 So, hi. Welcome everybody. We are now continuing with the talk by Kai Denker. Kai is currently making his, I don't know, PhD, right? He's studying in philosophy, history and informatics. So this will rather be not completely technical talk, but more focus on history and the importance of stuff that happened. Well, yes. So, yeah, we'll just start. Please give a warm round of applause for Kai and go. Thank you for this kind introduction and welcome to my talk which is titled, Does Hector with a Matter. And as you may know, this talk is part of the track, Society and Politics. And in fact, my talk will deal with society, politics, and even hacking. But does it work? Does it work? Okay. It's a talk about history, and in particular the history of hacking and its impact on lawmaking. And to be honest, I'm not really a historian. My background is as you have heard in computer science and in philosophy. And I mostly work on the philosophical theories of digital movements, for example, hacktivism. So the history of the digital sphere, that's a history that is still extremely short, is an important basis of my work, but not its main focus. And as a basis for my work, I need to find examples for hacktivism that matters, or method at all, if there's such a thing. Okay. So this is my motivation. I want to know if hacktivism matters. And to answer this question, first I have to know what hacktivism means. And my preliminary definition is any kind of political activism that is performed by hacking. That is not digital activism, that is what we do in blogs or Twitter or something like that. It's precisely connected to hacking. And the second thing we have to know is when something matters. And that is when it has any impact outside the hacker movement itself, for example in the political sphere or in society and law and so on. So what I'm going to do, first I want to describe before I describe the BTX hack itself, I will give you an idea of what historians actually do. I want to give you an impression of what discipline is all about, how it works and which questions I addressed in history and how discipline itself developed shortly. And after this crash course, for history as a science, I will talk about the image of technology in the 1980s. It was when the computer age was about to leave its infancy and still was an alien fantasy that was far, far away from most people. Then I will give you an impression of the Bilchum Tech System, BTX, for short, which was an epitome of large centralized technology in the 1980s. And finally I will focus on the computer crime lawmaking in the 1980s to answer our question. Okay. What do historians do and why? History as a science developed in the late 19th century and in the traditional view of history it had to tell how it really was. And that meant mostly to reconstruct events and events in a political sense. But nowadays we have a broader scope in this subject. The contemporary view of history is to, for most to have more theory, to question all concepts and to have a shift from events to power relations and to question the role of history itself in producing legitimacy and identity. For example, history serves as a tool for building founding move or to legitimize territorial demands, for example. And this is something that we have to question when we deal with history. Okay. How does historical research work? First an idealized and generic idea of it. First of all, of course, you need a research question. And this research question defines what's your interest in literature, archives, and sources. And when you have found literature and sources, you have to think about this. And of course, it's an incremental process. When you have done enough incremental steps in this process, you can start a theory, idealized writing, and then publish your paper. And then it becomes a bit of a threat for history itself. Okay. This method is, of course, highly subjective. We have, first of all, a question, what is a source? How do we evaluate it? Then we have to know which literature there is. Is it relevant? Is it reliable? And which interpretation is appropriate? And this appropriateness of interpretations is where the subject of bias of history, which is mostly conservative by the way, is most obvious. But let's go through some real history and try to find out how it works in reality. First of all, we have problems in finding funding for exotic research questions. Today it's much easier, but a few years ago you had much more problems in getting funding for, for example, for gender history or something. And nowadays it's much more easy. And for example, my focus on the 1980s is something that is more or less trendy since a few years, but still very new to history. And the second problem is there is often very little, little, sorry, literature for your topic you are dealing with. So you have to find it and mostly there is nothing. And when you, for example, are dealing with, with hectorism, you find a lot of his, of, of literature written by hectorists themselves. But you can't, can't really use this as a hectorist literature as literature in a scientific sense. There are sources. But when you're going to sources, you have, first of all, the problem to, to get to archives. And this is the accessibility of archives. For example, when I started searching for, for sources for this topic, I asked the telecom if they had still left something about the BTX system. And I received an answer the other day and it was just, oh, we don't support research. Okay, thank you. And, and I wrote, wrote the, the Bundesnet's again tour to, to find out if they had something and they didn't answer at all. But some guy called me on the phone from the Fernmedia Technische Zentrale in Darmstadt. There was a technical operator of BTX. And when I told what, what I was looking for, he said, oh, BTX was the only system that has never been hacked. Okay. It was quite interesting phone call I had, but it was a dead end too. Okay, so when you finally made it to, to find