 Hallo iedereen, welkom terug naar deze mooie lecteur hall uit de zon. Vandaag of nu gaan we over een heel belangrijk topic van cybercrime. We hebben een goede expert hier, hij is een criminal defense attorney. Hij is specialiseerd in cybercrime. Hij zegt dat hij een aantal vragen over cybercrime gaat vragen. Geef het op voor Nout van Gehmert. Can you hear me? Ja, goed. Hallo, goed evening. Ik ben Nout van Gehmert, criminal defense attorney van Amsterdam. Ik probeer iets over de wonderlijke wereld van criminal law en special cybercrime. Waarom ik deze eventen hosteer? Oh, wow, dat is prachtig. Ik wil eerst wat komende kregen over computercrime. In mijn praktijk zie ik dat veel mensen vragen over het. En er zijn ook misconceptieën. En voor de meer wil ik vragen over gelukkige vragen, gelukkige vragen over gelukkige ontwikkelingen als het voorbeeld van de hekkingperkming van het govermen. En ook wil ik de geb Australian collaborate uit de lores en hackers ontwijpen. En ik denk dat je op het einde van dit fallen zouden me earthen.其s hoop ik dat het is. Ik heb 3 mengen. De eerste is groen misconceptie voor criminal law. De tweede is de guerra nu voor encryptie. En de eerste is om cryptocurrenciën en monolanderen. Dus, om de misconceptie van criminal law. We horen vaak dat law slow is en altijd een stap achter. En ik zou willen vragen, wie aansluit met dat statement. Houd je hand. En die zegt, nee, law is snel, het kan adapten. Disagreef met het statement, dat is iets anders. Oké, je bent de enige. Oh, nee. Jij ook disagree met het statement, twee van je. Wel, in mijn opinie, law is snel. Je moet naar de legislatieve kracht. Je moet de law draven. Het moet bevoten. Het kan 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 jaar geleden een law adapten. Maar criminal law is eigenlijk wel adaptief. Het kan in welke manier beneden. En ik kan het laten zien met een exemplaar om elektriciteit te stelen. Als de Duitse criminal code werd geschreven. Je kon alleen goeds stelen, zoals stof. En elektriciteit, legaal gesproken, is niet stof, het is niet goeds. En dan kwam elektriciteit voor de meeste persoon. En er was een man die het stelde. Hij kwam elektriciteit, zonder permissie, en zonder het te bekijken. De police had hem arresteerd. Hij kwam hem op de court. En natuurlijk, zijn defense-adjournaam zei. De criminal code in de Nederlands prohibiet stelen stof. Maar elektriciteit is niet stof. Dat is wat je gaat doen over het. Het ging allemaal naar de Supreme Court in de Nederlands. En de Supreme Court vond de regels... Ja, het is door. Elektriciteit is niet stof. En ja, het is door. Je kan alleen legaal stelen stof. Maar we gaan de law benden. In die manier dat elektriciteit ook stof is. En van dat moment stelen elektriciteit was het illegaal. En het showed that you don't need long legislative procedures... ...to adapt the law to some new techniques. Few years later, there was the same with a computer game called RuneScape. There was this guy who had a mask and an amulet. He paid a lot of effort for gathering it. En dit andere guy, de suspect, broke in to his account. En hij took his amulet and his mask. En de guy got pretty pissed about it. En he went to the police and said, well, this guy stole my digital goods. So, the guy got arrested and it went to court. And then the court had to examine whether an amulet and a mask... ...in a computer game RuneScape is eligible for stealing. Because it's not a good, it's not stuff. It's just ones and zeros, right? So the Supreme Court rules. Okay, now we're going to interpret stealing and stuff in a broader sense... ...so that everything you can dominate and that is not multipliable... ...and that has any value you can steal. So now, from that moment on, you can steal computer programs. As long as you're not allowed to multiply them. And there's like three basic rules of what the Supreme Court said. You need to dominate it, you need to control it. It has to have value and you cannot multiply it. If it's freely multipliable, it's of course not able to steal. Later in this talk, I will get to some more examples about it. So let's go to the second statement. If something is not forbidden, it's legal. Raise your hand if you think that's true. And raise your hand if you think that's not true. This question is binary. In theory, it's actually true. Because we have, like most countries... ...the first article over criminal code says... ...something is only illegal if we say it's illegal. You can do basically everything you want... ...unless it's written down that it is prohibited. Criminally, of course. That is the law. But then there is politics. And sometimes society thinks that something should be criminal... ...whilst there is no law prohibiting that kind of behavior. And we have a really nice example of that in the Netherlands. It's a Dutch decoy miner. It's about grooming. Grooming means it's illegal... ...to go on the internet, start a chat. And chat with somebody underage. And trying to get sexual intercourse. It's called grooming. It's one of the most severe crimes you can commit in the Netherlands. So there was this guy who went online to a chat website... ...and he was talking to this other person... ...which he thought was underage. En he started negotiating and he said... ...okay, let's meet with intent to have sexual intercourse. So the police busted down his house and he got arrested. But then in the end it appeared that he was not talking to a young girl... ...but to a pretty old police officer. It was the decoy miner. It was a police officer acting like he was a little girl. He was a little girl, but he wasn't. So if you look at what happened technically... ...there's just this guy, he's an adult... ...talking online to this other guy who is also an adult. That's factual what happened. But still he had the intent