 You have to understand, I get this damn air conditioning right back at me. Just give me the thumbs up when everything is ready. Great, thank you. And so everybody else will just melt. Sorry about that. You'll have to take off your clothes for this session. Len is with us after a trip from Russia, so he's a bit jet lagged. So we haven't had a chance to really prepare this speech at all. We've been going back and forth on emails and knowing that it would all suss out in the end. So am I cutting out? Am I good? All right, okay, good. Whoa, okay. So anyhow, I want to thank you all for showing up to the talk. It's really important what we're going to talk about today. And I think that everyone needs to know what's going on, and I'm glad you're here. It's so hard for me to think about technologists in the outside world. Most of my friends are technologists, and I was at the grocery store not too long ago, and I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, Coding is not a crime. And think of the way that I spelled, okay? Visualize it on my bumper. And this woman went by my car, and she looked at the bumper sticker, and she said, what are they doing to those damn fish now? So, I mean, that might kick in a little bit later. But that goes to show you, I mean, the world is not in sync with what you are doing. I had DefCon mark down on my calendar, and this woman saw it, and she goes, is that the end of the world? Is that what's going to happen on August 1st? People don't know and understand and appreciate what it is that you guys do. And ignorance is the one thing that's going to be key in taking away the civil rights and rights in general of technologists and the rights to create and use technology. And the one thing that you can do is do whatever you can to get more visibility on the issue. We had Pat Leahy passing the DMCA along with AOL Time Warner and Disney. He apologizes for it now, but it's a bit too late when you say it. So he said he had no idea what he was doing at the time, and now the damage is done. So the best thing to do is to get some visibility around the issues. Let's see here, I've got all these cards here. Who are you? I am Sally Richards. I'm a technologist. I'm also a journalist. I've been writing and doing stuff in the technology field for the last 20 years. I write books about the future of technology. I consult to startups about where technology is heading, and I'm very much wanting to preserve the civil rights with few of them we have left. And that infringes a lot on technology and the governance of technology. So right now I'm going to introduce Len Kleinrock. Do you all know who Len is? Len is the co-founder of the Internet. And before I hear any Al Gore jokes, I'd like to remind you that Al Gore introduced the DMCA. So his name should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Len Kleinrock. Len and Larry Roberts, the other co-founder of the Internet, made it possible to make something that you could hack into. So Len is going to be talking today about what his original vision of the Internet was and how things have progressed and how it's failed in his original idea about the Internet. So Len is one of the most brilliant people I know, and he is a great, wonderful speaker, which he will be much more elegant than I, who I'm very much a non-linear thinker and speaker and things. So he's going to be a hard act to follow, but let's give it up for Len. Thanks very much, Sally. I'm afraid all the energy and charisma you're talking about is going to be filtered through this technology we call teleconferencing. But I'm happy to chat with this group. As you said, I'd like to say a few words about what the original vision of the Internet was that I had. And as you probably know, in September 69, the Internet began at UCLA in my lab. Two months before that, a press release came out in which I articulated a vision as to what the Internet would become. That vision had five components. First, the Internet would wear. It would be always on, always accessible. Anybody with any device could get on from any location at any time, and it would be invisible. Now, it turns out the Internet succeeded in the first three of those goals, but it failed in the last two. As all of you know, it's not easy to get on from any location at any time with the device by anybody. And certainly the Internet is anything but invisible. If you consider booting up windows or dealing with some of the arcane interfaces we have, the world certainly is not invisible. The question is, why did the Internet fail in those last two pieces of the vision? And the answer has to do with the fact that it was a death-bound mentality in the late 60s and early 70s that produced things like TCP, IP, where your IP address, your device, your physical location, and you were all locked together. We're no longer death-bound. We're no match. We travel everywhere. The devices we carry change. Our IP address has changed. We're no longer behind proxies or behind firewalls. We reach out into the world, and it's a very flexible environment. And TCP, IP, has a hard time with that, as you know. So the question is, what do we do about that? And what did the original intent of the Internet have to do with the topic of today's session? Well, the Internet, as it was created, was one of the culture of openness, of sharing, of non-forprobably access and ownership. And it was funded and managed by an enlightened agency, the Defense to Dance Research Projects Agency, where they allowed people to do what they did on those things which were of interest to them, not a lot of management control, oversight, project meetings, reports, et cetera. And when NSF stepped into the picture in the 80s, they, in fact, continued to promote that same culture. They had a very, very enlightened, acceptable use policy, which allowed all scientists in, and the dot-coms began to arise in the late 80s and early 90s, as