And now to announce the speakers. These are Diego Naranjo, who is a senior policy advisor at ADRI and Andrea Beleu, whose campaigns and communications manager also at ADRI. ADRI stands for European Digital Rights, which is an umbrella organization of European NGOs active in the field of freedom, rights and the digital sphere. CCC is actually a founding member of it. And they will be talking about citizens or subjects, the better the control of our bodies, speech and communications. The floor is yours. This one, this one here, this is my phone. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My phone is my best friend.  This is my phone, but what makes it mine? I mean, it might be quite obvious right now that I'm holding it for all of you. What is not that obvious, though, is that my phone is also holding me. On one hand, we use our phones. We use it to connect to the Internet, get online with our friends, exchange opinions, coordinate actions. On the other hand, we are used. We are used by third parties, governmental, private, who through our phones, through our devices, monitor. They monitor our location, our bodies, our speech, the content we share. At ear level right now, there's a sort of a pattern. There is this tendency, a trend, almost. Certain laws like the e-privacy, the copyright directive, the terrorist regulation have this very central core that we call the body and speech control. It looks like it is really the driving force in the moment. So in the next 40 minutes or so, what we will do is give you short updates about these laws. Talk to you a bit about what their impact is on us and what do they mean past article X and Y. And hopefully convince you to get involved in changing how they look right now. Well, we represent the rights as Walter was mentioning before. We are 39 human rights organizations from all across Europe. We work on all sorts of human rights in the online environment, so-called digital rights. We work on data protection, net neutrality, privacy, freedom of expression online, and so on. And Andrea and I are glad to be for our very first time here at 35C3. Now to continue that quote from that adapted quote from Four Metal Jacket. My phone without me is useless. Without my phone, I am useless. We spend most of our seconds of our lifetime around devices that are connected to the internet, whether a phone, a computer, a fridge or what not. This means that these devices pretty much become attached to our bodies, especially a phone. Tracking these devices, therefore, is equal to tracking our bodies, controlling our bodies. For the purpose of this presentation, we will talk about online tracking in terms of location tracking, the tracking of our devices, the behavior tracking of users on websites, how much do they spend on, I don't know, what part of a website, where do they navigate next, how many clicks do they give, and the tracking of communication sent between two devices. First, location tracking. They are on average more screens on most of the households than we have people. We carry some of these devices in our pockets and they have more personalized information than most diaries used to have before. Our phones need to be tracked because they need to be able to receive and send calls, messages, data. But this opens, of course, new ways to use location data for commercial purposes, but also for state surveillance. When it comes to behavioral tracking, tracking our behavior online provides a lot more information than just location. It adds on top of it, right? A user can then be targeted according to that tracking. And the more this targeting, not tracking, targeting process basically represents the business model of the internet nowadays. For this reason, the more complex and detailed someone's profiling is, well, the more accurate the targeting can be done, the more effective and efficient most of the times, and therefore, more valuable the data about the profile is. You can see here a really cool infographic from Cracklabs, Axiom and Oracle profiling of populations. You see the amount of variables and the amount of information in the depth where it goes, and you get that business model cash flow. And this business model is quite interesting. I wouldn't imagine a postman going to my physical mailbox at home, going through my letters, and then putting some leaflets for advertising according to what he reads. Right now, J-Mail and many other services, that's what they do. They leave out, as you well know, reading your emails to sell your stuff that you don't really need. Facebook conversations now are, through the API, are an option. They want to read those conversations in order to find patterns, for example, for intellectual property infringements, especially for counterfeiting, but not only also for copyright. Now, also, the WhatsApp metadata is used by Facebook in order to know who your friends are, who you contact, who your family is, in order for that social media services to gain more and more power, more and more data, and more and more profit, of course. The life of others. Quite a good movie. If you haven't seen the movie, I guess everyone has seen it. If not, you should. It's basically about a stasi agent who follows the life of an individual through a period of time. After the Snowden revelations, this movie has changed in a way from a drama to a soft comedy, because the capabilities of surveillance services, to avail all of us, to get so much data also for companies, to get so much intimate information from us, has double, triple, or perhaps exponentially grown compared to what the stasi could do back then. And all of this, to some extent, is going to be regulated by this regression with a very, very long name. I guess half of you have fell asleep already by going through it, but I'll go through it quickly to let you know what it is about. Why do we need to know about ePrivacy regulation? Why is it important for the control of our bodies and our devices? The ePrivacy is about online tracking. You might have heard of the cookie directive, the one bringing all those cookie banners on your screens in parties and due to a bad implementation of this directive. It is also about your emails. Who is going to be able to read your emails to use the data from your emails to sell you advertising or not, how confidential that information can be? It's also about your chats, how you communicate nowadays with your WhatsApp signal wire or any other devices. And finally, it's also about location data. Who can track you? Why can they track you? And what are the safeguards that needs to be put in place in order to safeguard your privacy? And I can imagine many of you saying, well, don't we have already this GDPR thingy of the emails received in May? Yes, we do have that, but the GDPR was not enough. After more than four years of discussions to achieve this general data protection regulation, we achieved a lot. And the GDPR was the best possible outcome in that current political scenario. And there's a lot to do regarding the implementation, though. We have seen problems in Romania, in Spain, and we expect that to happen in many other places. But we still need a specific instrument to cover the right to privacy in the electronic communications, including everything we mentioned before, metadata, chats, location data, the content of your communications, and so on. So ePrivacy is basically meant to complement GDPR and be more focused on exactly the topics that Diego mentioned. What did we advocate for and still do? Privacy by design and privacy by default should be the core principles, the pillars of these regulations. Moreover, politicians need to recognize the value of maintaining and enhancing secure encryption. Cookie walls. I mean, we should be able to visit a website without having to agree to being tracked by cookies. This is another topic that we strongly advocated for. And finally, content should be protected together with metadata in storage and in transit. We actually succeeded. Last year in 2017, at the end, the parliament adopted a very good text, a very strong text. It supported most of the problems that, no, it addressed most of the problems that we pointed at and supported the values that we're going through. But this has been quite a ride. I mean, it wasn't easy. As Diego said, we're a network, 39 organizations. They're not just legal people or tech people. It's a combination of both. So when we provided our input in the shape of analysis or recommendations, some bulleted there, all sorts of skills were combined. And this played a big part of our success, the fact that we were able to provide a comprehensive, yet complex analysis of what encryption should look like, of what cookies should act like, and also a legal analysis of existing legislation. The diversity of our skills became productive. Did we win? Well, we are on our way. After the EU parliament adopted its position, now it needs to sort of enter into a discussion with the member states. It was called the Council of the EU. So the parliament with a strong position is now to talk with the rest of the member states, right? Currently, the negotiations around the privacy are not really moving forward. They are being delayed by the national governments. They claim that there are issues that need to be tackled, that is very technical, that we already have the GDPR. We need to see how it is implemented. And member states fear that another layer of protection may impede that some businesses grow in the European Union. And if this was not enough, they are also afraid of getting bad press from the press, who right now depends to a high extent on behavioral advertising. They say that without tracking you all over the internet, they are unable to sustain their business model. And of course, since the national governments, the politicians are afraid of that bad press from the press, then they are quite cautious to move forward. Online, we exercise our free speech in many ways, but one of those ways is the way we produce, share, or enjoy content online. Our opinions, the people with whom we communicate can be seen as a threat in a given time by certain governments. We've seen the trend in certain governments such in Poland, Hungary, and to a certain extent as well in Spain. All of this information can be as well very profitable. As we see with the mainstream social media platforms