 As you all know, it's been 33 years of the CCC and the debate on technology and politics has held a special place. Our first talk today is called Der Drei und Dreisig Jahre-Rückblick and it will be quite meta as it will backtrack through the titles and abstracts from 1984 to today, analyze apparent patterns and turning points in the subject. To do so, we have Maxi Gas, who has a PhD for Masters Degrees and through Bachelor Degrees. Hello, welcome to the translation channel of this conference on the 33rd Jahre-Rückblick or Jahre-Rückblick, so carried out by Corféry, hello, and Ron Feist, your translator for this presentation. As the French translation is in beta, we will ask you to share with us your remarks on the translation on the Twitter account hashtag C3T or by email hello at c3lingo.org. Thank you. We started a couple of weeks ago and it's a project we started a few years ago to look at how the relationship of technology and politics was like to look at the relationship of politics in relation to the Congress. It's a kind of meta talk. Why were we interested in this question? It's of course because there is never a debate within the Congress, with the techie-hardcore, what kind of politics should be presented to the Congress, what is the interesting technical content that should be presented. And at the same time, these are scientific and social questions that are important between the relationship between society and politics. So what we did is that we came back to the beginning and we looked at the titles of all the sessions and we tried to categorize them and show you that. And so we had to look at various archives and we worked on a lot of archives and we would like to share with you a video. That was screened in 1986, documenting the second Congress of 1986. Chaos-communications-Congress 1985 in Hamburg. The entry is 20 euros for the members, 30 euros for the others and 100 for the companies. It didn't scare anyone. The controls were very frequent because the enemies were numerous and the control was called GILP. Here, the phones are managed, it was a bit like the exchange of data and communication. The hacker movements are there to inform you and produce a lot of written content. They understand the technology, the structure of the database and the structure of the data. Here, you have the right to hack, quite legally. The hacker needs a computer, a phone and a connection between the two. You can start with an acoustic coupler or a modem. From this moment on, you can start to move data. Of course, the owners of computers don't necessarily like when other people walk on their devices, such as protection by password or secret numbers. This is also one of the main subjects of the Congress, security. Almost all conferences took place at another time than the planned time. We are not like announced five hackers coming from a few countries before. We are a little bit more. When we want to exchange ideas, ideas are important. Beautiful phrases like this, we would like to hear them at the UN or at a parliamentary meeting. I don't see why it changes. Could there be a way to make the whole population move? A nice utopia. So we had a vision of a club founder. So here is a cloud of words from the terms that we saw in the description of the talks. You can see that most of them are technical terms, but a lot of them are still in a more political or more romantic way. We can see that there is this word that we find in the talks on political techniques, the term of Gauchemar, which is on the top left. And what we looked at, what we wanted to see, was in the end of the years, how these technical terms and policies were developed, and what it can teach us about the universe of the Chaos Computer Club and the European hacking scene. And another question was how this evolution was linked to deeper societal transformations. For example, what was the impact on these words and on this tendency of the fall of the Berlin Wall? So we chose an example quite evident and important in our search for the word key. It was the word key NSA. So you might not be able to read the years, but we can see that we talked in 2004 and 2005, and then not at all until 2013. And from a point of view of what I perceived, I thought we would have talked about it. In 2013, everyone said, I told you, we talked about it for a long time. And when you look at the topics of the conference, you don't see that at all. And as Maxi Gasladi said, what we want to do here is to talk about the people and the goals that we had. And we were still interested in finding other proofs that it might not be visible in the presentation of the congress, but that we talked about it elsewhere. So where do we get the data we have? Before 1992, it was the most difficult. We tried the Congress Archive on the CCC website, but it's no longer available now. Fortunately, the Web Archive had a copy. Another source was the Dattenschleuder archive, which unfortunately is no longer available, but we found some PDFs scanned that we had copied by hand. So for example, this is the Dattenschleuder from 1984. There was an agenda more or less complete of the first congress. So that was pretty easy to copy. And there were others that said, bring your identity. And this one from 1991 was more difficult to read, but still possible. Of course, there is no longer a summary of the conferences, so it wasn't necessarily easy to guess or understand what the conferences were talking about. And then we had posters like this one, which is a review of the year 1990. We couldn't find any fair plans or planning or presentation lists. And so what we did here is that we read this summary and tried to understand what the conferences were. Was it a conference, a workshop, what people were talking about, what subjects we were talking about. And we tried to build the fair plan from that. So after 1992, there was already the World Wide Web, the web. And the fair plans, the agenda of the congress were generally published on the web in HTML. And so we were able to write scripts to analyze these plans. We keep in mind that no regular expression was born and injured during the implementation of this work. So the first plans were in Ascii Art, with ready-made bales in the HTML. From 2002, we had programs that were read by the machines in AICAL or in XML. So that's the most structured data that we could find. These planning has other problems than what we found before. Encoding problems. In some years, there was no complete summary of the presentations. So that was other problems that we still had to solve for our analysis. All we used to generate our dataset. And the datasets we generated are available on this Git depot. And we hope to be able to quickly put them available on Open Science Framework or other projects that allow us to access them