you know. As soon as the dot-coms came in, we began to see things like spam, like tracking, like pop-ups, like a certain invasion of our privacy, things we didn't want was suddenly appearing. And then, as a group, such as I'm addressing here, began to throw in hacking, spamming, and viruses, and worms, and denial of service attacks, there was reaction. And the reaction was in the form of tracking, ID identification of who was using law, et cetera. Now, we've developed a technology, in fact, that has the ability to deeply invade our policy, deeply invade it. And by accessing and using that technology, we, in some sense, are inadvertently opening ourselves to allow the technology to invade the privacy. Every time you use your credit card, use your cell phone, log on to a machine, use your email pager, make a bank transaction, buy an airline ticket. In some sense, you're identifying who you are, where you are, what you're doing, and when you're doing it. And, of course, the technology that you and I have created allow those things to be tracked. In fact, the trouble is that the challenge is how we balance the right of government on the one hand to do the things they think they need to do with the right as individuals that we were granted by our constitution. Technology is faster now than the nation's norms and laws have for managing that advancement. And that's part of the problem we're facing, that's part of the reaction we're seeing right now. In the past, when our government was encountered with a scare or a threat, they panicked. And they typically ended up not hitting their target, but in fact finding ways to invade and out-rights in ways that we were not comfortable with. So our actions and usages are being tracked right now. They're being collected and used and circled by groups that don't ask permission. In fact, that we don't even know are using our information. Basically, our privacy is gone. Give it up, get over it, it's gone. And, of course, that's a discussion today. I think the only way you're going to preserve your privacy right now, and I'm saying this with tongue-cheek, is to strip down naked, go to the edge of the ocean, dive in, and hope there's no sonar tracking you, as there probably won't be. The real answer to the question is, and the right way to deal with these issues, is to find ways to get our legislators, our executives, and our laws changed to match the ways in which we want to protect our privacy and our rights. At the moment, it's laissez-faire, it's not clear, technology is way ahead of our legal system and the rights that are written into our code. That's the only introduction I wanted to make. Thank you. We're going to answer some questions. Here we go. Thank you, Len. We're going to answer a few questions before we go into my side of the talk. So, any questions out there? Here we go. Okay, is it necessary for us to give up our privacy to engage on online activity? Well, the operational word there is necessary. The fact is, because of the technology that exists, which does have the ability to track what you're doing, what's done with that is in some sense subject to laws, policies, and administrative procedures. But the fact is, you are giving it up once you engage in this technology. Now, is it legal? Maybe not. Is it right? Maybe not. Is it done for sure? Okay, gentlemen is wondering if we should have two internets, one for commerce and one for just general public, if that would solve some of these issues. That sounds like a bad solution to me. Any time you partition a network into more than one function, you lose the ability. You know, the thing about the internet so great is the fact that you have hundreds of millions of people interacting and contributing their creative juices. Things we can't anticipate ahead of time. And by partitioning the network, you may well preclude activities, creations, and interact with time. And I think that would be a mistake. We lost the tail end of that, I think. Is there a problem with the... Okay. Len, could you repeat the last part of that? I'm sorry. What I said is I felt that partitioning the network into more than one type of network which don't interact strongly would be a mistake. I think we would preclude innovations and creativity that we can't now anticipate. And any time you break a network into more than one piece, you're going to limit the interaction which is the heartbeat of the internet. It always has been and I believe will always continue. Yeah. Got another question? Okay. Okay. So by the fact, aren't we already partitioning it currently because of all the legislation and all the firewalls and all of that? We're typically in commercial organizations. If you want to install your own private, private wall, that's your choice. But to insist that certain activities are firewalls against activities, again, would limit the kind of interaction I think the internet is so good at providing and which has been such, provided so many benefits to us in terms of new activities, new applications, new kinds of services. Any other questions? Right here. Do you advocate legislation that would limit technology or are you advocating legislation that will what? Hold individuals accountable for protecting information. Did you get that? I'm not sure I understand the difference there. The kind of legislation I'm talking about is to treat as individuals and as a population, find offensive the kinds of things that are in discussion today. If we feel updated, the right way to handle it is to change the law. Is to maybe replace the particular groups representing us in government and not to violate the law and not to find ways to better deal with it. Of course you can choose to do that and then you're asking to accept the consequences as well. Yeah, back there. And is there a cordless mic that we can give people? Okay, talk loud. What do you think? Okay. Okay, what was that? In terms of protecting