we were mentioning before. So they are political and economical reasons to control speech. And that's why the best way to control speech is to control the way that content is shared online. Right now, there are two proposals that raise huge threats to freedom of expression online. Both propose upload filters by increasing liability for platforms, making platforms, companies responsible for the content which they host. One of them is the famous article 13 of the copyright and directive proposal. And the second one is the regulation to prevent the dissemination of terrorist content online. Both of them are private companies. As you will see, they are just another way to make private companies the police and the judge of the internet. This is the first one, the proposal for the director again with a long name. Just stick to the short name, the copyright directive. And this copyright directive is based on a fable. The fable goes like this. There are a wide range of lonely and poor songwriters in their attic trying to make money. And the fable comes for their audience. Then there are these big platforms, mainly YouTube, but also others that allow these uploads and gain profit. And these platforms give some money, some small amount of money for these authors. And the difference between what they earn and what they should be earning is what they call the value gap. The fable though conveniently hides the fact that it's not just a year after year after year, that increase the revenues to a high percentage every year. And that keeps growing especially in the online world. What is the solution to this problem? Well, as you can imagine, it's a magical algorithm that will solve this problem. And this algorithm will filter each and every file that you upload to these platforms, will identify it and match it and will block or allow the content, depending if it is licensed or not, and if they like you or not, and according to the terms of service in the end. As we will mention, there are some technical and legal problems with upload filters. In essence, if they are implemented, it will mean that YouTube and Facebook will officially become the police and the judge of the internet. The other big fight that we have is around terrorism, to be specific about terrorist content online. After the Cold War, we needed a new official enemy once communism fell. Terrorism is a new threat. It's very real to some extent. We lived through it in Brussels recently, but it has been also exaggerated and inserted in our daily lives. We see that in the airport controls, surveillance online and offline, restrictions for freedom of assembly and expression all over Europe. And whenever a terrorist attack occurs, we see pushes for legislation and measures that restricts our freedoms. Usually, those restrictions stay even though the risk of the threat has disappeared or has been reduced. Again, there we go with the long name. Let's take to the short name. This regulation to prevent the dissemination of content or terrorist content. This proposal allegedly aims at reducing terrorist content online. Not illegal content, terrorist content, in order to reduce risks of radicalization. This avoids what we have seen through the experience that a lot of radicalization happens outside the online world, and that radicalization has other causes, which are not online content. It seems that politicians need to send a strong signal before the elections. We need to do something strong against terrorism, and the way to do that is through three measures. Three measures, three, as we will see in a minute. First, SPD consulates take-dance. My favorite. Platforms will need to remove content based, which has been declared terrorist content by some competent authorities. This definition of terrorist content is, of course, vague and also incoherent with other relevant pieces of legislation which are already in place but not implemented all across the EU. This removal needs to happen in one hour. This is sort of fast-food principles applied to online world, to audiovisual material, and they give you some sort of complaint mechanism, so you have any problem with your content being taken down, you can go and see if this content is legal, please take it back. But in practice, as you read it, you will see that it's likely to be quite ineffective. First of all, also the overblocking will not be penalized, so if they overblock legal content, nothing will happen.  The second issue is those of measures for voluntary consideration. According to this second measure, the states will be able to tell platforms, I have seen this terrorist content in your platform, but really, really bad. So I really felt I had to ask you, could you be so kind to have a look just if you wish, of course, no worries. And the platform then will decide according to their own priorities how to deal with this voluntary request. Third, good old upload filters. That's the third measure they are proposing. Upload filters are generally monitoring obligations in legal jargon are prohibited in EU legislation. But anyway, let's propose them, we'll see what happens. And in order to be able to push them in the legislation, let's give them an Orwellian twist to our filters. Let's call them in a different way. So we call them proactive measures. Platforms will need to proactively prevent certain content is uploaded. How will they prevent this? Upload filters, of course. I mean proactive measures. And whether it is copyright or terrorist content, we see the same trend. We see this one size fits all solution. A filter, an algorithm that will compare all the content that is uploaded, will match it against a certain database, and then we block it or not. We will need many filters, not only one filter. We need filters for audio, for images, for text, and also one specifically for terrorist content, whatever that is defined. So this is basically the principle of lawmaking today. We really want filters. What can we invent to have them? We've got an issue with filters. Well, quite a few issues. But in big, an issue. First of all, they're illegal. The European Court of Justice said like this, a social network cannot be obliged to install a general filtering covering all of its users in order to prevent the unlawful use of musical and audio-visual work, in the case salon versus network. Despite this, it seems that automated content filters are okay. Not general filtering covering all of its users. Of course, there are the technical issues. Yeah, there are some technical issues. One of my best examples, the magnificent examples of how filters do not work, was James Rose, the pianist that we few weeks ago tried to upload a video of himself playing Bach in his living room. The algorithm detected some copyrighted content owned by Sony Music and automatically took down the content. Of course, he complained. He took the content back. But it's obvious that it's a good example of how filters do not work because one piece of Bach who died around 300 or 400 years ago is, of course, out of copyright. And with this, the video of a famous artist is taken down. We can imagine the same for many of your content. So not only that filters don't recognize what is actually copyrighted and what is not, but they also don't recognize exceptions, such as remixes, caricatures, or parodies. When it comes to copyright, filters can't tell. And this is why memes were a central part of the protest against Article 13. And this is why we will show soon why this filter has huge potential for a political tool. Another issue with automated content filter is that they don't even recognize contexts either.  A girl decided to share her traumatic experience of receiving a lot of injuries, not injuries, insults. Insults in her mailbox from this person who was hating her a lot and threatening her. So she took it and copy pasted it on her Facebook account, made a post, and her profile was taken down. Why? Because the automated solutions can't tell that she was the victim, not the actual perpetrator. And this is very likely to continue happening if this is the solution put forward. Then it's also a problem for SMEs, of course, because these filters are very expensive. YouTube spent around $100 million to develop Content ID, which is the best, worst filter that we have now online. So we can imagine how this is going to go for European SMEs that will need to copy that model, probably getting a license from them, I can imagine, in order to implement those filters online. In the end, this will just empower these big companies who already have their filters in place, so they will just keep doing their business as usual. And this new company that would like to develop a different business model will be prevented from doing so, because they will need to spend a lot of money on these filters. Then there's the issue of privatized law enforcement, the privatization of law enforcement. Attributes change. Past state attributes are now shifted over, can you take care of it, to entities that are not really driven by the same values that a state should at least be driven by. I'll just give you one example from a project called the Mandala Project, a study commissioned by the parliament to look at hate speech definition in different EU member states. Their conclusion, their huge disparities between what it means hate speech, what hate speech means in Germany compared to what hate speech means in Romania to what it means in the UK. So in this context, how can we ask a company like Google or Facebook to find the definition? I mean, are their terms and conditions the standard that we should see as the one influencing our legal definitions? Am I the only one seeing conflict of interests here? There's a problem there that once we have these filters for copyright infringements or any other purposes, like terrorist content, we of course will have it as a political tool. Once we have this for copyright, why are you not going to look for those dissidents in every country? Dissidents change very often. I see that in Spain, but I see it all across the EU nowadays. So once we have them in place for one thing, one small thing like copyright, why not for something else, something more political. There's a really interesting example coming from Denmark. Some year or a year and a half ago, the social democrats announced their immigration plan. They made