to talk to somebody who was underage. But intent is not criminally liable. At least in most countries. So this case went also to the Supreme Court. And the defense attorney obviously said... ...basically he talked to a police officer who was overage. Our law doesn't prohibit that. Our law prohibits speaking to this miner. But then the Supreme Court ruled... ...that's true, but society doesn't really like that... ...so we're gonna conflict you anyway. Of course I'm overstressing it a bit. It's just more legal talk about it. But that's where it comes down to. And that also works for investigative powers. We have, most countries have a soul book for that. And the Netherlands is called the Code of Criminal Procedure. And it says, Article 1 says... ...the police can only do things that we authorize them to do. So there must be a law giving them a power to investigate. Otherwise they don't have any power. And there's this interesting case. It's about marijuana farm. And there were police officers that said... ...okay, we think in this house is a marijuana farm... ...and we want to go inside. We want to break down the door, arrest people... ...and take everything with us. Now everybody knows you need an arrest warrant for that, right? You need a warrant for breaking into the house. So they called an assistant prosecutor... ...who is allowed to issue those warrants. And this assistant prosecutor said... ...yeah sure, I believe you. I think there is marijuana in the house too. Here is your warrant, go have fun. And the police went inside. And of course they found a marijuana farm. They arrested some people. And they went to court. But then they found out that this assistant prosecutor... ...and he failed his exam. And he did a retake and he failed that as well. So legally he was not an assistant prosecutor. And he issued a warrant. So the defense attorney said... ...well if this person who is not an assistant prosecutor... ...issues a warrant, the warrant is invalid... ...so all evidence that has been found must be taken out of the court case. En de district court agreed. En they got acquitted because all the evidence... ...that has been found due to the false warrant... ...was excluded from the case. And then it went to the higher court. The higher court found the same. But then it went to the supreme court. And the supreme court ruled... ...yeah, this assistant prosecutor was not an assistant prosecutor... ...because he failed his exams. En it's mandatory to pass the exams... ...in order to be an assistant prosecutor. En yeah, they went inside and gathered evidence. The supreme court said. The warrant itself is valid. And if the assistant prosecutor who was not... ...were actually an assistant prosecutor... ...then it was a legal warrant. And then you could say, well even my nephew can issue warrants. En if the warrant's okay, then you just do issue please. Well, that actually happened in 2013. And me and my colleagues were pretty surprised by it. Because the whole rule that you need a law... ...before something is prohibited. I need a law to give people authority. Is being violated by that in some way. The third one, I heard a lot when I was talking to people... ...who are in cryptocurrencies a lot. En they say, yeah. Especially with distribution of technical programs. The globalization is causing jurisdictional problems. For example, the ledger of Bitcoin is everywhere. How are you going to prosecute somebody? How does it work if you use a distributed DOS attack? En it comes from everywhere. What happens with jurisdiction? Can you prosecute in the Netherlands... ...even though all the data comes from other countries? What if you use a VPN or a Tor browser? So the question is technical globalization causes jurisdictional problems. And who thinks that's true? Where's your hand? And who thinks that's not really a problem? To be right, it's not a problem at all. It's just impractical, but legally speaking it's not a problem. Because it doesn't matter where someone's computer... ...or someone's program physically is located. And sometimes that's hard to explain. But jurisdiction legally works in a different manner. And I'll state the basis of jurisdiction for you now. Most countries have two or three grounds to base jurisdiction on. And one of the most common uses is the principle of territoriality. The state says, well, this is my territory. If you commit a crime here, I'm going to prosecute you. That's what basically every country does. That's normal. But then again, there's also the nationality of the suspect. For example, if you're a German... ...and you're going to commit a crime abroad... ...and you come back, Germany can actually say, well, you committed a crime... ...and we don't care where you did it, if you did it in the Netherlands or Switzerland... ...we can prosecute you. It's only for more severe crimes, though. And there's also something like nationality of the victim. For example, if you murder a Dutch citizen in Ecuador... ...and the Dutch police can get a hold on you, you will be prosecuted and convicted. En er is also some interesting thing, it's called universality. It's most for the gravest of crimes like war crimes and crimes against humanity. For example, like some countries like Belgium, they think that... ...okay, we have universal jurisdiction over some really great crimes. We don't care who you are, we don't care where you come from... ...we don't care to whom you committed a crime. We think this is so bad that we're going to prosecute you anyway. It's some self-proclaims, world police power. And the interesting thing, it's complementary. It means that jurisdiction can exist beside each other. And an interesting example is if a Swiss guy in France takes a sniper... ...and shoots a German guy in Italy. People think, okay, you can break