consumer rights, could that be broadened to an anti-spam, all media, not just telephone calls type of approach? I think I heard that question. Do you want to generalize the do not call laws which operate the telephone system to spam and other forms of internet unwanted delivery? Is that the question I hear? Yeah. That sounded like a yes. Okay, I believe that those kind of laws are just fine. I mean if you have a way to opt out of unwanted institutions on your privacy, there can be ways to voluntarily sign up for that and have it enforced. I believe that's exactly the right way to do it. Trouble is, I think, is the effectiveness of those laws. Right now to do not call laws, there's too many exemptions in the telephone system. I suspect that would be true in internet-based activity as well. But that means, excuse me, that's a question of fine-tuning the law. The basic concept I believe is correct. Okay, the mics, I've got my other mic back. Yeah, come up here and, sorry about this lens, it's a bit awkward. I guess my question is, it just seems like a general statement that we should pass laws or have legislation. Is there any particular person in the House or the Senate that's kind of behind this right now, or is any group working on this, or how is it supposed to be deployed or implemented, or who's the thought leaders on this? You get that. I'm not familiar with who in Congress is the right person to go to at this point. I think, first, the expression of concern has to be made very clear, and then find a particular supporting congressman or senator that will back that up. But I can't name individuals right now. Okay, yeah. So are there any groups that you know of, Len, that are working on this stuff? Putting policies together. This stuff, do you mean being concerned about privacy? Yeah. You know them better than I do. The EFF said this one. Okay, yeah. Well, there's a lot of legislation currently being passed, surprisingly enough, by Democrats. Democrats aren't what they used to be. There are some organizations on the EFF.org site. There are links out there that you can go to. It's more fighting for what we have right now than building on what we have, because our legislation is very fuzzy right now, as far as that's concerned. I advise you to start your own group. Any other questions? Yeah, go ahead. Professor Kleinrock, I know that you served as an expert witness on behalf of a number of entertainment companies attacking several peer-to-peer companies. I'm wondering if you're having any second thoughts in light of the subpoena campaign that has gotten underway that it seems to me is a pretty serious threat to privacy today. Well, my basic position is that stealing is wrong, and I feel that a lot of the exchanging of copyrighted material was not a proper action. And that's the base on which I decided to support continuing that kind of activity. The subpoenas that are taking place right now, it seems to be a strong move. I think it's difficult to stop the music sharing, and I think the companies are having a hard time with that. I know they are. So they're taking extreme measures, and in some sense it could have been anticipated that what happened, given the enormous amount of trading that's been placed, and the attitude by so many that this is not a business as usual. This is something that's not out there for the taking, just because it's available. Doesn't mean you should violate other people's rights in this activity. Okay. Any other questions out there? I'm curious as to your disinclination toward technological workarounds to government regulations and constraints. My example being what Zimmerman gave us with developing PGP is something that essentially no government can take away from us. Now it was not illegal, but it was, let's say, an extra-legal workaround. Similar things like anonymizers to permit anonymous net access seem to be ways to achieve privacy without having to persuade politicians to give it to us. Would you comment on those notions? Sure. I totally agree with what you say. I was talking about illegal activities. There are workarounds, and there certainly are some of which you've mentioned, by all means go for it, except the edges of the legal system. Anything that can protect your privacy by all means makes sense. PGP, for example. And I don't feel paid a price for a period for having engaged in that activity, and yet the effect on the world has been significantly positive. Any other questions? Okay. I'm going to go into my talk now. Is Phil in the audience? Phil Zimmerman here right now? No? Okay. One of the things that all of us need to look back on is history, when it comes to... Okay, how's that? Is that all right? Got it back there? All right. One of the things we tend not to look at is what occurred during World War II, and the Army and the Karthi hearings, all the things that went bad. Some of you may or may not have known the story about Einstein. He left Germany in 1932 with his wife, and when things started coming down, he asked his wife to look back on the train and said, say goodbye, you'll never see it again. What he didn't know was that he was coming to get another oppressive government. And at that time, he, well, it was a few years later actually, 1939, when he sent Roosevelt's, President Roosevelt, a letter saying, the Nazis are building an atomic bomb. We need to build one too, to protect ourselves from it, to be able to protect the world from Nazi Germany. Roosevelt called him a communist, and they actually would not issue him a clearance to work on the Manhattan Project, because he was associated, because he knew this inside information about what the Nazis were working on, basically. It was years later when Oppenheimer would be called a communist by the McCarthy pack, and his clearance taken away, it's the father of the atomic bomb, his clearance was taken away. 25 scientists testified that he was not a threat, that