more easily. As we said, of course, we tried to discern what should be considered technical, what should be considered political. And we had to introduce other categories to take into account the other abstract types, more controversial. So we looked at 2300 presentations in CSV efficiency, and we asked three people to categorize them. And we would like to say thank you to Fumiko who helped us a lot to work on all these talks. So we didn't use the categories that are used by the conference tracks. Already because the categories have changed over the years. But also because these categories are not necessarily a reflection of the question that we wanted to ask you. So of course the most difficult part of this debate will be how we define technology and politics. We just assumed that everything that comes into the Congress has something to do with that. We are part of the principle that about everything that happens in Congress has something to do with technology. Well, it is not just about, for example, the technologies of certain legislation. The question was, does there have a social impact? Not necessarily just the technical aspects of a particular law. But how does this law impact society? For which group of people? Is it good or bad? So we had presentations where we didn't have to summarize. For example, there was this one called THC++. We don't know what it was about. We have our hypotheses, but we can't say for sure if it was technical or political. There are also non-presentations like the Hacker Joe Parley, DJ sets, music, theater, that we also excluded from our political and technical dichotomy. And then there were also presentations that were a little controversial. And that illustrates the fact that the distinction between political and technical is not necessarily easy in Congress. For example, this presentation on the objects under the form of software, revolution, and when we look at the presentation, it looks technical, but when we read the summary, we see that this technique speaks of how the objects are made with CNC machines, 3D machines, etc. And so we can say from there that this presentation with a political or societal approach. So we have preliminary results. Of course, it was done from the tagging that we had on one dataset. And to have more information, we joined the datasets together. We found things that were coherent. We found, for example, that presentations are about 50-50, a little more technical. If we look at our first datasets, it's a little more technical, but it's almost 50-50 between technical and political. And we had things that were inconsistent. For example, in 2007, we can see that the number of presentations decreased. And that wasn't because we had changed places. The number of participants didn't change either. We don't really know where it comes from. If you know, please let us know. If we keep it here, that's all the presentation over the years. In 1987-1988, we didn't find any information at all. No comments, no planning. And we also found things in the data. More participants don't necessarily want to say more talks, more presentations. In 1989, we saw that there was, for the first time, less technical and political talks. What we see in this graph. So we see here the technical curve that goes under the political curve. So there could be an adaptation to that when we go to merge the tags. And we see that today the political talks are going up. So the blue are the technical talks and the green are the political talks. So we're going to show you how we decided to proceed. So we're asking you to help us, maybe improve the code. Or to be willing to categorize the talks. You can put a request for just a few talks. Or you can sit down and spend about 12 hours watching all the talks and analyze everything. You can also re-write and re-structure the code or the database. In the United States, we also have one of the biggest conferences on hacking. And it would be interesting to know how they proceed there. At some point, there was an official congress paper published in 1989. There is also mentions of an electronic newspaper that was circulated. So references to Legendary Chaos Archive in 1991. Discuss these questions and to continue the discussion. And to continue this discussion in a talk tomorrow at 4 pm. In the A2 room, you can come to discuss with us about all these points. As I said, we have to see how the three categorized datasets can be merged. Then you can complete the datasets and clean the code. But this stupid idea of dividing the talks into texts is really stupid to divide the talks into technologies and politics. It was really just a first step to find a simple category. We would like to spend more time to really qualify and quantify the data. So we would like to create groups to focus on subjects and to use statistics to start the discussions. On the ideas about technology that are circulated inside the congress or how these two categories are. How these two categories are linked to each other as well. Thank you very much. You can see our text here. You can see our email address here and our coordinates. And the slides are also available on our website. You can see the link here. I would like to ask the audience who attended our congress in the 1980s. There are some people here who raise their hands. I really hope that some of you can join our workshop tomorrow. Because we really don't have much evidence of these conferences written. Thank you for the questions. So you can go to the microphones. Yes, thank you very much for this very interesting talk. My question is that you didn't want to use the categories that the congress uses, the categories of the fair plan. That's good, but I would be interested to know how these categories have evolved over time. Do you have any observations on this? No, we didn't look at this side. But what I can say is that there were potentially a lot of technical discussions which in the end talked about social implications, or offered a campaign, or talked about a conflict between social groups. And for example, if a conference is on the security of the fair plan, it will automatically be classified as a technical talk. And on the contrary, we saw talks on the political track of the fair plan and which were actually animated by researchers in security. And if, for example, it is a presentation that simply gives a review of the law that is in place on a given subject, without any discussion of the impact that this law has on freedoms, private life, for example, for the population. In this case, we, for example, categorized them as technical. Thank you very much. The statistic between 2004 and 2007, in relation to the number of workshops that decreased, I would like to emphasize that it was due to the number of rooms that were available to deliver the workshops.