your head over jurisdiction. But it's not really a problem, because which countries have jurisdiction? All of them. And based on those principles, all of them have jurisdiction. And the whole point is who is going to prosecute. Yeah, that's just politics. That's legally not really interesting. If you think about that airplane that was crashed... ...by some entities in Eastern Europe, MH17. There were Dutch people in the plane. So the Netherlands can prosecute. The brain crashed in Ukraine. Ukraine can prosecute. The perpetrator might be Russian. Russian can prosecute. So there's numerous countries that can actually prosecute... ...destroying of the plane. And who is actually going to prosecute, that's politics. And with these questions... ...I hope in a couple of minutes to show you a bit... ...that criminal law is not a science. It's not an exact empirical science. Like physics, for example. Some people, a lot of programmers thinking yes or no... ...there's always a right answer. If you're a mathematician, you're looking for an answer. Lawyers, unfortunately, but also fortunately... ...think more in grayscales. There's no yes, there's no no. Sometimes the same question has two answers... ...depending on the time. 20 years ago the same question would have a different answer. In a empirical science that you cannot imagine... ...that in law, law bends, law breaks, law is adapted... ...there's a lot of politics in it. And especially criminal law. Sometimes if society wants something to be illegal... ...it just is. And although you need... ...like a fundamental law says you need to write it down first... ...in a criminal code before it's illegal... ...but if we really want to... ...and there's really a societal pressure on it... ...the law can be bent and you can just use an old... ...article that just doesn't cover it really... ...but just break it open, bend it a bit and then it fits. The second part I want to talk to you about... ...is the war on encryption. It's not really a war... ...but I like to state it that way. And it's about what happens in the Western world... ...and now that people say in order to be safe... ...we need to know everything. We need to follow, we need to listen to communication... ...we need to tap phone calls... ...we need to break into encryption. En of course there's a lot to say about our safety... ...there's like a lot of stories about terrorist threats... ...and all evil that's happening to us right now. And there are people working day and night... ...to protect us from any harm... ...that we might or not know about. The problem is that in order to do so... ...they want to know everything... ...they want to look into every detail of people's life... ...so we can say, yeah it's just a little bit of your privacy... ...but then you can be safe. The question is, when does it stop? And I think most of you heard about the zero day exploits. It's... ...and that the government can leave open... ...if they notice about a vulnerability... ...in a device or in a program. For example in a phone... ...there's a leak... ...and if somebody knows about that leak... ...it can break into your phone. What some governments do is say... ...if we find out about this leak... ...we're not going to stop it... ...we're just going to keep it secret and use it for itself... ...we're going to exploit it... ...so that we can actually still hack into... ...to phones of people. Because they really do not like encryption. Even now with WhatsApp... ...nou, people don't know... ...but they are talking now encrypted with each other on WhatsApp. And it's really hard now for the investigative authorities... ...and intelligence agencies to follow what's being said. But if there would be a vulnerability in iPhone... ...or in an Android phone... ...and the government knows about it... ...they want to keep it silent so they and they alone... ...can get into your phone and listen to what you say anyway. The problem is that people working for the government... ...they have good hackers... ...but also the black hat hackers have good hackers... ...and they also can find vulnerabilities. And you can see it like a couple of weeks ago... ...we had a really big ransomware attack... ...that used one of those vulnerabilities... ...of when people say that it was left open... ...by some authorities. And also what to do about encryption... ...is this company is called PGP Safe. What they did is they had blackberries... ...they sold it, they adapted it a bit... ...and they encrypted the blackberries. And all the communications were via their own servers. So it was impossible for the police to tap... ...to wire the phone calls, they made. And they run a really good business. They had thousands of phones they sold... ...so people could actually speak in private with each other. But then one day there was a raid... ...and the police stormed inside the office of PGP Safe. They took the servers and they arrested a lot of people. And the question is okay. I know some agencies don't like encryption... ...but you should know that encrypting communication is not illegal. It's just math, right? Providing an encryption service is also not illegal. And selling phones with encryption is also not illegal. So what this company did is fine. It's not prohibited. But the prosecutor stated... ...yeah, well, that is true... ...but you're facilitating criminal organizations. Sorry? Yeah, they say they did money laundering. But they also said, like, you're facilitating criminal organization. That's going to be... Oh, there's a guy saying they're also suspect of money laundering. Yeah, that's true. But they're also going to be prosecuted for facilitating criminal organization. The whole point is that this is a company that uses encryption... ...and now some of them are in jail. En... ...I could