some archives to have material for you, in this case it is of course the archive of the German Bundestag. You have to, to find, to use the sources and to question their reliability. And we will see that even sources from the Bundestag, from the Parliament's archive, are a bit tricky to work. And finally, if you have done all these things and can have thought, think enough, thought enough and started writing, you always have to keep the reader in mind. And that means you have to follow dominant trends and discourses that are shaping your research too. For example, when I was working on this, the first idea was to, to write a paper on, on BTX, BTX. And then the editor asked me to expand this paper with, with consumer culture. And there was almost no sources for consumer culture on BTX. And so I decided to, to expand the scope of the paper in, to, to Hectorism in particular. And then they started, oh, that's, that's quite interesting, but we want an introduction to the history of the CCC. So I had to revise the paper again and again. But now it's hopefully done. I hope so it's in spirit. You have no idea if it gets accepted. So next step, we have found sources, but what is a source at all? And the sources simply put, every centric object that sells us something about the past. And we have, of course, some constraints with that. First, no? Yeah. We have to understand the source. It's not trivial. We have, for example, a language problem. There are many sources from ancient times that we, we can't read because the language is just lost. It's, I think the language is called linear A and we have no idea to translate it. Another problem is it must be comprehensible and you must be able to talk about it. There's, for example, a problem if you're dealing with source code. When you try to use source code as a, as a source for, for history, you get the problem that your reader won't understand it. I tried to, to give an idea of hacking culture in the early 80s in the paper and described a part of the first data schleuder where Wohlholland demanded to, to acquire a program which output equals a source code to, to, again, to become a member of the CCC. And I made, I think it was a quite easy explanation about it and the editor refuted it. It should, I should exclude it. No one would understand. Okay. So you need sources that are understandable by other historians and that is often a hard thing. And we must be able to conserve our source, which means we cannot use, we cannot use feelings or memories. We can of course use time witnesses, but that is a problem because time witnesses have their own bias. They have their own individual memories of an event and they tend to, to be interested in history too. Which means that you can interview and time witness about, for example, the end of the Second World War and he will know a lot of details just because he has read historical, historical books about it. And it's quite a bias. You can't, you can't use a source in many cases. Okay. So your research question shapes the definition of what a valid source is and we have to think a bit more about that. And here in this talk, I will use mostly text as a source. I will exclude time witnesses. Okay. Sources that are passed on, we can distinguish two types of sources. The first type is handed on by accident. That means that they are not created with the intention to be found and evaluated by historians. For example, shopping lists, that's an actual source, accounting docs, general, general communication like letters, order, slog files, or even diaries. And written without, they are written without respect to history. The other type of source are intentionally passed on and so they are recreated with historians in mind. That's mostly protocols, chronicles, inscriptions, for example on headstones, which is a tremendously important source for ancient history and of course deeds. But if you think of the second type of, well, where it is? Oh, there it is. Second type, you may have noticed you can't quantify them and so they are allable. And I like this example very much. Maybe you can remember, you can remember this famous speech of Hans Peter Ullens, a bonus talk a few months ago where he was actually saying, it's been recorded in video, Germany is governed by security officials who are bound by the law. And when you look in the protocol, the official protocol that will go to the archives, it reads, has security officials who are bound by the public law. And so you have to be very skeptic about that. And here in this case, this is a screenshot from the PDF file from the homepage. That still is, we have, and I think I should speed up a bit with my time so I won't show you the video, but look for it on YouTube. It's a soul speech where he is more or less a little nactic and insane what he's talking about. Okay, so let's sum up this for a moment. Is history a science at all if you have all those problems? Yes, it is, but it's of course closely connected to common sense. That's a really big problem of history and it's connected to political agendas and therefore it's highly subjective. But on the other hand, we have a systematic public self-correction. That's crucial for most sciences. For example, if you think of esotericism, this discipline doesn't have us, and still history has an empirical basis too, and therefore it is able to change its views and to develop. Okay, just by the way, can history then be a hacking tool for a society example? After all, it's a tool for producing legitimacy and identity, and therefore if you start hacking on this to destroy, for example, legitimation or try to destroy identities, you could try to use history as a hacking tool, and actually this will work, but it's slow, it's very slow, and it's conservative. It's quite hard to make an impact in history with revolutionary ideas. But on the other hand, we have encouraging examples, for example, in queer agenda or women's history where scholars try to show that our sexual norms are subject to history