a video in which Mette Friedrichsen talked about how great their plan is. Some people were happy, some were sad. Some of the sad ones decided to criticize the plan and made a video about it. It was a critique during which they caricatured her, but they used two audio bits from their announcement video. Social democrats sent a letter to the NGO accusing them of copyright infringement and threatening a lawsuit. Obviously the NGO thought, yeah, we don't really have enough money to go through a big court case, so we're just going to take the video down. They took it down. Now, why is this case important? If an automated content filter for copyrighted material would have been in place, the social democrats wouldn't have to even lift a finger. The job would be automatically done. Why? Automated content filters can't tell exceptions such as parodies. And this is a very clear case on how copyright infringement can be strategically used to silence any critical voices in the political sphere. So we see a few threats to fundamental rights. First on privacy, they will need to scan every piece of content so they can discard this information. Then we will live in a sort of black box society that will affect freedom of speech. We will face also over-sensoring, over-blocking, chilling effects, and these tools which are going to be repurposed as a political tool. In a nutshell, rights can only be restricted when there is a proof of necessity, when the measure is proportional, and when this measure is also effective. These filters are not necessary for the ends they want to achieve. They are not proportional as we have seen, and they are not effective as we have seen as well. So these in effect they are unlawful restriction of freedom of expression and privacy rights. Now, obviously we were also unhappy about these and I mentioned before how we organized within our network to fight to get a strong privacy. When it comes to copyright, this fight went out of our network. It got a lot of people mad. People like librarians, startups, the UN special rapporteur, all of those there basically and more, and even YouTube in the end who thought about endorsing our great campaign. What we learn from these fights is that we really need to share knowledge between us. We need to team up, coordinate actions, be patients with each other. When it comes to different skills it is important to unite them. When it comes to different perspectives it is important to acknowledge them. If we're separate individuals by ourselves we're just many, but if we're together we're one big giant. That is where the impact lays. Now this is basically a call to you. If you're worried about anything that we've told you today if you want to support our fight if you think that laws aimed at controlling our bodies and our speech should not be the ones that should rule us and our internet, I think it's time to get involved.  We will have two workshops, one on privacy, one on upload filters. We will be answering more questions if you have and you can't ask them today and try to put together an action plan. We also have a cluster called About Freedom that you can't see there, but it's right by the info point in SSL. Do you have any questions or comments? Thank you. There's ample time for Q&A so fire away if you have questions, walk through the microphone, wave your hand signal angel, are there questions from the internet? Mic from number one. Good question, I don't know. I don't think that's going to be possible but they're going to find a way to do that because either yet they ban the encryption in the channels or it doesn't matter because they will make you liable. If you have a platform with encrypted channels and you have everything there, but by any reason they find any copyrighted content which is not a license, which you're not paying money for, they will make you liable. Perhaps in practice they will not be able to find you to make you liable because they will not be able to access the content, but if they find a way to do so, they will make you pay. Okay, microphone number two. Thank you very much for the presentation. You've been talking a lot about upload filters. A lot of the telcos and the lobbyists are saying that the upload filters don't exist. The trilog mechanism for the copyright reform is, as I've heard, ending in January and there will be solution in the European legislation process. How will we be able to inform this process and influence it to try and make it better before the European elections? Well, we still have time. That's why we hear one of our main goals to be in 35C3 apart from enjoying the conference for our very first time, is to mobilize all of those who have not been mobilized yet. Thousands of people have been active, they have been tweeting, they have been calling their MEPs, the members of the European Parliament, they have been contacting the national governments but we still have time. The vote will be sometime around January, we still don't know. We are afraid it's going to be sooner than expected but this is the last push, the last push to say no to the entire directive and say no to upload filters and that's why we are here because we still have time. Worst case scenario will go to the implementation phase of course. We go to national member states and say, do not do this, this goes against the Charter Fundamental Rights and then we will stop it there. But either now, which is my hope, or in the worst case scenario we will stop it for sure in member states. Microphone number one. What do the companies have to do with that? Well, they could do that for different reasons because they could get bad PR. Imagine you are a small company in Hungary and then goes Orban and tells you you need to block this because I think this is terrorist. It comes from a human rescue organization. What would you do if you are an SME that depends on perhaps not on the government, but on the general structure, you could get bad PR from the government, you could be perhaps still because you're not acting promptly on this terrorist content but it's true. That is only for your voluntary consideration. Again, microphone number one. Thanks for the talk. I also think when I see a problem, oh there is a technical solution, so it's hard for me to admit maybe not. It does look like it's the case but also when you mention in the workshop maybe more with a, I mean anybody can come but more eventually with a legal background. I don't have it. I'm a developer but I want to understand how a system is working and I understand a little bit about the European process and the regulatory process but so not so much. So what's the most efficient way for me as a developer to get a better grasp of how this system, all those regulations are getting implemented and all the different steps? Well yeah, we didn't come to the lawyer's computer congress. We came to a chaos computer congress so I hope you can make chaos out of it. We need developers, we need the lawyers, we need the journalists, we need graphic designers, we need people with all sorts of skills as Andrea was saying before and we need developers to develop tools that work. So you are capable of developing any calling tool, any anything or any sort of tool that we can use to transform our message and take it to Brussels, take it to the members of the European parliament, take it to the national member states. We really need you. If we need something, it's developers. We have enough lawyers in this world. I think we have too many in Edry with myself already so we need you tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Okay, any other questions? In that case, I'll ask one myself. Andrea, what will be your start at the member state level to start campaigning if you've never campaigned before? What, can you please repeat? What will be a good start if one wanted to campaign at their member state level? And never campaign before? Yes, campaigning for dummies. Well, we've got a lot of organizations in EU member states so as a person who has never campaigned before and was for someone to campaign with two years ago in Denmark I was advised to look for the Danish Edry member so I did and we managed to organize a lot of great workshops in Denmark where nothing existed because I think all the Danish member had a very complex grasp of the political environment and most of the Danish Edry members understand how this is, how the dynamic is working both politically but also journalists, also what the interests of certain nationalities are so I would say that find your first Edry organization is the first step and then unite with the rest And if there's no Edry member you can always contact consumer organizations, you can contact directly your members of the parliament, you can organize yourself with two or three friends and make a few phone calls, that's also already enough that you can do so there are many ways for you to help out. Of course, make sure you contact your country's MEP. At European level we are being represented and we get to actually elect the parliamentaries, they're the only one who are elected by us and not just proposed by governments or other politicians so if we want to be connected to our country member state but influence a law at European level, like the ones we talked about, it is very important to let our EU parliamentaries know that we are here and we hear them and they came from our country to represent us at EU level. Thank you. Any other questions? Sigma Angel, do we have questions from the internet? Unfortunately not. In that case we're finished. Thank you all for your attention.


Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Dragnet! The documented drama of an actual crime, investigated and solved by the men who unrelentingly stand watch on the security of your home, your family, and your life. For the next 30 minutes in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department, you will travel step-by-step on the side of the law through an actual case from official police files, from beginning to end, from crime to punishment. This is the story of your police force in action. Dragnet! It was Tuesday, March 25th. It was cold in Los Angeles. We were working the night watch out of homicide. Detectives in Los Angeles work in pairs. My partner's Ben Romero. He's a sergeant, so am I. My name's Friday. The boss is Ed Backstrand, Chief of Detectives. I was on the way back from the record bureau, and it was 13 minutes past 11 when I got to room 42. Homicide. That's a hot shot. Somebody grab it. I got it, Ed. One, two, four, five, East Ohini Street. One, two, four. Two officers shot. At one, two, four, five, East Ohini Street. Two officers shot. What have you got, Friday? Traded. Two officers shot. Where's Romero? Right here, Skipper. Okay, you've got one to roll on. Get going. Both Ben and I knew where we were heading. We'd recognize the address. It was the Trapdoor Cafe, a joint in the south end of town that did business with a pretty rough crowd. 13 minutes later, we pulled up in front. Two patrolmen had the crowd pretty well pushed back. It was a cruiser car in front of the cafe. The car door was open, and an officer was sprawled across the sea. He was conscious but weak, and one of his pant legs was pretty red. And one of his pant legs was red, and one of his pant legs was red. Hello, Sergeant. Hi. How are you doing? I've done better. Yeah, well, what happened? Williams and I were cruising. We've been keeping an eye on this cafe lately. Tonight, we decided to take a look. And just as we went in, two guys left in a hurry. The back door. We followed them out into the alley. It was dark out there, and I called them. I said, hey, fellas, just a minute. I want to talk to you. Will you stop? I'll see. One of them whirled.  He shot both of us. Left hand, huh? Williams went down and up. I went down, but I took a shot at them. No effect. And I started crawling out here to the car so I could crawl in. You started crawling? Yeah. Oh, wait a minute. Emerson, weren't there any people around for that time? Oh, yeah. Quite a few ran out after the shots. You mean nobody would help you to the car? That's right. Did you get a good look at either of the gunmen? Well, one of them was tall. I think he was a redhead. That was something funny about his nose. That's all I saw. It's too dark out there. Williams was closer. I think he got a good look. Joe, the other officer, Williams. He's in pretty bad shape. Is he breathing? He's still alive, Emerson. I don't know how much time he's got. Ambulance? On the way. OK. Let's round up all the men who were in the café. We're taking them in. We took all the men back to the city hall. There were 23 in the trapdoor café at the time of the shooting. We questioned all of them. One of them said there had been a redhead in the place, but he couldn't describe him. Ben and I left the interrogation room, and we went back to the squad room. Friday, Romero. Got a minute? Yeah, Ed. Come on, Ben. You get anything from those people you questioned? Nothing we could use. How's Williams? He's pretty bad. When do they operate? Soon as he comes out of shock. Probably in the morning. Your boys will be there. Yeah, we will. When the surgeon digs that slug out, get it and mark it for evidence. Yeah. Skipper them two men shot without asking any questions. They must be hot. Yeah. Same thing occurred to me. When we get that slug, the ballistics can tell us whether that gun's been used on other jobs. We've got enough of their motosoperandi to have the statistician give us a run-through on the IBM now. One of them is left-handed, and he shoots quick. Okay. Be in surgery tomorrow morning at 9. Neither Ben or I said much on the way home. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Neither Ben or I said much on the way home. But we were both thinking the same thing. I knew the chief was thinking it too. Here were two men who'd shot a couple of police officers without asking any questions. Now, I suppose you've heard a lot of stories about what the force thinks of cop killers. Sure. We don't like to lose our friends and partners any better than anybody else would. Why not figure it this way? If these two guys would gun a couple of armed police officers, do you think they'd hesitate to shoot you, the unarmed citizen? The next morning at 9 o'clock, Ben and I had scrubbed up and we were in surgery. Williams was on the table. The surgeon started him. A lot of minutes later, he got the slug. As for Williams, they took out seven feet of his intestine and said he might pull through. Here's a report from Ballistics. Slugly took out a Williams come from a 44 Smith & Wesson. A same gun was used in a liquor store killing about a month ago. You call the statistician? Yeah, uh-huh. She's running all the cards on previous shooting through the IBM machine. She ought to be through about now. Let's take a look. Okay, come on. Okay. Well, that's it, boys. These cards will give you all the shootings pulled by two men on foot. A shot quick, one of them left-handed. Right. They're all yours. Sure can tell a lot from just a bunch of little holes in these cards, can't you? I can't, but this IBM machine can. Never ceases to amaze me. Okay. Shall we check the cards, huh? Yeah, sure, sure. Wait a minute, Ben. Here we are. Huh? Yeah. Here's that liquor store killing Ballistics tied the Smith & Wesson in on. Same gun that Emerson Williams shot with? It checks out. The liquor store was in the same neighborhood as the Trapdoor Cafe. Same gun, huh? Got to be. How long ago? A month ago, yeah. Ben, take the D.I. number off this card and let's pull the crime report on that job. We pulled the crime report out of the files. It said that there was only one witness to that liquor store killing a month ago. That witness was a woman. Miss Forbes, I'm sorry to disturb you like this, but we'd like to ask some questions about that liquor store killing you witness a little over a month ago. Well, I told the police everything I knew about it then. Yeah, we know, but maybe you wouldn't mind telling us again, huh? No, I guess not. I've been trying to forget it to tell the truth. It was pretty terrible and I really didn't see so very much because I was awful scared. I understand, but try to describe again just what happened, will you? Well, it was about ten o'clock at night. I was walking down the street toward home and I realized I was all out of cigarettes. Well, I was right in front of the liquor store then, so I went in. The clerk was behind the counter and there were two men standing there arguing. What's the idea of changing your mind? I thought we was going to get bourbon. No, let's get the wine. I want bourbon. Gosh, too much wine's good enough. The rest of them want bourbon too. We better talk. Well, okay. We'll be back when we make up our mind, Mr. Two men walked out of the store and the clerk smiled at me and shrugged his shoulders. I bought a pack of cigarettes and turned to leave. But just then the two men came back in again and each of them had a gun in his hand. There's a stick up, Mr. The clerk just sort of crumpled at the floor. I couldn't believe my eyes, but that's just how it happened. The men said this is a stick up and then they shot him right away. Get over against the wall, lady, or you'll get the same. One of them punched the no sale on the cash register. I was shaking so I almost caved in. He scooped the money out of the drawer and stuffed it into his pocket. And then the other one went over to where the liquor clerk was lying face down. He knelt down beside the clerk and he put his gun against the clerk's spine. Then they both ran out of the store. It was terrible. That clerk, he was lying there helpless and wounded me. They delivered it. Yeah, Miss Forbes, I understand. Miss Forbes, you said that both of the men had guns. Yes.  What do you mean, Miss Forbes? Well, it was real shiny. Nickel plated? I wouldn't know about that, but it was shiny. There were two guns, huh? Yes. Well, now about the men themselves. I was so scared their faces just didn't register with me. The one who shot the clerk at the back was sort of stocky. That's about the best I can do. You mentioned in the report that one of the men was left handed. Yes, I do remember that. Uh-huh. Look, Miss Forbes, this is very important to us. One of the men was a redhead. Redhead? Well, no, I didn't see any redhead. Scare for me and George run right smack into a stone wall on this thing. What's the complication? Well, there's more than one, Ed. In the first place, we know that the 44 Smith and Wesson was used in both shootings, but the descriptions of the men involved don't check. Police officer Emerson said he thought the man that shot him and Williams outside the Drapdoor Cafe was a tall left-handed redhead. So there's something funny about his nose. You think Williams got a better look at him? Probably did, but Williams isn't strong enough to talk yet. And a girl that witnessed the liquor store killing a month ago said that one of those men was left handed. But she said neither of them was a redhead. And on top of all that, now we've got two guns to worry about. The girl mentioned two guns, so we checked the autopsy report on that liquor clerk. And he had the bullet that actually killed him came from a 32-20, not a 44 Smith and Wesson. That fact didn't get any publicity at the time, did it? No, it didn't. Okay. We won't give it any publicity now, either. With the law down, it's just the 44 Smith and Wesson we're after. Because of whoever owns the 32-20 finds out it's hot, we'll never get it. Anything else? Well, we sent teletypes to all outland stations in neighboring cities. I told them that they'd get any red-headed suspects, no matter what charge they got them on and hold them for questioning. Yeah. Now, how about this 32-20, the actual murder weapon? And he leads on it. We've got one, Ed. We've been checking the records and we discovered that four hours after the liquor store killing a taxi driver in the neighborhood was shot and robbed. The lug was pretty well mashed, but there was enough to tell it was from a 32-20. So we're going over to question the taxi driver now. Good. Well, I think you boys are on the right trail. So far what we've got is mostly unrelated facts, but sooner or later those facts have all to tie in at some point along the line. Find that point. Yeah, find the point. Find the tie in. Well, Ben and I went over to see the taxi driver, a guy who was living on borrowed time. Yeah, it was about two o'clock in the morning when it happened. I got a call to pick up a fare near 105th and Avalon, you know, yeah. Well, I got there, somebody came over, pulled up in my cap door and said, this is stick up. Then blowy, you let me have it. Just like that, huh? Yeah, just like that. Same deal as others, Joe. Itchy trigger finger. Yeah. Did you get any kind of a look at the fella? No, no, it's too dark. Uh-huh. Hey, according to the report, you got shot in the chest. Yeah, that's right.  