raise questions about, is that where we want to go? If somebody allows other people to talk in private, what happens? Is that a problem? Of course criminals use encrypted phones. But also journalists do. Also lawyers, I have an encrypted phone to talk with some clients. Because I know the government is listening to what I'm saying to my clients... ...when I have a normal phone call. En the whole point is that... ...we'll see in the end, because this case will come to trial... ...we see if you can actually convict somebody... ...for just providing an encryption service. Because WhatsApp is also encrypted service... ...and also criminals use WhatsApp. So what you're going to do, are you going to arrest everybody on WhatsApp? Also Photophone, it's normal phone company. But there are also criminals who use Photophone. So, are you going to arrest the CEO of Photophone? I don't see any difference in there. But we'll see how it ends up. En in the Netherlands, there's even more... ...who have this new law. And it's already accepted. And it said that the police can soon legally hack almost everything. And they can do that in order to investigate certain crimes. En de question is, ja, almost everything? Yes, almost everything. Because the police can hack into your computer, to computers. But the definition of computer is... ...a device or group of mutually connected... ...or coherent devices... ...of which one or more automatically stores data. So basically it's a device that's connected that stores data. I'm not sure about you, but that's pretty much every device I have in my house. Even my remote control stores data. And so the police could be able to hack my remote control. En another law that's passed is the legalization of exploiting vulnerabilities. There went a debate, a legislative power said a debate about it. Like, okay, should we do that? And there were some political parties that said... I don't think that's a good idea. One of our parties had a whole pleading with one hour and say... ...okay, people maybe were going too far, maybe don't leave open vulnerabilities in system. If you find out about a vulnerability, close it. That's better for everybody. So they wanted to make an amendment, but that amendment was rejected. En now the Netherlands will have in a few months legally the power to exploit vulnerabilities. There's one thing that didn't make it. I don't know if you can read it, but it's the decryption warrants. What our government wanted is the power for the prosecutor to say... ...okay, this is your device, it has a password, open it now. En if you don't, you're going to jail just for not complying with my warrant. So I issue a warrant to decrypt any information. The problem is that there's also something like human rights. Some people tend to forget about it. And one of the most fundamental human rights is that nobody can be forced to comply with his own conviction. You cannot enforce somebody to work with the police to convict himself. So you cannot put somebody in jail because he's unwilling to unlock his phone for you. So that one didn't pass. But we never know what might happen in the future, of course. I saw this tweet a couple of days ago from Edward Snowden. I think it's interesting to share. It's about Theresa May and she said, I'm clear. If human rights law get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism... ...we will change those laws to keep British people safe. And Edward Snowden looked at this tweet and said, okay... ...if we take all the emotional words out, she's basically saying... ...if human rights laws get in the way, we will change them. And the more scared we're getting, the more xenophobia is in our society... ...the more human rights laws suffer, like privacy suffers a lot. But also the right to not be disturbed by the police... ...the right to not work with your own conviction. In the last few years, me and my colleague, we noticed that... ...a lot of fundamental rights are being violated because of safety. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to have a safer country as possible... ...but it's always a gap between the safety of your country... ...and also the fundamental rights of your country. Because sometimes they do not interact well, for example privacy. For our security, our internet becomes less safe... ...and our privacy is being restricted. And what if I don't like that, what you do about it? Well, as I've told, you first have the executive powers. They want more investigative powers, more authority to research to investigate. And so they ask the legislative powers, please give us more authority. And the legislative powers just did, they passed the bill. So now you can do basically, you can hack everything... ...you can prosecute people who are going to encrypt. But now it's up to the judicial power. And their goal is to uphold fundamental rights as well. So is there the universal declaration of human rights... ...and the European Convention on Human Rights... ...and all kind of national laws that protect you, me, everybody here... ...and our privacy. And I see it as a goal of hackers and lawyers... ...to inform those judges that are going to make the decisions now... ...this year and next year. There are going to be a lot of cases about cryptocurrencies... ...about encryption that judges need to decide on. They need to decide, okay, we're going left or we're going right. And in order to make an informed decision, these judges need to be informed. And that's one of my tasks as a lawyer... ...to present a different viewing point on the case... ...so that the judge can make a proper decision. But also for hackers, because I'm a lawyer. I don't know a lot about technical stuff, right? I specialize in cybercrime, but I'm still not a programmer. I don't know a lot about how a DOS attack