in fact he actually helped end World War II, and nothing was done. He was basically a downhill slide from there, he did nothing, and he died a very bitter man. And that was in 1954 when that occurred. Einstein said something that is very relevant to this day. He said, I have never been a communist, but if I were, I would not be ashamed of it. The current investigations are, I can't read my own writing, an incomparability, greater danger to our society than those few communists in our country ever could be. And I see what's going on currently with this stage of Ashcroft and Point Dexter and all of the things they're putting in place to tap your internet line, see what you're doing to look at your keystrokes, they're actually putting in place a deal with the FCC so that your telecom companies have to agree to giving up the information with or without a warrant and to be able to place these wire taps on your lines and to be able to get the information, especially on cell phones. That's a whole new world for them that they're working with. You know, and I don't want to make light of national security. I knew Danny Lewin, I knew Danny Pearl. I don't want to see 9-11 happen again. And I think national security is very important, but what I see in place right now is not national security. It's terrorist activity from the government. I have a pin on here from John Gilmour. We were having dinner and he gave me this pin that says, Suspected Terrorist. And I said, Jesus, John, I already get checkered tickets every time I check into a plane. He was actually on a plane on Virgin Airlines or Airways, whatever they're called. And he had this pin on and he would not take it off. They asked him to take it. I guess he got on the plane first and put it on and they asked him to take it off. They turned the plane around, they dropped him down. I mean, they landed first. Although, you know, don't put it beyond our government. We're pushing people out of planes. But he has been looking for a lawsuit, a very substantial lawsuit to make some precedence. And I think this is going to be it. Our Constitution guaranteed free ingress and egress without having to give over your ID because he's already been fighting that fight for a while. So he had to wait for the next move. And so that's going to be the next level of that whole fight. Now, that program is called CAHPS, C-A-P-P-S and CAHPS 2. What that does is when you get your ticket, many of the airlines are connected into a database where they're checking your credit record, where they're checking your marital status, where they're checking all of the things that could make you a terrorist, such as a bad credit rating or a divorce or the fact that you don't have children. They're refusing to give up this information to the ACLU. They have several cases already underway about how the FAA is making a mess of things. They're not saying what kind of things they're actually doing with this information. They could be giving this information to some other agencies. They could be doing anything. And right now, they've actually redlined some people. You have a green, yellow, red report card that is tied into your airline ticket. And people have been redlined because they're activists. And so those cases are currently being looked at. And you don't have any way to fight that, because they don't have to say what's wrong with you to be on the red list either. So there are a few people out there who cannot get on a plane. And I'm going to go back even further now for our history lesson here. To the 1800s, where Leland Stanford got in with three other entrepreneurs and they borrowed money from investors, they borrowed money from the government, government loans, and they built the Continental Railroad. That was our first infrastructure that allowed free egress and ingress, that allowed free trade. And as soon as Leland died, they actually froze Stanford University's assets. That's when Stanford University used to be a free school. Can you believe that? And so what they did was they froze the assets. She sold all of her private assets to keep the school open for three years. At the end of that three years, the government said, we're sorry we did that. I guess it was wrong of us and illegal. But here's your money back. We're taking over the railroad anyway. And a lot of companies went down over that. And so that was our first infrastructure that was taken over very easily by the U.S. government. And I expect with all of these laws in place that we're going to see another takeover very soon. There are good laws that keep spammers away. I mean, they're not in place yet. There could be some good laws, good legislation. But along with this good legislation is the RAAA going ahead and putting legislation like the DMCA in place where it's not worth a damn. And it's also putting people like Dmitry Skilarov in prison. And so I was put in the middle of that last, well, when he was arrested. And learned that his wife was called at 3 a.m. Russia time. And the feds actually said to her, we have your husband. You better tell us everything we want to know about your husband. And we have him in jail. And what is that? What the hell is that? So then our government is completely out of control at this time, as far as being able to just legislate whatever they want. It's time of war. And I don't want to have to tell my 14-year-old niece when she's in college and learning about the civil rights that she has lost. Why I was not fighting for them. Why her fellow students may have to die in the streets to get them back. And people aren't aware of what's going on right now. And that's, it's up to you. You know, you guys have a lot of power out there. And the next line of products, I feel, is keeping the everyday Jane and Joe's privacy safe from the government, from everyone, from commercial entities who are buying it from the government, from everyone. So people