom in a technological environment which has been engineered to take it away and that there is strength in numbers. We can make even people who love controlling their users decide to spoof MAC addresses, right? We can make people who used to be not on our side about crypto and crypt the stuff on the flash memory in the phone. But what we cannot do without the universalization of the way we work is to prove to the rest of the human race that technology anyone can copy, modify and share is technology which preserves privacy, autonomy and freedom and that other software will not. Nobody in business is going to use cybersecurity they can't read anymore. Once again as usual it is not the expert opinion of the world that we can't reach. When Mr. Snowden revealed the Bull Run program that is the effort by NSA to break commercially significant crypto. I was having a conversation with an analyst who has been very much on the side of the three letter agencies for decades and I said to him, you know, the problem with what Mr. Snowden has not just taught us is not that he has proved that you were wrong for 20 years. That's a tiny problem. The problem Mr. Snowden really poses for you is that he has proved that we were right for 20 years and that's a very different thing altogether. We were the people who said you can't trust what you can't read. We thought we were making an obvious point. We didn't quite understand why it was hard for other people to figure out that you can't trust what you can't read but they figured it out now. If they're in the business of trusting on behalf of tens of millions of customers or users they're in the business now of not trusting what they can't read and security through obscurity in the real world of professional IT is over. But that doesn't mean that what has happened to the users, those disempowered users whose technology sells them out all the time, nothing has happened for them yet. I said half a decade ago now that we needed the first law of robotics and we needed it in a hell of a hurry because we're all carrying robots around with us everywhere I go and they don't obey the first law at all. They hurt us all the time. And so I have to say again what I was saying there at Hope, if we don't make the first law of robotics nobody's going to make it. If we don't get it in the middle of everything it won't be there. And big power in the world, whether you think of it as big economic power, you think of it as big government power, you think of it as big listener power, big power in the world is fundamentally committed against the first law. Big power in the world wants the devices to work for it. And if it weren't for us, it'd succeed. And the human race would pay a price which might last for generations. So we have to take ourselves seriously. That's hard for us because we're hackers and intrinsically we don't take ourselves seriously anymore than the agent hierarchical non-collaborative development. A sense of irony about self is what makes it possible to do the technical work and I will tell you a secret, it makes it possible to do the lawyering too. When we sit around the conference table on Wednesday afternoon still having the firm lunch that Karen Sandler taught me I ought to have, I tell the lawyers who work for me that the only indispensable part of our law practice is irony. Because it's only irony which keeps us from doing stuff that's dumb like going and suing rich people and letting them grind us into powder regardless of the merits and things like that. We have to hack our way to a form of legal engagement that works for us and only ironic ones will do. So naturally we don't take ourselves terribly seriously. I'm probably the only one here who has the degree of unself-consciousness willingness to take myself seriously because we get up in the morning and put on a suit for heaven's sake. Now even that's too much for the ironists in the room by and large but we do have to take ourselves seriously. We have to take ourselves seriously. We're not now in the prelude to the Star Wars we foresaw what happened. We're in it, we're in it. We have made what little it is affected us against disaster already. We are why everything doesn't consist of X-509 certificates issued by corrupt authorities. We are why not just distributed version control but the web of trust, right? We are why non-hierarchical modes of communicating safely and securely and protecting people's privacy against the data mungers. We are why all of that is possible at all. And that's terrific. It's wonderful. We did a great job and therefore we are now in the middle of what we really feared and we have to keep doing it. When I read Jim Dwyer's wonderful book about the young men who started making diaspora called More Awesome Than Money the part that I was interested in of course was not the part about me. I knew the part about me. And it wasn't really about Elia and Rafi and Max because I knew them too. It was about the understanding that when those four young men decided to try and go out there and fix social networking and make it behave ethically they were immediately surrounded by communities of spirit and material help. It wasn't just Kickstarter money. It wasn't just hackerspace but offering. It wasn't just the beauty of the Silicon Valley. Disruptor machine looking for young people to disrupt things with. It was the whole social order around them. But Elia was a wonderful young man and his death must not have been in vain as Aaron