actually works. No lawyer knows, but a lot of people of you, they do know... ...but they do not know how to explain, for example... ...to a judge what is the consequence of his decision. And I think the judges need to understand the consequences of their decisions. Because if they're not informed, they can say, yeah... ...well, encryption, it sounds like a thing that only criminals use. Let's just make it illegal. It could be. Of course I'm exaggerating, but if a judge is not informed... ...about the importance, for example, of encryption... ...he cannot make a proper judgment. So I see it as a goal of combining hackers and lawyers... ...to inform judges about it. I'll go back to that later. Because the first topic I want to talk about... ...is cryptocurrencies and money laundering. I have two questions for you. Who of you owns some kind of cryptocurrency? Like Bitcoin or Ether or Monero? That's basically everybody. Okay, so who of you are familiar with... ...their national anti-money laundering regulations? There is a lot of work to do. Just to have a start. Extremely short. What are cryptocurrencies legally? And I'm talking about criminal law. Private law, what's governing between civilians... ...I don't care about for now, is criminal law. How are they considered? And the best way to interpret it is... ...they're like bubble caps. They're stuff, but they're exempted from VAT. In Rotterdam, a judge decided... ...that bitcoins are like goods, it's stuff. It's a thing, it's not money. But the European Union decided... ...that it would be pretty bad... ...if you need to pay VAT every transaction. Because then you take away the whole goal of Bitcoin... ...as a trading currency. For criminal law, you can just... ...they're little stones. They're sand, they're bubble caps. I don't know what you want to say about it. But they're things, but you don't have to pay tax. They're like some kind of twilight zone. And there are some problems... ...with money laundering laws with that. Money laundering regulations are fairly difficult. And they differ a lot from country to country. So I'm going to talk about the Dutch framework of money laundering. And money laundering is, by our law... ...he who possesses, acquires, has available... ...transfers or converts any object... ...while knowing or should know... ...that the object in some way... ...derived from any criminal offence. Let's break that down. He who possesses, acquires, has available... ...transfers or converts. That's basically everything. So the first part of money laundering, check. Any object. Well, the court in the Netherlands ruled... ...that bitcoins are objects. Check. And then there's the third part. So if you possess a bitcoin whilst knowing or should know... ...that the object in some way... ...derives from any criminal offence. Any criminal offence means that you do not need to know... ...which criminal offence. As long as you know or should know... ...that it's from something bad happened to it. But the whole problem is that... ...as you see with cash, all money eventually sooner or later... ...will be used in some way illegal transaction. If you wait a lot, if the bitcoin is changed from owner to owner... ...and eventually somebody is going to buy drugs with it. And from that moment on, it does that bitcoin or ether... ...derives from a criminal offence. And the problem with cryptocurrencies is... ...that in contrast to cash, you can actually see... ...waarom je kan volgen de path die je hebt gehouden. Allebei kan je in de blockchain kijken... ...waar de historie van de transactions is. En je zegt, oké, maar hoe zou ik weten... ...waarom een bitcoin eruit komt van een criminal offence? Want als ik in de blockchain kijk, kan ik niet zien... ...waarom het drugtransactie was. Het is gewoon een aantal nummers. Nou, dan heb je wallet explorer.com. En dit is een tool. De Dutch prosecutor gebruikt het. En het maakt wat data analysis met een algoritme. En het shows waar de coins zijn. En het houdt over wat publieke kees. En met wat echt interessant... ...maar voor mij een niet-understandige algoritme. Het calculert dat, bijvoorbeeld dit wallet... ...de coins zijn op een brexelmarkt. En op een nucleusmarkt. Ik weet niet of je het kan zien, het is een beetje klein op de ledscreen. Maar dit is een aantal wallet explorer.com. Je kunt er een publiek keer in typen. En het shows waar het is. En soms recognisert het. Dit coin is op een brexelmarkt. Dus de prosecutor nu... ...ie gebruikt de wallet explorer... ...om te proeven dat de coin van mijn clients... ...die een criminele offence had. Je kunt het zien, het is een brexelmarkt. Dat is een donkermarkt. En ze zullen er bijna alleen illegale goeds zijn. Dus dit is eigenlijk een keuze wat ik nu doe. En de prosecutor heeft dit statement gemaakt. En in het short. De coins die een criminele offence had... ...dan kun je het zien in wallet explorer.com. Hij deed iets schadeig met het. Hij koopde de coins met cash. En ze kregen in crypten. En ze waren meten in de stad. Dat is natuurlijk... ...vindelijk is het legaal. Je kunt meten in de stad. En je kunt interacteren. Je kunt doen wat je wilt. Want het is coins, het is niet drugs. Maar de prosecutor zegt... ...dat de owner nieuw... ...of zouden zijn... ...zuch was de keuze. Want ik kan het zien... ...in wallet explorer. Dat de coins dragen van een criminele offence. Dus de buyer kan het ook zien. Dus hij zou het weten. En nu is hij accepteerd met de coins... ...die dragen van een criminele offence. Dus hij is een monolanderer. Ja, ik ga er nog wat legaal vragen over. Deze keuze zal in december zijn. En ze vermoeden veel mensen... ...dat de enige dingen die ze hebben gedaan... ...is de buying coins en de cashback. En ze hebben het niet geïnvestigerd... ...waar de coins dragen. Maar mijn vragen voor de judge's zijn... ...de