I'll tell you, pal. It's like something you'd seen in a bad movie, you know? I'm carrying a few silver dollars with me, nine of them, to be exact. So I decided to stick them in my breast pocket. Well, mister, that just saved my life. The slug hit them silver dollars. That's the one for the book, huh? Yeah, you said it. Well, thanks very much. Say, incidentally, we had a little trouble finding you today.  Well, look, look, I'm not only not at my usual stand, I'm not driving a hack no more. Uh-huh. Look, after what happened, are you kidding? No, I don't want to push my luck any further than it's been pushed. I figure I had it, you know? And about that time, Ben and I were beginning to figure we'd had it. We were getting nowhere fast. We had a few informants nosing around, but so far, they hadn't come up with any leads. Well, Ben and I followed up all the teletypes that poured in. We just got back from Santa Ana where we'd been questioning a red-headed suspect, and we'd flopped in the squad room when Chief Backstrand's door opened. Friday. Camero. Got a minute? Yes, Kim. Any luck with the Santa and the redheads? No, none at all. Yeah. I guess you haven't heard the latest. We just now got back in town, Kim. The driver got shot. What? Yeah. A man came up to his taxi, opened the door, said, this is a stick up, and shot him. Well, it went through one leg and into the other, but the driver managed to start his cab and drove over to a cafe. He called in from there. Oh, boys were covered to slug? Yeah. He came from the same 44 Smith and Wesson that was used in the other two jobs. The cab driver got a look at the gunman. Yeah, briefly. Was it the redhead? No. Oh, the stocky guy. It wasn't redheaded, it wasn't stocky. It's all the driver knows. They're beginning to sound like a gun of the month club. You reckon somebody's renting them guns out? Well, they're passing the guns around all right, but I think they're working together the way they operate indicates that. Yeah, the trigger had the real thing. Killing is apparently more than a business to them. It's a pleasure, too. That's why we've got to get to them fast. Come over here. All right. Here, take a look at this map. Uh-huh. Here's the trapdoor cafe, and over is the liquor store. Down here is where the first cab driver got shot. Right here's where the second one got it. All of the shootings have taken place within an area of 10 square blocks. Okay. Tonight, we're going to throw a blockade around that whole area. Good. It'll go into effect at 10 p.m. At 9.45 p.m., cars and officers started drifting into the area by 2s and 3s. At a 10, when Backstrand, Ben and I arrived, the whole area was sewed up tighter than a tick. Davis? All set. All set. We got a primary and secondary line. If anyone tries to make a break, we'll pick them up in the secondary. Okay. Friday in Romero here, we'll cruise around the area with me. Go to work, man. Every car in the area was shaken down. The same process was also followed on all persons on foot. The blockade went on all night. By the end of that time, we brought in 217 suspects. 26 of them were redheads. What's your name? Henry Wagner. What do you work? What's one? Four stars. What time did you get to work last night? About six, I guess. What'd you do then? At some dinner. Where? Uh, Harry's Grill. Then what? Shot a little pool.  Now, let's go back to the day before yesterday. And that's the way it went all day long. We shot question after question at them, working them gradually back to the days on which the shootings had taken place. When it was all over, we got six men with an assortment of guns and knives. But as far as the shootings were concerned, we got nothing. Well, I guess that's the last of them. Oh, I was running out of questions there, then.  Well, I was kind of figuring on checking back over the reports to see if we might have overlooked something. I said go on home. You two boys have been at it for 32 hours straight. Look at you. You both said groggy can hardly stand up. It's 4 p.m. now. Don't come back until 10 p.m. When I walked into the squad room at 10, Ben was already there. An informant had just phoned in a new lead. He told Ben he'd heard about a gang that had been hanging out down around the Devere bungalow court in the south end of town. We knew that the Devere was close to the trapdoor cafe, so we went over to talk to the manager. Joe, I've been meaning to ask you. You checked on how Williams is getting along. Yeah, I did. I called the hospital this afternoon. It's going to be all right. Oh, that's fine. The manager's open. Still got a lad on. I'm Sergeant Friday. Police. This is Sergeant Romero. Yeah? We'd like a little information. Well, sure. Come in. Thank you.  Gang? Well, no. How about your tenants here? Any of them ever been in trouble? Your knowledge? Once in a while one of them will get out of line, but when that happens we keep them out of here. You heaved anybody out lately? Yeah, I did. Following his wife a few weeks ago they had a fight in one of the bungalows. She took a shot at them but she missed. Party by the name of Stuba, Carl Stuba. What did this Stuba look like? Oh, sort of tall, skinny. Was he a redhead? No. Now, we'd like to take a look at that bungalow that he lived in. Sure. That does it. Stuba didn't leave a thing behind. Matter of fact, we don't have anything to prove that this Stuba is tied in at all. We're only working on our hunch. Hey, Joe, look where? Up on the wall there. Just for the window. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that plaster there, it's newer than the rest. You got a knife? Sure I have, boy, and I'm carving. That manager would be awful unhappy if he was here. Yeah, he would. Joe, here it is. A slug. A plastered right over. Okay, dig it out, and let's hope it matches. The slug from the wall came from the same 44 Smith & Wesson that had been used in the other shootings. So now we had a name to work on, Carl Stuba. But he'd done a good job of dropping out of sight. Well, the next day, Ben thought he had another lead. I've just been talking to another informant, Joe. He says he heard that there's a fella down in that neighborhood been trying to sell a gun lately. What kind of a gun? Nickel-plated with steer horn handles. Nickel-plated? Maybe that's our 44 Smith & Wesson. Maybe. Did the informant know who this man was? He had the fella's name was Alonzo. Yeah. Alonzo who? Yes, Alonzo. That's all he knew. So now we had two names, Stuba and Alonzo. But no men to go with him. So we went back to making the rounds of the substations, interviewing red-headed suspects. We took a few of them to Williams, who was home from the hospital by now, but he couldn't identify any of them as the man who shot him. Still, we kept checking. Finally, we got around to the 77th Street Station. We questioned the suspects they were holding there, and we just started to leave when one of the officers called us. Hey, sir, I'd work. Holding somebody else you might want to look at. Red-headed? No. What's the chore? Suspicion to burglary. Small job. Oh, I don't know. What do you think, Ben? What's spatial about him? He lives in the same neighborhood where those shootings took place. All right. Where you got him? Down here. You admit anything? No. He's pretty surly. Here we are. Hi. What do you want? I'm Sergeant Friday. This is Sergeant Romero. We'd like to ask you a few questions. Look, I already told the other cops all I know.  What's your name? We've been through all that once. Come on. What's your name? Jackson. Alonzo Jackson. Alonzo. I looked at Ben and Ben looked at me. This could be the Alonzo who had been trying to pedal at Smith and Wesson. Ben and I both knew there was one suspect we'd have to be real careful with. Alonzo, according to the records, this burglary you're suspected of took place on the night of the 27th. Look, how many times do I have to tell you guys they didn't have anything to do with it? You got an alibi for that night? Sure, I got an alibi. I was out with a couple of friends. I can tell you. What's your friend's name, Alonzo? One of them is Crannery of the Stuber. Stuber. The guy who used to live in the bungalow court. But we told Alonzo he'd have to produce his two friends to give him an alibi for the burglary charge and he bit. He went with this and he pointed out where Stuber was living now. No wonder we had been able to find him. There was a little shack at the back of a lot behind two houses. We thought it was a chicken coop at first. We took Alonzo back to the station and we picked up Stuber. He was surprised to see us and not very happy. We took him in. Next, Alonzo gave us Crandall's address. Mr. Crandall in? No. Will he be back soon? I don't know. Who are you? Sergeant Friday, Sergeant Romero Police. What do you want with him? Oh, nothing important, lady. We just wanted him as a witness. Oh. Well, I don't know just when he'll be back. Probably an hour or two. Okay, thank you. We went down the street away and we staked out in the car. We sat there for about five hours and then Ben nudged me in the ribs. Like Joe, huh? Joe, take a look. Coming along the sidewalk. Yeah. And he's got red hair. Come on. Crandall. Huh? Your name, Crandall? Who are you? Friday, Romero Police. Police? What do you want with me? I haven't done nothing. Well, then you got nothing in the world to worry about. Come on. We questioned Crandall for an hour, but he wouldn't give an inch. Denied everything. Then we put him in a car and we drove over to Officer Williams' house. I left Ben in the living room with Crandall while I went in Williams' bedroom. Hi, Williams. How you doing? A little better, I think. That's fine. Look, we've got another redhead outside. Bring him in. Okay. Crandall, come on in here. Who's in there? Why'd you bring me over here? Come on in here. How about it, Williams? That's the guy. No, I'm not. That's the guy that shot me. Well, Crandall. No. Yeah. It was an accident. I didn't mean to shoot him. It was an accident.  