Schwartz's death must not have been in vain. We have in ten years had casualties. We have let people hurt our people because we needed to. And so we have to take ourselves seriously because we too now have gravestones to care for and young heroes who gave their lives for stuff we care about whose sacrifices we have to honor as we have young people all around us who will need us soon. There isn't a lot of public opinion data in any society about the young teenagers. They're not voters so they're not polled and they don't buy enough in most societies to be worth marketing to. But everywhere you look at public opinion data around the world attitudes about Mr. Snowden in those under 18 years old are decisively more positive than those of older people in each society. Our youngest kin are deeply affected by Mr. Snowden and his message. I kid my students by saying that this is in part because Edward Snowden bears a wonderful resemblance to Harry Potter. But it isn't only that of course. Young people are now inhabiting the planet who have watched what has happened to their older siblings. They have watched the face bookization of human civilization. They have watched the crossing the street while texting and letting everybody else take your text straight out of the air behavior and they're not absolutely happy with it. And so we have a crowd coming towards us. Ten years ago I said in Berlin that we were simply keeping dinner warm until the kids came home. The GNU project was 30 years old last September, September 2013 and Edward Snowden was 30 years old in November of 2013. That was the first of our generation coming home. The beginning of the meaning of GNU. Now we are in the second era in which the larger world that does not make our software or understand why they should use our software has come to an understanding of the principle that the freedom of the net is the freedom of people and that the net is made of software and it works the way someone makes it work. This is our big moment. This is what we struggled for. I don't mean what we invented. When we struggle with code we're just struggling to make something neat. But when we go beyond the making something neat this is what we're in it for. We're in it for the ability to help the people around us. We've known that since we started taking our own temperatures 15 years ago and we began asking why do we make what we make and it turned out that we make what we make in order to learn and do neat stuff and improve our skills and to help other people. And this is the big moment where all the skill making and all the learning we have done and all the neat stuff we have made the rubber now meets the road with respect to whether we can use it to help humanity stay free. This is what the last 10 years did. They brought us here to this intersection to the moment when we can figure out whether as the human race assembles its nervous system it works for the data miners or it works for the people. This is the moment where we figure out whether we can deliver, not just for ourselves but for everybody whether we can turn the ability to have transparency, participation non-hierarchical collaboration whether we can turn that into not only a really good way of making software but a really good way of confronting problems that people in the world are now sure are there that they now understand that they want help with that we, we alone we are the people capable of delivering for them the freedom that they need if we don't, it will not happen. We through our own efforts have narrowly escaped a couple of catastrophes in the last 10 years. We have received thanks to Mr. Snowden's efforts we have received a lot of information about what we did right. We have received a lot of information about where even unlimited resources devoted to breaking our view of the net have failed because of what we made. We have received an awful lot of encouragement about our ability to survive the onslaught of capitalist aggressions patent wars the bollocksing of copyright law by the entertainment industries and so on we have demonstrated our vitality we need not demonstrate our inventiveness that we demonstrate every single day but we are now merging into the larger movement for the freedom of the net and we are about to demonstrate whether we can carry it not boss it not control it not even lead it from in front but we do have the opportunity to be the plumbing of the great internet freedom movement of the 21st century we have the opportunity to set its technological conditions of success we have the opportunity to prevent it from achieving failure and of course since every sissetman here knows that she and he really runs the business and without them won't work we shouldn't be too unwilling to recognize that this isn't an unusual position for us everybody's power runs on our plumbing whether it's freedom running on our plumbing or unfreedom running on our plumbing isn't up to them it's up to us we have plenty to do we are going to gain plenty of help Indian society is going to come very much in our direction over the next several years and with it we are going to gain power of numbers and demographic force beyond our previous wildest dreams but 1.6 billion people will still live in China under conditions of unfreedom in a world in which the net is assumed to be a system of social control and the world's most powerful constitutional democracy possessing more force of listening than everybody else put together has