 Thank you very much for inviting me. I'm very happy to be here, more or less. Could we tune down the light a little bit, because the quality of my image is so bad, it needs contrast. And also my anxiety would not show that, obviously. Yeah, I'm caught between beauty and coercion in my connection talk. Well, there are only a few occasions when an audience takes pity with a lawyer. And one of these occasions is when the lawyer ventures into the field of art, aesthetics, architecture, things beautiful. So I ask for your indulgence. Of course, lawyers would claim that there is something like legal creativity, but usually that ends up with facing the ethics board of the bar association or the sentencing judge and then turns from pity into self-pity. In view of that, I've decided to downgrade my presentation from criteria to comments. I don't want to be too normative, so I will still use the terminology criteria, but I really ask you to see this as comments. My comments will be structured around two names. The first name is Johann Peter Willebrandt. Obviously, he must be German with this kind of name. Interesting guy. No photograph, also no painting or anything like that, where he shows. Maybe has something to do with the fact that he wrote what you could regard as an instruction book for border guards or homeland security. He argued for detailed registration of foreigners and also citizens of towns, but he also encouraged the pledge you can read when you're standing in line and Logan Airport waiting for your passport to be stamped and being admitted to the United States. And during those three hours, you have plenty of time to read. For instance, the pledge that we will treat American citizens and foreigners politely. So he encouraged that. As my professor would say, Mr. Berkut relevance, yes, I will come to that. One of the most famous books he wrote, by the way, to me has become a sort of, in spite of all these nasty things, has become a sort of personal role model. He started as a lawyer and a judge. He became an advisor to what you today would call urban planners to architects. And in the end, he decided just to travel for the rest of his life and became a travel writer. So in his second career, he wrote this book, which in English would read Outline of a Beautiful City. And it's part one of basic rules and instructions for enhancing social happiness in the cities. Now, the reason why I'm mentioning him is because he is a protagonist of a series of people which turned around the relationship between beauty and coercion. And more or less, in one way or other, tried to coerce people into beauty. And this is my point. Design talk and architecture talk is dangerous talk. There are, of course, idolists who have designed cities for others up to today, where they now have to sort of put satellite dishes on these beautifully designed homes. They have been the modernists, most famous, of course, Le Corbusier, who designed how people should live. They have been the totalitarian designers, where certain impressions of architecture should be and what it should do to people. And there is, of course, in a more benevolent tone today's contemporary suggestions on livability, also on public safety and personal security, and when you look at these instructions, it looks like a leaflet for a handbook for a sniper, but it's actually about public security. So why do I introduce this? The criteria that I directed to those of you who design who are architects would be to ask yourself, what we are actually designing for people is in the context of privacy, for instance, are you imposing your understanding of privacy to their understanding of privacy? Or when you work for somebody else, are you sure that their privacy is everybody's privacy? In short, how much space for opportunities to develop and live their own lives? Do you give to people? Are you prepared to leave to others? And this brings me to the second name, Lena Bobardi. There is a photograph of Lena Bobardi. She was Italian. She worked as an architect in Brazil. And she was given the task of turning a factory ground into a recreational area for the citizens in this neighborhood. This was in Sao Paulo, a remarkable city, absolutely chaotic city. It has the highest percentage of helicopters per inhabitant, because that's the only way to beat Russia there. And it is, of course, a city with social conflicts, crime problems. So how did she go about to transfer a factory which produced tinderums and later try to produce refrigerators into a recreational area? This is what she did. It's not these two what she called embracing towers are not looking particularly inviting. But it was her way to comment on the change from a factory for tinderums to a factory for recreation. And with this kind of architecture, she put into question the relationship between work and recreation. The reason why she built these embracing towers here, you see the soccer fields, which are, of course, very important in Brazil. On the top of the broader building is that she had to bridge a drainage system here. Very remarkable, of course, the windows in the bigger building. But this is a social comet. What you see here is a revolt at a youth prison in Sao Paolo, where the police had to use grenades to make holes in the wall. Of course, what you would ask yourself is if they are having basketball fuses and things like that, how do they make sure that the balls don't fall outside? And you can see it in the construction here. There are wooden slides, which are put in front of these windows. So just let me give you a few images. And then, of course, comes the call again. Relevance, Mr. Bird, relevance. I would invite you to look perhaps more closely at some of the pictures I've just shown you, like this one. I think what this shows is what you have tried to do was to create or to give an opportunity for social gathering. When you look at that, perhaps an opportunity for cross-generational communication. This is something very rare in social media, actual cross-generational communication. Or here, opportunity for cross-cultural communication. I don't know if you're on Facebook and if you happen to have friends from other countries, like from Thailand and from China, perhaps. And then if you look at the list of their friends, you will realize that most of their friends are either Thai or Chinese. There is not the same sort of intersection between cultures here. And here, of course, opportunity for variety. And to me, and in the context of privacy, the most striking image is perhaps this one. Because it seems to show, to me, at least something which I would call opportunity for protected openness. That is, in my view, the relationship between privacy and public is not a binary one. It's a sort of analog scale on which you can move, and on which, in fact, you always move. So is the low wall which you see here, which is, of course, also a comment on the working situation and the cubicles and working situations, is it a metaphor for scaled privacy? Or, and this is something that is really bothering me throughout this conference, should we stop with these kind of metaphors? No more metaphors for the cyber world, at least not from architecture, because we fail to grasp the essence of electronic communication still. I don't know. Thank you very much. No questions. Break.