He also admitted being in on the liquor store killing but insisted he was only the look-out. We took him back to the station and got his whole story down on a tape recorder. Yeah, he was left-handed. Then we went back to Alonzo, who didn't know we had Crandall's confession. We met the chief in the hall outside the room where they were holding Alonzo. About ready to tire the knot? Oh, hope so, Chief. But Alonzo hasn't given any yet and we still haven't found those guns. We've got one of them. Which one? The Smith and Wesson. Stuber popped about that one ten minutes ago. So he left it with his girl. A couple of the boys are on their way over to get it now. That's good, Ed. That leaves just the 32-20. You have mentioned the 32-20 to Alonzo, have you? No. He still thinks we're after that Smith and Wesson and that's the way we're going to play it right now. Go ahead. Look, how much longer are you guys going to hold me here? Didn't you check with us friends of mine? Alonzo, we've got a tip that you've been trying to sell a gun, Leighton. A gun? Yeah. 44 Smith and Wesson. No, it's not true. That Smith and Wesson's been using a couple of robbery jobs this month and we think it's your gun. That's a lie. Any proof of that? Well, yeah, sure I got proof of that. I used to have a gun, but it wasn't a Smith and Wesson. Look, if I tell you where it is, that ought to convince you, shouldn't it? It'll help things. Okay. I sold it to a neighbor of mine. He gave me seven bucks. I'll give you his address. You sure it's not a Smith and Wesson? Sure, I'm sure. It's a 32-20. Yeah, it worked. We went to the neighbor's address and he admitted having bought the 32-20, but said he lent it to a friend who'd never returned it. The friend had hocked the gun to a barber. The barber gave him 15 bucks and a haircut for it. We finally got it from the barber and we came back to the station. I'm all set, Joe. I'll be in the next room. Just give me the knife. Okay. Hello, Alonzo. Hey, you got the gun. Yeah, we got the gun. Well, now maybe you'll believe I'm on the level. Okay, if I go now. I guess we won't be able to hold you here much longer. You can say that again, brother.  I guess you're right, Alonzo. Sure, I'm right. You know, you guys would be a lot better off.  Instead of running around. I was on a lookout. I was outside. It was the other two who pulled that one. Stoop on Alonzo. Alonzo killed a clerk. Hold it, Alonzo. All right, Alonzo, that's enough. Come on, how about it? Okay, Ben, bring the recorder in here. Alonzo's ready to make a record now. By playing back Crandall's statement that we'd recorded earlier, we got a full confession from Alonzo. We took the three of them out and had them re-enact the four shootings, and we photographed it on sound film. Crandall the redhead was the one who'd shot the two police officers, but he was only the lookout for the liquor store killing, which explains why the girl witness didn't see him in the store. Stupa and Alonzo were the ones who pulled that job, and Alonzo, the worst of the bunch, was the one who put the 3220 against the spine of the wounded clerk. The three of them took turns at shooting the cab drivers and robbing them. That accounted for the mixed-up descriptions, including all that left-handed business. Two of the three suspects happened to be left-handed. Well, that was the crop. Crandall Alonzo, Stupa. Four shootings, three robberies, four attempted murders, one murder. The three men were tried and convicted. They're all in the state penitentiary. Crandall's there for life. Alonzo and Stupa, they'll be executed next week. File it, will you, Ben? The story you have just heard was true. Only the names were changed to protect the innocent. You have just heard the second in a new series of authentic cases from official files. Technical advice for Dragnet comes from the Office of C. B. Horrell, Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department. Tonight's program is dedicated to Radio Officer Delmar E. Cook of the Los Angeles Police Department, who, on the afternoon of December 6, 1948, gave his life so that yours might be more secure. Dragnet came to you from Los Angeles. This is NBC, the national broadcasting company.


to finding your piece of the rock on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Abe Lee. I have been a licensed real estate agent since 1973. I'm the owner of Century 21, I-Propris Hawaii, and work with close to 100 wonderful agents in real estate sales. I started AB seminars in 1980. I have taught over 11,500 students to help them get their real estate licenses. I have taught continuing education classes for licensees to renew their licenses every two years. Our show is dedicated to helping buyers and sellers understand the process involved in a real estate transaction, our special guests will talk about legal issues, escrow, title, getting a loan, surveys, home inspections, insurance, contracts, wooden trust, and much, much more. Today, we're especially privileged to have a terrific architect and a planner, and his name is Phil Kemp. So, Phil, thank you so much for being with us. Thanks, Abe. My pleasure.  And I knew he wasn't a regular realtor to be. So I said, Phil, what are you doing in this class? He said, well, I just wanted to know more about real estate because I'm an architect. That's how we got to be friends and have gone to lunch every once in a while and we see each other at business meetings. So I thought, I'm going to have Phil on my show because he's got some really interesting things about his work and how it affects housing. So Phil, tell us a little background about where you grew up and your education and how you got involved in architecture. Sure, Abe, I love your art. A little bit, I know it doesn't look like it, but I am a local boy, a boarder raised here went to school at the Elani, went away to go to school in the mainland at USC and then had a good opportunity to work several places before I came back home, worked abroad in Singapore and then probably about a decade in Los Angeles, working on a large scale, mixed use multi-family projects up and down the West Coast before coming back home to bring that experience back to our local market. And then the other thing that's fairly unique that maybe not everybody knows about me and our practice is aside from being born raised here, I grew up in the construction trade. So our family owns and operates the largest scaffolding and showroom company, State of Hawaii as well at the sales. So ever since I could drive in the high schools on jobs, I used to bring scaffolding and showroom. So it helps bring a unique perspective when we're designing projects because I don't just look at it as an architect, but I think about how our contractor partners are gonna have to build it and support it and then how our owner partners are gonna have to maintain it and look after it when we're done. So yeah, we're very fortunate on both sides of the coin as you might say, coupled into our experience profile. Well, that's great. And besides that, your brother is, I guess the president of the scaffolding company who I've met once or twice, but your assistant law, she's really famous in the real estate lending business. Kathy, yeah. Kathy's at a CBB these days. So both my brothers run the day-to-day operation for our scaffold operation. I'm still an equal partner, but I'm not on the day-to-day ops. Obviously I have my hands filled doing architecture, but yeah, we were very fortunate to have some, everybody other than me, maybe Akamai family members that are understand design and the construction industry.  So she has her own claim to fame in her field of business. She is, she's my partner in more ways than one, but she's a very valued partner for hierarchy. So as I mentioned from Southern California, that's where I met her. So her family, which is a partner in team to our team here in Honolulu, she grew up doing a lot of mixed shoes, but more specifically a lot of civic and industrial, institutional buildings of schools, a lot of things that engage with the community. So we really make a pretty unique common where I do a lot of the mixed shoes, multi-family, and office industrial. She'll do the civic, institutional, and public outreach engagement. So helps make a well-rounded team where we try to help our client partnership. Great. Now as I looked at your website, you talked about focusing on sustainability and importance of ongoing education to be able to use these tools and resources to benefit each project, large projects and their impact on the housing market. So can you amplify on that? On the sustainability front? Well, yes. And the importance of ongoing education. All of it, as you know, education is a huge part of what you do, I was fortunate enough to participate in your class, I learned a lot, I always look at it as putting more tools in my toolbox. So not just understanding fee and title ownership and, because we have unique real estate roles here in Hawaii and even though I was born and raised here, it's always good to know more about it so I can help our local partners. But on the sustainability front, we just think it's really important that we're born here and live here and I don't plan on going anywhere. So how our design impacts our communities, it's really important to us, a lot of other teams and not the local teams, but say a mainland team if they're not focused in Hawaii, they don't live here, they may not care so much about the impact. But we absolutely think about how our buildings will impact our community around. So being on an island in the middle of a civic energy is a huge issue and sustainability really digs into energy consumption, but not just energy consumption, just how a building withstands its longevity. So are you gonna be continually maintaining it or ripping it apart to make it operable or are you thinking about those things as you move forward? So similar to your class, I think I found myself to become a lead certified professional. So for those who are familiar with lead, it's a leadership in energy design. So I usually look at that as kind of bricks and sticks of design. I'm also a well certified professional. So well is related to health and wellness so where lead focuses on bricks and sticks, well focuses on the people and the occupants within. So, you know, us humans. And then I'm also a certified energy manager and a certified construction manager. So to our GC partners, I'm always looking at, they have a huge hand in delivering good projects, right? We can design