abandoned the rule of law over listening and has begun plunging humanity towards darkness and the consumer economy has come to depend upon data mining for advertising which means it depends upon surveillance to make its living and it will do what it takes to make its living because that's its right, its power and it's glory but not ours we have a great deal to do if we don't do it, everything stops I don't mean everything doesn't run it runs just fine but freedom stops you know what it will mean you know what it is to have a listener inside every device and everything in life inside every device and every child hooked up to the monitor all the time everywhere she goes, everything she learns everything she reads, everything she listens to all marked down and ready to be calculated and correlated and manipulated that's not the human race we meant to have that's not the way we meant the net to work that's not the way we run our own stuff and it mustn't be the way we let other people run it so here we are free software free society for real we're playing for keeps now humanity depends upon you thanks and good luck I think we've timed before morning tea for some questions and that would make me feel good I think you'll want to run a little late and do a few questions don't you? right, hands in the air, come on hello yes, yes, okay thank you very much, this was a real challenge but I want to link one thing that you say at the early beginning with the patent systems of China and the institutions there regarding what you say that we had the opportunity to set out the conditions for the freedom for the 21st century and I see a contradiction because we understand the existing power but this is a new power that we are perhaps in need of more information one of the things which I think it is most important to understand is that free software was born in societies with strong civil society rights and traditions we exist on the ability of small groups of people to form organizations without permission and without structure in order to do something they commonly want to do and under conditions which inhibit the development of civil society in which the state is fundamentally hostile to the formation of such organizations there are intrinsic troubles that we face that our way of thinking and doing faces and that's not surprising the Roman Empire too Roman law was extremely hostile to non-governmental corporate organizations and it required for a thousand years the permission of the emperor to form one it turns out that the Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire think very much alike about that question and so it isn't merely a matter of the rule of law it is the matter of the development of civil society and the permission of civil society to operate I'm about to publish in Chinese the new second edition of the GPL compliance guide I wrote it this time and maybe I'm therefore more eager to make sure that Chinese people can read it on their mobile phones but merely arranging to publish material in China at the present time which relates fundamentally to our legal and social understandings is already to court controversy which is why it is particularly important for us to be extremely helpful to Chinese industry even where Chinese industry is highly imbricated with the power of the Communist Party because we need to create as we created elsewhere in the world allies who will help us to give civil society a chance because it benefits them in their business we're going to make a deep and powerful engagement with the Chinese people and we're going to make a deep and powerful engagement with the space within which the Chinese Communist Party will allow us to operate but we can't do that with FSF China we can't do that in the ways we have operated elsewhere in the world and therefore we must globalize our organizations and we must change the way we think and operate in order to do what we are going to need to do and what I've been talking about this morning I guess I would call the why so that we can get to the what what about dealing with the claims that enabling encryption between individuals is supporting a terrorism and child predation for me as a law professor working in the history of the law of the English speaking people I'm not surprised to hear that freedom has consequences or that bad people make use of freedom as well as good people it's never been an argument against freedom for me before and it isn't now the controversy between order and chaos in the 21st century is not a controversy on which we have the side of chaos we're not in favor of chaos anymore than we're in favor of inhumanity to man anywhere or for any reason but we will not tolerate the withdrawal of our freedom on the idea that it makes somebody else's computer more safe than some man from committing murder at a newspaper we believe in peace we believe in order we believe in allowing every trial to grow up and learn and we don't believe in controlling that process but we are the people who should refuse to take fear seriously even if we take freedom seriously people have been made afraid that if you allow communications to be secure the villains will win I must tell you that I heard a lot of that in the early 90s over PGP too in fact when the United States government was still actively building the prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman I had a bet with a reporter who covered the circuit as I went around on it I had a bet of a nickel