and not to an eternal form of morality or something. So now we can rephrase our topic to get the question more precise and have a few questions to answer. First, what kind of hacktivism do we mean exactly? The second is when does something matter exactly? Then, on which sources could we decide this, and where do we find such sources? And of course, you must not forget the historical context in literature. Okay. This was being, hacktivism in this talk will be the activities of the CCC in the early 1980s, and in particular the BTX hack. The next is the criteria for matter, some impact on computer crime laws. So we have to look for sources about computer crime lawmaking and look if we find any traces about the BTX hack. And we can of course look into the media too to see if we have some impact there. Okay. So sources of protocols from the German parliament where lawmaking is documented and of course publications from the CCC. Okay. Part two. Now that we have a theoretical basis for this, we can turn to historical context and look at technology in society in the 1980s. Where we found that technology in the 1980s was something between threat and fascination. And you must keep in mind that information technology back then was quite new for most of people. And it had just started to affect everyone's life. We had for example a connection to the peace movement in Germany that's more or less specific for Germany. That's a Frankfurt school with this idea that bureaucracy and admittance does man would be speeded up by information technology and turn out to be a new form of fascism. And we have huge discourse about large or park centralized systems in many different areas. For example military or nuclear energy and information technology. I think for example of the census where we had this ruling of the constitutional court about the information of self-determination. And this was all connected to ideas that is some anonymous large or park system. We don't understand where our data is collected and that can somewhat control our lives. And connected to this we have of course the hacker ethic where one sentence is to mistrust authorities and promote decentralizations. And if you connect this to this idea of centralized large centralized systems you will immediately see the idea that centralization and authority is closely connected and has therefore to be questioned. Okay. And this time we had also the Green Movement and the Green Party which is quite important because most of this skepticism about technology culminated in this movement and we can see that the Green Party was quite if you like conservative against new technology back then. And when we try to analyze the political spectrum a bit more we find in a short story first the Stalinist Marxist left very very orthodox left left wing radical parties that were technocratic and centralistic all that technology has to fulfill that is technology must be controlled by the party the Communist Party and then technology is a good thing against that we had the alternative movements the Greens where technocratic and decentralism was on the agenda and against that we had liberals and conservatives which were more ambivalent. They emphasized the economic opportunities of technology but still were a bit skeptic about that. Okay. And now try to place the early CCC in the spectrum it's extremely hard to do because the level of political interest with the members of the early CCC is quite unclear and mostly there I think they have been connected to each other through a techno enthusiasm and not to a political agenda and so they had on the one hand a complicated relationship to political parties especially to the Greens because the Greens were very techno critic and the CCC were techno enthusiastic and so there was a large area for conflicts for example in the 1980s the Bundestag decided to introduce information technology in the parliament and the Green Party was the last party to adopt the system and the CCC tried to support the Green Party in adopting information technology and as far as I know it was disappointing for the club to see that the Greens were only able to see information technology as an instrument of power and not as an instrument for enabling people to communicate or to do things. Okay. That's for a very short historic background and now to a part of the hacking and build some text. Okay. As I told you I will use the protocols of the Committee for Legal Affairs. This text is wrong. Okay. Next slide. Sorry. Okay. Let's go to build some text. This wasn't more or less if you like an epitome of information technology but what was built some text. The text was a communication information system that has been developed in the 1970s and deployed in the 1980s and had very many different brands in Germany. It was BTX in the UK Prestle and Minitel and Florence. And if you go outside to the not to cash desk, Angel Desk, the help desk in the middle of the room, behind the glass you will find a Minitel appliance standing there doing things if you like to see an appliance like this at work. And BTX was operated by the Deutsche Bundespost which was a telecommunication monopolist back in the time and the technical operation was in Darmstadt as a fan-media technologist in Centralland and the target of the system was consumers and companies for communications and e-commerce. So pretty much if you like a very early primitive version of the Internet with some differences as we will see on another slide. Okay. Now what did it look like? You had something like this, very primitive screen formula to enter your identification codes. The first identification code BTX number couldn't be changed. It was a part of the BTX sector to change this number. And if you entered the BTX system, you had pages like this where you caught access and other pages with numbers you had to type in into your terminal. It's mostly like the teletext system some TV sets still have. And the appliances looked more or less like this. You had two different