eerste is... ...is er een doel om te investigeren... ...de origine van geïnvestigd coins? Gewoon omdat je kan. Met cash je kan niet. Nou, het is echt hard. Maar met bitcoins is het fairly easy. Dus als je het kan investigeren... ...is er een doel om te investigeren? En als je dat doel voelt... ...doe je de risico van een monolander? En ik denk dat het heel interessant is... ...om te zien wat de judge gaat besluiten over dit. Want als ze besluiten... ...ja, er is een doel om te investigeren... ...dan gaat het veranderen hoe mensen... ...interact met bitcoins veel. En als er een doel is om te investigeren... ...hoeveel moet je bekijken? Is dat een transfectie? Twee, drie, vier? Of het begin van de tijd? Is een bitcoin... ...tijdens 20 transfecties geleden... ...used voor drugtransport? En kan ik het niet meer gebruiken? Hoeveel is dat doel om te investigeren... ...om te bekijken of het er is? En ook... ...zodat het mere fact dat een coin... ...die op een donkere markt is... ...ziet dat het uit een criminele vorm is. Want je kunt een beetje bitcoins... ...of either moneros op een donkere markt... ...en het gewoon zit daar. En op een donkere markt kun je drugs, wapens... ...counterfeit geld... ...maar ook manuels. En manuels voor lockpicking, bijvoorbeeld. Dat is niet illegaal. Dus wat heb ik mijn geld op een donkere markt... ...gezien om manuels te buyen? Natuurlijk kan ik het via Amazon worden. Maar laten we het zeggen, ik heb dat gedaan. Does that make my coin illegal? Of wat heb ik zo'n bitcoins op een donkere markt? Want ik wilde drugs buyen... ...maar later zei ik... ...nou, misschien niet, dan doe ik het... ...en dan ga ik het weer nemen. WalodExplore, een woodshow. Hey, alert. Dit coin is op een donkere markt geweest. En nu ben je een donkere markt. Want je weet het. Dus ik ben interesseerd om te zien... ...hoe de judge gaat besluiten over dat deel. En ook, dat is de laatste. Kan een prosecutor legal gebruiken... ...WalodExplore... ...om de origine van een bitcoin te proberen? WalodExplore is gemaakt... ...bij, ik denk... ...a check guy. Het is een algoritme. En ik ben zeker dat de prosecutor... ...de algoritme niet begint. Ik begint niet de algoritme... ...maar de judge is ours... ...en niet de algoritme begint. Maar het punt is, sommige van jou... ...doet deze algoritme begrijpen. En dat is... ...om terug naar mijn verhaal, is dat... ...hackers en lorries moeten... ...in welke manier samenwerken. Want... ...ik maak de law aan... ...ik providee deze vragen aan de judge. Maar ik heb ook hulp nodig... ...de mensen die mij uitleggen... ...aan de prosecutor en de judge... ...hoe WalodExplore werkt. Is het een algoritme? Is er meer vloos in het? Does it work correctly? Hoe werkt het? Wat zijn de consequenties van het accepteren? En... ...dat is eigenlijk... ...de vraag. Als er iemand van jou... ...die in dit topic is... ...en... ...je wilt kijken... ...op deze algoritme... ...WalodExplore werkt... ...en... ...wilt u de informatie... ...aan de court... ...aan onze firm... ...om hoe het werkt. Je wilt negotiating of praten... ...over wat we kunnen doen. Just e-mail... ...textes... ...en... ...we kunnen praten over het. Er is geen obligatie... ...of duurheid om iets te doen... ...maar... ...ik heb geen... ...wisdom... ...of understanding... ...its algoritme... ...en ik denk... ...ik zal nooit in m'n leven... ...die... ...mijn soortig kracht hebben. Maar... ...en... ...en... ...ik ben een defense lawyer... ...die in dit geval... ...met... ...defending Bitcoins. Dus... ...als er iemand is... ...die wil... ...aan de provider... ...de informatie... ...werken... ...on... ...die... ...die... ...die... ... ...gezien ze 0-day exploits in criminal investigaties niet te gebruiken. Een ding die de minister van Justice zagen in deze discussie... ...wereinig ze nog steeds om de responsieve ontdekking te doen... ...en ze zouden, na zoveel 0-day exploits gebruiken, een responsieve path op het publiek te maken. Wat zijn jullie over dit? Wat zijn jullie over dit? Ik denk dat het meteen dicht zou zijn. Ik weet niet. Maar van wat ik begon... Er is een hele lange discussie over de fundabiliteit van Bitcoin. De reis om het te spenden. En van wat ik begon is dat met cash... ...als je cash accepteert... ...is je van welke responsie van waar cash is. Want als dat niet het geval was, zouden we onze economie... ...als een merchant, als je cash accepteerd zou zijn. En het zou jouw dutie zijn om te bekijken wat het historie was. Dan zou het een bepaald business zijn. Moet je het case maken met analogie? Dat als je Bitcoin accepteert... Er zijn juist prudenten die het Bitcoin goed consideren. Maar er zijn ook juist prudenten die Bitcoin een geld consideren. Dat Bitcoin bij analogie... ...gaat onder dat regime ook. Ja, zeker. Ik denk dat je een heel goed punt maakt. Maar met cash ben je niet onmogelijk gevolgd om... ...enorme amounts van cash. Er is ook een dutie om te investigeren. Er zijn ook antimonilanderingen. Bijvoorbeeld voor lawyers, juristen, car dealers... ...die eigenlijk een dutie hebben om te investigeren. Maar dat is regelen en het begint met een bepaald amount van... ...transactie, de hoogte. Ik denk dat het 50.000 euro is. Maar je maakt een heel goed punt. Ik denk dat er een analogie between Bitcoins en Cash zou zijn. Micrófoon in de achtergrond. Hallo. Ik wist niet of er een discussie was met... ...de prosecutor over de Bitcoin. Als je het wel krijgt. Je weet niet waarom een wallet komt. Of wat coins je gaat bekijken. Ja, ik heb veel klanten die Bitcoins hebben. Ze bieden het een paar jaar geleden. En nu is het erg waard. En ze zeggen, oké, ik wil cash uit. Ik wil het legaal doen. Ik wil het met alle regels. Dus ze komen naar onze office en zeggen... ...tel me wat ik moet doen om met alle regels te complijten. Dus ik kan legaal cash mijn coins. Mijn collega en ik