the greatest thing, but if we don't understand how our contractor partners are gonna bring these projects to life, it doesn't help our design. So I took it upon myself to understand the construction management side of that equation as well. So we can really help our client partners deliver. Now let's talk about lead because some people in the industry know what lead is. In fact, I've taken classes on lead because I was interested in how do you create energy efficient buildings? But tell us more about what's involved in getting a lead certified building and also a well certified building because I have not heard of well until I saw your website. Yeah, no, for sure. So lead, generally the overarching umbrella for lead is the United States Green Building Council. The founding member of the person who really was representative of starting lead was Rick Friderisi. He broke off and started the well initiative and so they're very similar part and parcel through Rick Friderisi's kind of presidency and leadership in setting both of those groups up. As far as going through certification processes, typically have a lead certified professional such as myself or the general contractor even the owner. And then you're pursuing a certification process as you go through design and construction. The process will entail prerequisites so there's certain things that you have to do just kind of baseline criteria. And then there's a scoring chart that allows you to approve additional points so you could be lead certified baseline certification, silver, gold or platinum as a highest level from the lead perspective of certification. And really it just elevates the benchmark of sustainability. It's not just energy conservation, there's natural daylighting because the amount of natural daylight that gets into a space impacts how people operate and talks about air quality. That was a huge issue that really people are starting to take interest in after COVID. Water, turbidity or the flatliness of the water that you consume. Most people thought that was gonna make any sense and nobody wanted to hear about it but then you heard about Flint, Michigan and then our own close to home, Redhill. It really impacts people. So the spaces we design and build absolutely have an impact on how you live. And then from a well perspective that's the health and wellness of the people there's this rule that we talk about. It's called the 33300 rule. And the general premise is you spend about $3 a square foot on utilities, about $30 a square foot on rent and by far and away, and this is related to office buildings but by far and away in any structure or any business that most important and costly for the people. And that you spend about $300 a square foot. So when you're looking at things and fear you say, hey, I wanna conserve energy, that's great. We're all for that. But that's turning the knob, that's the $3 a square foot knob, right? But if you can increase the health and wellness of a building and make it better for the occupants, reduce sick days, make them more attentive when they are at work, that's turning that $300 a square foot knob. So if you can improve the user interface and just the work experience of your employees, it's there's absolute economic returns on that. So that's where the well component comes in is focusing on the people. So now you think there's a gradation system, you think about silver, gold and platinum. How many buildings that are being built, say in Hawaii or on the mainland would hit that platinum level versus say, silver or gold? I mean, do you have any numbers? Ooh, I wouldn't have numbers. So it also depends on what market you're working. So for instance, for a long time and still in some of the federal markets, so government projects, military projects, NAFAC and the such, for a long time, they had a baseline standard that all the buildings had to be at least lead silver, I believe. So if you were looking in that sector, it'd be 100% of the projects for a time. It's not necessarily the case in all sectors of the government. And then also as you move through the US, there's different areas or globally because it's not a US centric platform, it's international, Hong Kong, you're all over the place. But if you use US as example, there's certain markets that will have more lead certified projects and it resonates with the buyer or the occupant or the building owner. And there's other markets where it doesn't really register and maybe there's not as much value. So there's a perceived value which might resonate in your market, say a single family home buyer. If they don't know what lead certification is, they're not gonna pay any more for it even though it means the building's healthier. But in a market where it's widely recognized and they know it's a certificate that confirms that that building is in fact the higher level of sustainability in a market that's well-recognized, they'll pay for, right? So it really depends, I don't know if that's a long-winded way of saying I can't give you a firm answer, but it depends on which market you're in and which locality you're in. And like I said, like if you're in a government market where it's required, then 100% of those projects will be lead certified in other markets, maybe not so much, but even like, say, Howard Hughes, that's a big part of their deliverable requirements. So if you look at most of the Howard Hughes projects in Coca-Cola, they have a pretty high level of lead certification, a lot of platinum ongoing projects on their portfolio where other development teams may not have that lead criteria. So they, and or they're not as interested in pursuing it. So, you know, it's important to their core machine. So they have a lot of... I know that large residential developments, developers like, say, Gentry or Castle & Cook or Hopi Lee, do they have some sort of lead certification for their buildings? Some of the developers do, like I mentioned, Howard Hughes certainly does, some of the other production builders, maybe not so much. And then there's other instances, like, say, you're doing two-one-h project, affordable housing projects, the state will mandate or request sustainable certification of some sort, typically lead is usually the most recognized. And if you're competing, sorry, for subsidized dollars or tax benefits and all the developers are in that market, if you can deliver a project that's really sustainable and has a high level of lead certification, you're more likely to win those tax dollars than, say, a project that doesn't. So you'll see a lot of two-one-h projects that are lead-certified. So our whole lane, for instance, that was an affordable rental in Cock-Ackle. Two-one-h project was a lead platinum project that helped us achieve two-one-h approval, our callable affordable housing project in Princeville, also lead platinum. So, you know, we really looked at the sustainability concept to help curry favor with the state because the state wants to incentivize high-level sustainability for their occupants if they're going to be paying and helping to fund these projects. They want projects that are going to last a long time. They're not going to be a draw on the energy grid and consume a ton of energy. So they're looking at the long game, right? I went to a seminar a few days ago or maybe a couple of weeks ago, and the speaker was talking about how they were looking at even recycling the brown water. And then, of course, making the building energy efficient by the way they directed where the wind flow was going to be and to reduce the air conditioning requirements or whatever. So do you folks think about all that while you're designing? Absolutely. I mean, you know, especially, and it's somewhat of a misnomer because, you know, a lot of people say, well, we shouldn't have lead certified projects in affordable housing because it increases the cost.  If you're thinking about it from the onset, you know, it can be a real benefit. So for instance, that coho pool project I mentioned was a lead platinum project we designed. We intentionally located and allocated windows in that project as it rotated across the site. And we looked at the wind pattern so that those buildings could all be passively ventilated. So no AC, right? So and they're still cool when they're occupied. So when you ask someone that needs affordable housing, what's the best thing about affordable housing? It's that it's affordable. But if you go design, you know, low cost solution that is so hot and miserable that they need to run AC all the time, no longer is affordable, right? The rent might be low, but they're paying a huge energy premium just to keep the place livable. So we absolutely look at that. And I think that has to be part of your affordable housing project, but at any level, if you can reduce energy and make it more comfortable, make that user experience a better one and not depend on energy to do that, that's a great solution. So yes, we absolutely look at that in all of our projects, whether they're affordable or not. Okay, so now Phil, amazingly, half the times we're on already, and so we only have half left. And it's a fascinating market, but you talked about for affordable housing, for doing larger projects, it is actually more cost effective when you have a higher density. And then it's gonna cost less per square foot. And the people, you have more people that can live in Hawaii and not have to go to the mainland as we call it the brain drain. So can you talk about one of your projects that you've done on a residential, how long did it take to get the entitlements and then to get the permits and then to finish the project out? Yeah, so I'm asking a good question, Ibrahim, and the answer is it varies, obviously. And it depends, typically when you're talking about entitlements, you're talking about getting land classified for new groups. So say something like a core range or something like that. Those guys are working through that entitlement long before the final architects are really engaged in working with land planners and attorneys, because in that case, you're changing a use, say, ag land to a different facility. In the case of, say, of Kale-Holane, most of the entitlements are there, or in fact, that was an urban infill project. So the zoning was already there, but we still had to go through what might loosely be qualified as