whether it was going to be pedophilia or nuclear terrorism of which I was first going to be accused in every public meeting the manipulation of our determination to have technological freedom by fear of crime whatever crime it is terrorism, larceny, counterfeiting it's a move and we have to reject that move we have to not believe that move not because we don't believe in peace or because we like terrorism but because we don't believe in people that if freedom has costs we have to pay them the 20th century knew that we sacrificed tens of millions of lives in the 20th century in order to avoid living in societies where the state kept track of everybody you knew and listened to every phone call we called that totalitarianism and we thought it was okay to ask young people to go out and die to keep it from happening I don't want to kill millions of young people in decades open source and software freedom have been enabled by the antiquated technology of email and mailing lists thereon do you have a legal or freedom perspective on recent efforts to secure a replacement for email both for privacy and securing a metadata thereon and how we can get other people to use it this time yeah of course I'm very old school you know I use fluxbox and you can't take it from me and I like email I think there are many good things about email including as a matter of fact that it's really easy to encrypt and really obvious if you don't encrypt it then anybody can read it I think that's helpful one of the great problems we have is a whole bunch of just plain sham in the world on Facebook Mark Zuckerberg is everybody's friend but you're not supposed to know that one of the beauties about email is that it's transparent in that sense and I'm in favor of keeping it in the third of the Snowden lectures in November of 2013 I said that Google could help us create end-to-end secure email by building strong encryption around the web of trust into Gmail and I'm really quite heartened by how far down that road Google has gone as I am heartened by the discovery that even Apple has figured out that MAC addresses shouldn't remain the same from moment to moment and boot to boot we are gaining infrastructural advantage I think for using old simple means of communication that are good and I do not want to give up email in particular because email is the world's obviously inherently federated service and I like federated services and I like encouraging people to use them what we actually need is a $10 object that is your email server that sits inside your house and does everything you need done with the simplest and most elegant form of communication including key management and it's a device so cheap that if it stops working you throw it away and you get another one and it auto-configures and you're done I wanted that from 2010 I called it FreedomBox and we're still working because software is hard to make and because BDAL is busy but but we will get there so right now I'm not interested in creating so much complexity at layer 7 that we need an 8th layer to handle it I'm actually interested in keeping it simple moving down and federating everything and encrypting it end to end using the simplest stuff you can you know technology for us has always been the fact that you could take something and repurpose it hackerishly and suddenly it gave you a lot more we have not squeezed in my personal opinion the end out of the great protocols of the early net I'm not bringing back pop3 I will admit but but there's a lot of good stuff left in our simple technology and I hope that we will use it let me get serious about that for just a minute by pointing out also that we're about to have the most important changes in hardware architecture in the last half century I'm with my friend in BDAL's general in the field Martin think about this we're going to change how computers work between now and 2020 and the most important part of that is that we're going to give up on the difference between fast memory and slow memory because we are inventing our way out of some fundamental physics traps and as we do that we are going to create what Martin calls in relation to HP's the machine project memory faster than RAM and denser than disks and when we move to a world where processors address petabytes of byte addressable memory all of it at equal speed is the way things fundamentally work I do not want to get all complex again in the closing hours of the architectures we now use I want to watch us change how computers work underneath in a way which makes it simpler and easier for us to invent new things paradigms of high inherent complexity that we have depended upon for a generation like the relational database are about to go away and I do not want to start building new complexity on top of that I would actually like Facebook to be the last relational database application ever designed because as we get away from that we get away from other stuff there is nothing wrong with relational databases that is just wrong with some kid keeping all of us in one of his and as we move to a world of flatter data and graph problems instead of relation problems in everything we do we will get better replacements than the ones we are now meditating. Sorry to go so long let's take some more questions I am afraid that is going to be for now Professor Moglen you are going to be with us for the week aren't you? I am I will be around and he is lovely to talk to and I am sure that he would love to talk to you