investigeren het veel. We moeten zeggen aan alle klanten... ...we weten het niet. We weten het niet. De Prosecutor's Office weet het ook niet. En andere taxagenties weten het niet. En wat we hebben gedaan is... ...we hebben ze gekozen. We hebben ze een letter gegeven. Ik heb de Functionale Proquets in Den Elens gegeven. Dat is de Prosecutor's Office... ...dat is... ...capable om regels te maken. Ze zeggen, oké, please provide us rules... ...or guidelines on how, what we can do... ...or what we cannot do. Maar voor nu zijn ze niet willen. We weten het niet. Mijn advies is altijd... ...maar als je kunt doen... ...om een papertrail te houden. Als je geen coins met cash zet... ...om online via brokers... ...maar een screenshot van alle transacties... ...en een administratie. Dus je kunt altijd proeven waar je coin komt... ...en wat je deed met het. Maar voor nu is het interessant. Het is een graze zone. Ik heb geen woorden gehad. Een microfoon in de achtergrond? Sorry, een microfoon in de achtergrond? Ja, dank je wel. Ik heb een presentatie gezegd... ...en ik ben nu meer gevoeligd dan ik was, dank je wel. Ja, sorry. Nou, het is meer lawaai. Als je zegt dat de loos kunnen worden... ...bendend en bepaald... ...om een enthousiefeer... ...wat veilighouders er zijn... ...om ons te bevinden... ...en dan, excuse mijn langings... ...'Banana Republic' of iets anders... ...of als elke judge of elke enthousie... ...die in de manier kan verantwoorden... ...dat ze fit zijn. Nou, dat is eigenlijk een goed vraag. Natuurlijk hebben de judge's... ...niet een bepaalde kracht in de banding. In de 80's hebben we een echt strikte... ...weer een verantwoordiging in de law... ...zodat de judge's geen ruimte hebben... ...om een soort van schrijving te verantwoorden. Maar de laatste jaren zien we... ...maar ik denk dat... ...dat de ruimte voor verantwoordiging... ...een verantwoordiging is. Bijvoorbeeld dat ik het gegeven heb... ...die zijn de meest extreme versies... ...of wat de judge's hebben gedaan... ...om de oude lawaai te verantwoordigen... ...maar dat is ook een monielandering. Bij de tijd van de criminal code... ...was het een monielandering. Bitcoin had geen cryptocurrency. Dus nu verantwoordigen die niet... ...die niet... ...die niet... ...wat gebeurt met cryptocurrency? Nee, die niet. Want er waren geen cryptocurrency. Maar nu verantwoordigen we deze oude lawaai... ...voor nieuwe technieken. Dat vraagt vragen en ik woon... ...maar dat het verantwoordiging zal lopen. Maar ik zou niet zeggen... ...dat we een bananenrepubliek zijn... ...maar ik denk... ...we hebben beter tijd... ...in het verantwoordiging, ja. Oké, dank je. In addition to the Bitcoin word... ...do you have any experience... ...with those zero knowledge coins... ...like Zcash, Zcash... ...and Monero... ...because then it's very difficult... ...if you have these anonymous transactions. For example Monero... ...with the three keys... ...to be frank... ...nobody knows what's going to happen with that... ...and I wouldn't be surprised... ...if for example Monero... ...would in some day be forbidden in the Netherlands... ...because there is no way... ...or authorities or intelligence agencies... ...can look into that for now. I've talked to somebody about it... ...and they say, oké, Bitcoin is very easy... ...we're going to watch it either as well... ...but Monero is just a black hole for us. It depends on where society goes... ...but there is a chance... ...that our government will decide... ...ok, well, that's too risky... ...that's too perfect for criminals... ...that's too perfect for money laundering... ...maybe just prohibited. In politics, democracy, we can vote about it... ...so we'll see what happens. Microphone in the front. Well, the states bought programs... ...different programs... ...to break in the computers... ...of everyone. Of everyone, of any user. Ja. Wat... ...of een broken computer... ...is gebruikt... ...om een bad boy... ...en wat is... ...om een bad boy... ...get deze programmen? Ik ben zeker... ...dat ze in secret niet heel lang zouden zijn. Sorry, ik heb geen verstand... Ik ben zeker... ...dat deze programmen... ...willn't get in bad hands. Ja, niemand weet... ...ik ben niet zeker hoe... ...ouw... ...ouw politie gaat om... ...toch hek... ...ouw systeem... ...maar als ze een programma ontwikkelen voor het... ...ja, ze moeten make sure... ...dat het niet in de bad hands gaat, zoals je zei... ...maar natuurlijk, er is geen garantie... ...maar... ...maar natuurlijk, er moet... ...zoveel guards zijn voor het... ...maar natuurlijk, je kan geen garantie... ...maar ik ben niet zeker... ...on hoe ze het gaan doen... ...of om hun eigen programma te ontwikkelen... ...maar ik ben niet zeker... ...maar ja, als ze een programma maken... ...kan ze in de wronge handen vallen... ...en ook, voor de volgende vraag... ...wat ik wil zeggen... ...om... ...money laundering van bitcoins... ...ja, het is... ...maar ja, ik ben gelooid... ...maar als normaal hobbyist bitcoins user... ...je moet niet te gelooid zijn voor de verspreking... ...maar de verspreking is primair... ...focust op de... ...notorische cash traders... ...dat... ...de cash trader voor 10.000 euro... ...at least, en doe het... ...bij encryptie telefoon... ...in de buitenkant, in de buitenkant... ...die zijn de mannen die ze proberen te krijgen... ...om als je een bitcoin-wallet hebt... ...of een etenwallet... ...en sommige coins... ...door een criminele offense... ...maar ik denk dat je te gelooid zou zijn... ...maar het zou technisch illegaal zijn... ...maar het betreft wat er gaat gebeuren... ...maar als sommige coins van je... ...in de buitenkant zijn... ...ik zou niet te gelooid zijn... ...maar als je niet... ...gaat op de buitenkant... ...buien met cash... ...en hangen uit met schade mensen met het... Oké, een microfoon in de buitenkant? Oké, eigenlijk