will be willing to pay for privacy in the not-so-distant future. And I believe that that is where the next line of technology is going, especially when you have nanotechnology coming into place. Jesus. When I go over to NASA and Lawrence Livermore and see what they've got cooking, it won't be long before we have the little nanobot mosquitoes. I actually saw this thing and it's amazing. It has a little tiny camera on it. So it can actually go flying into your board room or hotel room or bedroom and whatever, see whatever. But you know, I was talking to a guy from Google, a sales guy the other day. And I said, I'm really concerned about Google. And I don't know what your continued position is because when you go on a Google search, of course you know this, they can see what you're searching for. They can see everything about you. You know, in the daily course of what you search for, I mean it's pretty much a profile unto itself. And that is a scary thing to give a company that much power. I mean it's become a verb, right? You're going to go Google something. And people Google it from their pockets. People Google from everywhere. And the government is now figuring out that they can go ahead and subpoena that stuff. I mean these are not offshore servers. It's a very bad, bad thing what's going on right now. And I just, I hope that you look more into these issues and that you take some power back whatever it means necessary. Trying not to say a call to arms right now. I understand how you get arrested for that. But some very important things are going down in the future. You guys are the future. I mean you're going to decide a big part of what goes on in the next 10 years of legislation and such. So anyhow, that's my talk. Thank you. So any questions? I'm going to get away with no questions. Okay. Any more questions? Oh, we got one. I'm sorry, what is the best way to evangelize your ideas? Well, you know, you guys have the power to write anything you want and any website you'd like. You know, I'm not advocating hacking. I'm just saying that you could be creative in this way. You can get your blog up and running. You can tell people. You can actually form groups and start something. If anybody wants to work with me on this project, I'm very open. I've got some little plans in place that you could be very helpful on. So any other questions? No? No? All right. Well, yeah, the question is MIT, a group at MIT figured out how to use caps against itself. Now, you know, our government's pretty lame about technology and legislating technology, and they are hiring a lot of hackers these days who are out of work to help them put things together. But I also know a lot of those hackers are walking in the double line and letting some information out about what's going on. So I do believe there's 50,000 different ways to turn that stuff around and use it against itself. And it can be a very tricky thing to do, but you guys are smart. You can do it. Yeah. How to highlight the negative in the media? I was speaking to a member of the FCC, one of the people in charge of that, and I asked him, I said, why isn't the general public aware of what's going on with the new FCC laws? There's a lot of stuff going on out there currently that's going to change the way that we watch TV, by the way we broadcast TV, by the way we listen and watch and people are watching us through the new legislation. And I asked him point blank. I said, is it because most of the media is still waiting to get their license, and a lot of those newspapers and a lot of those magazines are conglomerates? And it's true. People are afraid to say what's going on right now, because somehow or another, I mean you can still find it on the alternative press, but in mainstream press you don't see a lot of criticism, and that's one of the things that's going to have to change soon. Okay, go ahead. Free press, that's not seen more on. It doesn't exist anymore, except for in very rare circumstances. It does not exist anymore. That's what the beauty of blogs. I highly recommend that... How many bloggers are here? Good, good, good, good, good. Keep blogging, because that's where change is going to come from. No, I don't have a gun. But I was going to suggest that maybe some of the motivation that goes on, we need to have people think a little bit out of the box. Postulating that the reason for all of this is the government has gotten terribly worried about people acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Now the problem with people having weapons of mass destruction is if I acquire a weapon of mass destruction and my neighbors don't have one, then I can start threatening my neighbors and say you will do what I want, or I will use my weapon. One of the alternative ways of thinking about it, since the way that the knowledge and technology seems to be going is that the knowledge of how to do this will become universal, is to say let's try and fix it so everybody has weapons of mass destruction. In this case, you start thinking about things entirely differently and a lot of this restriction that comes about because you're trying to keep knowledge from seeping out into the world becomes irrelevant. You're going to say, well, it doesn't matter. If you have your weapon of mass destruction, threaten you and say, well, if you try using yours, we will use ours and you will be toast. We are the weapon of mass destruction, aren't we? Yeah, I think impeachment's the answer to that. So, yeah. You know, Len set the world free with the internet. Len and Larry. We had a lot of barriers up with communicating with the rest of the world and the rest of the world communicating with us. So, I don't know. There's no answer to this. And my time is over. So I just want to thank Len for joining us today. Thank you very much, Len. And thank all of you for coming and sitting in this heat. Sorry about the air conditioning being off. Thank you.