types of devices. This was a standalone device but you also have set up boxes for your TV sets and later on decoder cards for your computer. So something about its technical properties as I said before it was mostly like the teletext system and it was quite slow. We had only 1,200 bits per second in the beginning. And it had a different topology in comparison to the internet. First of all, it clearly distinguished client server, had a central mainframe that was in the city of Ohm and it distributed database server system, all IBM machines and consumer devices mostly connected to TV sets. And by the way, you had different roles, information providers and subscribers. And so you had different end user devices for those roles. And if you wanted to edit BTX pages, you needed a much more expensive device for information providers. Or you could simply use a cheaper device and drills who holds in it because it was actually the same hardware just with two buttons less installed. Okay, the system could perform simple animations and had a micropayment system. This is also crucial for the BTX stack. And this is, excuse me for the quality, it's about the proliferation of BTX. And as you see, the POS was quite optimistic about the proliferation of BTX and this was the reality. I really love this graphic. And for example, in 1968, 1987, the Greens filed a question in the Bundestag to get more information about this failure. And in response, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications had to admit that out of 400,000 BTX sets that has been ordered in 1981, only 58,000 has been sold in 1986. So it was, as a matter of fact, an economic failure, the catastrophe. Okay, but some people were buying the sets and mostly not consumers. These were reluctant. Mostly it was the CCC, of course, where you got to use other technical enthusiasts, of course, too. And the CCC had, of course, its own service on BTX, which consisted in information pages and a donation page. You could access this page to donate some money to the CCC and it was, as far as I know, some fun for some people to go to public BTX terminals to access this donation page, billing, I think, the post for it or something, somebody else, but not yourself. So the second reason for the CCC to use the BTX was to highlight problems, for example, in data protection and security. And this is all the BTX is about. And, of course, the Bundestag tried to sell the devices, tried always to downplay such findings. So we have this conflict on the one hand, the CCC trying to highlight data security problems and the Bundestag trying to sell the devices on the other hand. So that was the context of the BTX hack. So we can start to tell a story. First of all, for the BTX hack, you had to get somebody else's identification codes. And then you had to modify your BTX decoder set. Originally, it wasn't possible to enter somebody else's identification codes, but if you removed the one chip in which the identification code was programmed, this device just asked you for your identification code. And, of course, it was not legal to open this box. And on a code, you had to modify your BTX decoder set. And on a conference for data security in 1984, Bollhorn had demonstrated how to open this box without breaking its seal. And the post, of course, was not amused about that and denied the possibility for a time. Okay. So after modifying your BTX decoder sets for faking the husband's identity, you can open the box. I think it was 135,000 marks in one night. And if you are an evil hacker, this is your money. And if you're a good hacker, you report yourself to the data protection commissioner the other day. And then the achievement, you get a lot of attention and embarrass your arch-nemesis, in this case the Bundespost. No latte. I think I know what the reason is, this presenter plug-in I use cannot work with videos. Great. So the money transfer of 135,000 marks wasn't between actual bank accounts. It was, of course, between BTX accounts. So the husband would have become a phone bill of 135,000 marks by the Bundespost. And so you see it was quite hard, would be quite hard to gain the money at all because the husband would just have refuted to pay the bill. But the interesting question is how did they obtain the ID codes to do the hack? And the CCC version is that there was a security flaw in BTX. And the Bundespost had another version that Holland and Wynnery who carried out the hack during a public demonstration. And actually there's no possibility from the perspective of a historian to decide this question. We don't just have the sources about that. And if you want to know the truth, try to ask Wynnery. And of course, as you remember, it's a type 2 source, more or less it's his memories. And you can't be totally sure if he's telling the truth, of course. Okay. So let's have a look at the husband's reaction on the BTX hack. Normally you would see a video on the left side, but I can't see it. It was a husband manager who was talking about the diligence of these people. And he was opinion that one could not stress enough how regrettable it was that the post couldn't be convinced before this evidence that it's BTX software does not fulfill all requirements. That's quite polite to say it this way. But I think it's a quote showing how activism evolved in Germany. If this bank had press charges against Holland and Wynnery, the press reports would have been quite different. Okay. More details on the reaction on the BTX hack. We have seen the husband manager expressing his respect for the hackers and the most of the media sheered for them, of course revealing data protection flaws. You can even look, for example, in the build site. It's a tabloid paper if you're not from Germany, and even the build site was quite cheerful for Holland and Wynnery in comparison. I think it's because of a David versus Goliath scenario here. But of course the bonus post tried to downplay the hack and first they admitted that they had the possibility to