is het... ...op mijn vraag... ...welke... ...doming... Nee, niet meer, het is nu... Maar serverlijk is hun capaciteit limiter... ...en ze zijn fokusing op... ...maar mensen die... ...hoewel iedereen weet... ...dat ze bitcoin-kannen voor bedrijven... ...handel en... ...want die kant op onderhoud is... Maar... ...er is een legaal probleem achter ze... ...waar alle mensen het effecten.... ...maar de prosecutors... ...maar focussen op drugtraffikeren... En ook... Als mijn computer is haken door een van deze programma's van de state. Dat is een interessant vraag. Het zou kunnen zijn als het een grote business. Dat zou heel kostig zijn. Als ik je krijg, dan vraag je wat als mijn computer is haken door criminalen met de programma's van de state. Dat is een interessant vraag. Dat is niet de criminal law, maar de civil law. Je moet de government zoeken omdat je het gevoel hebt. Ik weet het niet. Het voelt van de field van criminal law naar private law, waarin ik geen expert ben. Maar het is een goede vraag. Het is een interessant vraag. Ik denk dat je al wat cybercrime courtdaten hebt. Ik zou willen vragen of de judge's ervaren als je wat technische dingen uitgaat. Als de judge's ervaren. Als de judge's ervaren. Als die voor een vertrouwsde man Enlight. Als hij dat astaan probeercoloredicateel opuhan, dan zou hij het best mooi hebben. Dat zouobilis. We zullen nu kijken, als de jury's ervaren als er blev environmental � 하지만 pull effect. Kan 21 pasteeën ergens simplify lopen. Morgan Verminelt! Als ze filereyl. om die informatie te geven. In Nederland hebben we, voor cybercrime, in The Hague, een cybercrime office van alle judges die hun e-mail en de informatie kunnen vragen. Het is ook, ik denk, de dutie van de prosecutor als hij de keuze builde om te zorgen dat de consequentie van de konvictie van de keuze die hij gebracht heeft naar de koord zijn gekregen. Maar ook voor de defense attorneys, er is veel werk te doen om dit informatie te geven, want natuurlijk ik denk dat de judges in Nederland wel informeerd zijn en dat het zo te kunnen zijn, maar je niet weet wat je niet weet. Dus als er iemand ontdekent dat er iets van, oké, dit zou echt een goede geïnplikatie zijn voor dat beslissing. Spreek je op, call a lawyer, go to the newspaper, try something, because I think, especially in this new area, especially in law, cybercrime is relatively new and in the upcoming years there's a lot of decisions to make and we all should make sure that the decisions that are being made are as well-informed as possible. Oké, microphone in front, we have time for one or two questions. It's a matter of time before it comes known that our police has used an, up till that moment, unknown vulnerability to hack into systems of people that are being trialed in a criminal court. So you asked earlier in your presentation if we could help you make a case against this cryptocurrency problem. I have something I can ask you to do for us. So as early in time as possible let us know when you find in a criminal case evidence that our police has used open vulnerabilities to hack potential criminals as much data as possible in a technical way about these zero days so that we can make sure that those zero days then get patched in the real world and so that we can start civil cases against the government for not having made public the information about these zero day exploits that could have potentially have done harm to our computers so that we can actually try and get money from the government for not having made public that which is their public duty to actually make our world safer. Oké, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna promise you this as soon as I'm aware of our government using this vulnerability and I'm allowed to make that information public. I will do so. I will do so. That's a promise. I wouldn't even just put it on our website. I would go to any newspaper that will hear it to explain that. Yeah, you have my word on that. We have time for one more question. Oké, so one or two years ago a German judge from one of the highest courts wrote an article about the German paragraph on money laundering and like his hypothesis was that this paragraph being expanded and expanded every year basically is violating the law meanwhile because it basically leaves only a very little chance of not committing that crime because so he made a calculation based on the annual usage of drugs in Germany and the the usual price of that and the fact that something is considered money laundering if it was paid by at least one percent of money that results from a from a crime so you can like have a hundred times the the tainted amount of money and comparing the vast amount of money that is tainted by this fact there's basically most of the money that flows around in Germany is tainted and therefore you even if you don't know whether your specific money comes from that the vast amount of money ensures that by statistics at least it's it's quite probable that you have some money that resulted from a crime on your bank account and therefore you basically have no chance of not committing that crime so you're making a good case because what's criminal law if everything you do is criminal anyway you need to make you need to to split up between actual money laundering okay what is now actually what what did somebody did wrong what's the wrong doing in it except for just possessing cash that is tainted or bitcoins that are tainted yeah so maybe you can adapt that to bitcoins sure that that's going to be and also a long white spread if you can statistically prove that like those kind of research is how the research is alike because then you can just show how how idiot it can be sometimes yeah you make a good point on that thank you very much um let's thank on our again uh note again for his talk