entitlements, really more zoning approvals because that was a 2-1-H project. And in that 2-1-H process, we were looking for increased densities to allow more units, and then every reduction in parking so we didn't have to provide as much parking that wasn't necessary. So a lot of times, your baseline code would require a certain amount of parking. Let's say, in the case of Kale-Holane, we're immediately adjacent to a TOD stop. And even before the transit stop gets there, this bus stops all around and it's in the center of Kakaoka. So the reality is people living there can walk and bite to just about anywhere they need. So building a ton of parking, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So that's a good project where we reduce the parking below the code requirement and they still don't use all the parking in that building. So that's a great example because it's so centrally located and when the transit gets there, you would think it's going to reduce even further, right? So that stop has yet to be built, but there's still tons of bus and walking and biking opportunities and you can walk to downtown from that location. So now, I know in our notes as we prepare for this interview, you said some entitlements could take one to 15 years. Yeah, so that might be more like a coal ridge or a whole building. These are master plan developments, right? So they have to go through a ton of approval processes up front. And we're talking, you know, hundreds of acres of land and massive infrastructure projects so roadways, freeway off-ramps, sewer provisioning, water, power, all that stuff. So when you think about the undertaking that has happened before you even look at designing one single unit, I mean, that's a big undertaking, right? So those are the ones that you maybe take 10 to 15 years because there's so much that has to happen before you get to the first one. And then on the, say, an urban infill product like Gale Lane or these hover juice projects or any of the vertical powers in downtown, the infrastructures there, the roadways are there, the sewers there, water powers there. And the zoning is generally accepting of the use that you're planning on designing towards. So that sort of entitlement is different. That's more just getting your final approvals. So when you're talking about 10, 15 years, that's a huge project that you're going into. So like, hopefully that was sugar before that became a project, right? So you're moving from acres and acres and acres of sugar cane to building out and designing the required infrastructures for an entire community. So all the sewer, all the water, all the power, all of those things have to happen and that's a big and heavy lift and costly lift that has happened before you get to your first risk of entry. Well, I've read on some of these larger projects, these developers had to go to court to basically win over the ones that were opposing it, saying, we don't want this project. So again, you're adding several years and added costs to the project. Yeah, that's a huge deal. I mean, the NIMBY agreement, not in my backyard, we try to replace that with the YINB. So yes, in my backyard, and there's always that stigma about this traffic with additional outsiders coming to your community. And that's what we think TOD, transit-oriented design and development is important because it's confiding the infrastructure for the smart growth. So instead of building a community, say way out on the fringes of the island and all those people out of the drive all the way to downtown to get a job, if you can develop an increase of density around a transit stop and increase the infrastructure for sewer and water and power, to get those people moving back and forth is way more efficient. So that's what we talked about, the economy is scaled from a bigger project, a vertical project. I mean, you can imagine if you have 500 units and they're stacked vertically versus 500 units that sprawl out across 50 acres, every one of those dwelling units in 50 acres would require a sewer line and a HECO line and a water line going to every one of those houses. But if you're stacking it vertically, all of that infrastructure is dramatically reduced. So you can quickly see how that economy scale really helps and makes good sense when you're really trying to increase density and deliver affordable housing. And now the entitlements is that once with 15 years, now how long does it take to get a permit for, let's say a high rise? Yeah, that's a somewhat of a weighted question, even though you'd like to put me on the spot with these tough ones. But no, I'm kidding aside, it really depends on where the project is. And if the project is already entitled, you're not looking for it as own news change or any of those kinds of things. You can probably, for a bigger project, you're probably from suit to nuts going, I would say 16 months to two and a half years. Now that's from submitting or starting to having an actual permit. But every project has other opportunities to export like that. So one of the things we typically do, and this comes from a lot of experience working on bigger projects in Los Angeles, we used to do the same thing, would break the project apart. So we do foundation-only permits and then vertical project permits, same building, but we could focus and get the foundation-only permit released first, maybe say in six months or four to five months. And with that foundation-only permit, the contractor can start that foundation work. So sometimes that foundation work, auger cast piles and all the underground utilities and infrastructure foundations that could take four months, five months on a big project, maybe three months, but depending on how complicated the infrastructure and underground foundations are. So during that time, they're actually out there working and then you'll get the permit for the vertical tower. And then even on the vertical tower, there's ways to export like that. If you get through most of your plan check and permitting process and at least complete the first round without any major issues hanging out there, like say infrastructure or service capability, you can pursue an SAI. So it's a special assignment inspection. And that would allow work on the tower to start before the permit.  So there's a lot of ways to tackle it if you have the right team. You know, it's a little more complicated, but those big projects aren't easy. They can take a lot of effort, a lot of time. Okay, now we're down to the last three minutes, Phil. Can you give it? And let me ask you, your job as an architect, once the building starts, you're involved in every phase of what happens, like the concrete's poured, the building's framed, and all the internal stuff, your job must be huge in inspecting that the building is being built according to your design. No, it is. I mean, that's a huge part. That's probably one that I take, well, I wouldn't say most seriously because I'm very much care about the design and the early phases, but having grown up in the trades, like I said, I grew up as soon as I could drive, get a license, I was driving a forklift at our tractor trailers and delivering scaffolding around the island. So I understand what our construction partners are going through. So I try to be a big part, I try to go out and help them and I understand that there's not too many that I had comment from Dredging on one of our projects, like you're the only architect I've ever seen climb scaffolding. So we're inspected in exterior windows and the iffy sweeps and the drainage, but yeah, but we also have to lead on our construction partners because they're out there day to day, every day and they're doing their own quality control and quality assessment. So we're just an added oversight to that, but we do take it seriously, it's not, we don't just hopefully the best because there's so much that goes on in the construction process and to deliver a great product, the more hands, the lighter the lift. Yeah, you certainly don't want buildings to come crashing down like the one in Florida. No. But the whole condominium just went down. Yeah, no, that's a horrible story for sure. I think some of that was in fairness to their design community. I think a lot of that had to be for maintenance. And that's a big part of every building as well. You know, I mean, when you go through home inspections, you see the same, two homes, same age, one's taking care of well and one's not, it's like two different buildings. If you don't maintain a building, it's a living, breathing organism, right? So imagine if you didn't take care of your health for 50 years, right, it'd be a problem for sure. So, you know, people really, you know, that operations and maintenance phase and that's what we think about when we're designing to make the operations and maintenance fire. Because if you can't maintain a building, no matter how beautiful it is, it's not gonna last. Well, Phil, I just got the word that time's up. So thank you so much. No problem. Phil lives with high RK LLP. And if you look up his website, you can see a lot of the work that he's done, very extensive and very interesting, very diverse. So look up Phil, he's a great guy and really easy to talk to. And I really enjoy sitting down with him having lunch or breakfast or whatever. So thank you so much, Phil. And those of you that want us to look at the video later, please tell your friends about this wonderful interview. And if you're interested in learning more about seminars, real estate classes, go to ablyseminars.com and I teach those classes. So thank you so much, Phil. Appreciate your time. And I appreciate you're making the time to be with us today. No, thank you so much, Abe. I appreciate it. I always love talking about a four of miles in and working in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks a lot, folks. See you later. Aloha. We want to announce that Think Tech Hawaii is moving into a new phase and will not be producing regular talk shows after April 30th. We will retain our website and YouTube channel and will accept new content on an ad hoc basis. We are also developing a legacy archive program to provide continuing public access to our content. If you can help us cover the costs of the transition and the development of our legacy archive program, please make a donation on thinktechaway.com. Thanks so much. Aloha.