obtain identity codes without observing them somewhere else to a security flaw which was more or less a buffer overflow hack. We don't need to get into the details here. But then they denied the seriousness of the hack and told it was more about the same probability to win in the lottery to have some codes like this obtained. So, obviously as the bonus post told in the last four years, excuse me, the husband has been careless. This was the discussion in the media back then. My first result was that the community of post and telecommunications blames the bonus post for its clumsy communication politics to have admitted the possibility of the hack at first. That was the short story of the BTX hack. I'm going to start by talking about the information making and the water. My aim at this part of my talk is to trace the BTX hack here and particularly to do this in the protocols of the committee for legal affairs of the German Bundestag. You can find these protocols in the archives of the German Parliament, Parliament's Archive Committee. If you're interested in the sources can access them, but you will have to wait up to 12 years to access them. The source has to be so old together. And nowadays, all the protocols of the committee are edited on microfish, something like microfilm, but you won't get the full story out of them. Just the protocols, but if you want to read all the information, you can go to the Archive Committee, the Parliament itself, and actually they're quite not aware, but you have always a watchdog at your side. There was this really nice middle-aged lady who sat in the archive room. I was the only person to use the archive, and when I went to the restrooms, she followed me, waited for me to go to the archive room and I also bring your mobile card. Okay, let's go to the computer crime lawmaking itself. Once the end of the 1970s, lawmakers in the industrial states became aware that existing laws didn't fit the dawning information age, and this was especially true for the criminal code. In fact, the criminal code was used to express positivism, which denies existence of crimes that are not codified by written law, but however, in this case, we could think of the criminal code as some kind of codified natural law that expresses some kind of condemnation. And so the idea was that there was, in fact, crimes that were not addressed by the existing criminal code. They didn't fit under any existing law, as they said, and so they demanded the codification of computer crimes, and hence a penalization of such behavior. Yes, that's a typical problem, tapping data too. And they had quite interesting questions in this context, for example, a fraud means to make a human air about something, to give him false information, but he cannot air. A computer is always white in this sense, and so the traditional law couldn't address this. Another problem was that results of calculations are no legal deeds. In the German law system, a deed is virtually every written document that can be used as evidence in court, but the law system wants that this document can be read with your eyes. And, of course, calculations are not hard to, for example, cannot read with your eyes, so a changing calculation of air are not a crime according to the old law. That was a problem about that. So about 1980, the lawmaker started to negotiate the second switch of criminalities for Kempfungsgesetz, which wanted to address fighting against white-collar crimes, such as some uninteresting iconic crimes like fraud in the social system, something like that, but especially computer fraud, quantifying deeds, and tapping data, destroying data or programs. And this asterisk is marked crimes wasn't part of the original bill what entered in the negotiations, as we will see. The first new law was not disputed by any political party. Only the Greens were skeptical about introducing new laws into the criminal code, but they hadn't any other idea, actually. So let's have a look at the bill in detail. And it started with a draft from the Ministry of Justice, which only included, as I say, computer fraud and quantifying digital deeds, or actually changing data. So the committee holds the stakeholders from they extended and revised the bill. The stakeholders, of course, were from industry and law enforcement and not hackers or consumers or something like that. So they had, actually, the chance to submit their personal wish list without any opposition. And here they demanded the introduction of norms for tapping or destroying data. A bit more detail, if you like. For example, this is a problem with 202 STGB. STGB is a German criminal code. And the traditional law only applied to letters with an envelope and files on the hard disk do not have an envelope. So you need a new law for this. Another example is, as I already explained, the computer fraud. And the unauthorized data change because destroying material things always applied on material things, not on digital data, which was actually just altered, not destroyed, if you like. Okay. So in this discussion, we find a nice definition of hacking and the communication between the ministry and the committee. You find a letter explaining the draft from the ministry and it's a really nice explanation. A person fulfills, as a quote, the elements of the offense if she or she overcomes access guards for example, by repeatedly typing combinations of letters and numbers on the keyboard of a home computer, hacking, and as such gains access to data and not designated to be accessed by this person. But no, let's have a closer look at discussions inside the committee. And as I said, they had concepts about what the ministry and the ministry and the ministry and the ministry to extend the scope to meet the stakeholders wishes of course and to discuss some other details of newly filed by the ministry of justice. But on the October 23rd, 1985 that's the most important session of the community in this case. The first read on the revised draft, but then the second read on the revised draft in the case. And to get back to the other slide, the ministry of justice had a clear idea of hacking. It had no noteworthy technological skills and was mere trial and error by entering guest passwords. But then the committee considered that maybe we should exempt go-takers from their work. And the members of community were impressed by hacks in which hobbyists proved large companies and organization security measures to be insufficient. And then we have one case in which two members of a computer club managed to transfer a large amount of money from a bank to their own account using BTX just providing that the DPP security guarantee was false. And then the committee was discussed in the committee and even the conservatives agreed they sympathized with the hackers and were impressed by their intellectual discipline. By the way, this is a signature of the document in the archive of the parliament. I think it's quite nice they have always long lists of numbers to address certain issues. So I don't know who ever has built this identity code. We had different opinions. It's a nice title. In the committee first of all it was just a hobby and we had to limit this hobby to a justifiable extent. And of course 202A STKB is a new legislation but data protection issues should be a legal excuse but on the other hand I couldn't find a legal definition of politically correct hacking. So they tried to find another way and tried this. They reshaped 202A STKB in the draft to make punishable tapping data of course but only data that is protected and not punishable merely logging in breaking protection mechanisms as long as no data is obtained. So think of your favorite authentication protocol as soon as the server acknowledges your login attempt you have to enter connection and you have no problem but there was actually no hacking if you like. So for example you could think that even displaying the prompt was some kind of tapping environment variable system. Okay but this version was submitted by the committee and adopted by the parliament in 1986 and the law became a real law working law. So it was of course discussed in law journals and there we have the idea of a good hacker too of course. For example this Mr. Haftib was a law professor at some university who maintains impunity of hobbyist by discussing the new law and most of us know at least by name some guy called Gravenreuth distinguished in an article between hackers, crackers and crashes so the law people tried hard to make some sense of the discussion in the committee and all these attempts evidently were silenced. So in 2007 Ernst underlined that these attempts were virtually no effect in telling good hackers from bad hackers in practice and in a new computer crime law I think 2006 the idea that only logging in without tapping data should be free was revised and since then logging in as a crime too. So of course the law had some impact in Hectorism too and in hackers literature computer book I think it's called we have the idea that it was it was a law against hacking or was it a law only aimed at real white color crimes with collateral damage of hackers and however it was seen as a kind of a tariff list for hacking how expensive is it to hack how long have to go for jail for something and the conclusion was if you wanted to keep hacking the law yourself the law itself to find ways for legal hacking. Okay let's come to the conclusion History as a science and as a tool for hacking a society is slow and conservative yet we have sometimes surprising results on the long one and on the other hand history of hacking is still in its infancy since there's a lot more to do to work on this part second is the BTX system was an epitome of the 1980s technology which combined expectations and fears and was one place of effective hacktivism that mattered and hacktivism indeed changed the law by changing images by creating the image of the good hacker which was something between a consumer protector and a data protection and yet it was marginalized in discussions as being a hobby. Thank you very much. Okay thanks so far Kai. We have now comfortable 15 minutes for Q&A sessions. So if you have a question please raise your hand and I'll come with the microphone to you and we'll switch between questions from the IRC and people here in the room. Could you explain in some more detail the difference between the consumer version of the BTX device and the provider version you spoke of two keys missing is this the extent? The question was about the difference between the consumer device for BTX and the provider device as far as I know I had no chance to play around with the hardware myself the only difference was that there were actually two buttons more installed as the provider version so you only had to open the device to install additional buttons to myrton of English to install the buttons to the main board and that was pretty much it. Thanks for this nice overview of the history of the CCC especially on the BTX and history of hacking laws in Germany. I'd challenge you in bringing a different definition of hacktivism doesn't sort of only conclude hacking that has legal consequences but is limited to using hacking to achieve a political goal of course the history of hacktivism in that sense is also very short but do you have any information on this? So do you see the BTX hack as hacktivism in the sense that it's a hacktivism to achieve a political goal or was this just a side effect of the BTX hack? Actually I think the goal of the BTX hack was to leave political footprints I just think that Holland and when we had no clue that there was such a tremendous effect in the political sphere it was more or less an attempt to make a strike and when it turned out that they get so much attention for the BTX hack maybe I don't know for sure changed their mind and tried to exploit the political effect Any more questions? If we don't have any more questions please give a huge round of applause for Kai for his talk