Hello everyone, welcome again to another NARC Survival Live video. As you can see I'm just out here hiking, just climbed this peak 233 meters, it took me about 20, 25 minutes and yeah I was just up there and now just took a little break, sat down for a few minutes, get my energy back because I pretty much power walked the entire way, so yes it was quite draining and now I feel so refreshed, good bit of exercise and yeah so here in activity to come out here and just explore, I highly recommend it for you to come out and just go for a walk, climb a mountain, we've been just walking the forest just any little walk for 30 minutes, if you're ruminating about the narcissist and all of the things they did to you, just come out somewhere where you can experience some peace, it will be very good for you, so yeah that's the intro for this video, a different way to start it off and I hope it's something that motivates and inspires you, I mean that's what you really need, that's what we all need is you know especially coming out of abuse, we need a role model, someone who isn't just talking about things but they are actually coming out and doing it which as you can see it's what I do, I don't just talk about it, I'm actually doing it for real and real life, as you can see I'm sweating right now and I was sweating a lot more before as well because when I dedicate myself to an activity I put all of my effort into it, I give it my all and as you can see I reap the rewards, I receive the positive benefits of it, so yeah just a little bit of motivation whenever you're feeling down just play this video back, I am sure that it will uplift you, to show you that yes this is my past, I can still come out and kill it on these walks which as you know you should know by now as you can see yes that's what I do, I kill it every time but yes starting to lose my breath but again now coming up this incline on the way back but I do have a message today as well as you probably know it's by the title of course they want you to think that they've just forgotten about you, they're looking happy now riding off to the sunset with their new supply look like everything is fine and dandy, they don't need you anymore or at least that is how it seems because as I've said before everything you get from a narcissist it is manipulation everything you see it is an illusion, it's very different from what it is but of course yes they would love you to think it does not lead people anywhere good it just can't with that type of energy low vibe negative energy there's just no way that cannot manifest anything good and the way that they leave you traumatized without a care without any consideration for you there is just no way that I can lead them into a good place there's just no way that that is possible because again remember you were subjected to abuse and mistreatment and all you were trying to do is to try and make things right with them you did everything you could everything in your power to make them happy but nothing was ever good enough for them they always wanted more and in the end you got fed up and you left or they just discarded you because they had no use for you after that so they carry this negative energy and the shame with them because cluster B disorders yes they know exactly what they do they just don't care all they care about is themselves as I said before they live in a world inside their heads with a population of one it's just them and everything outside of them people we are all just extensions of them they don't even see us they don't see us as separate separate people with their own feelings and needs we are just objects we're not even human to the narcissist so these are all important things that you must remember and with that in mind yes the narcissist does not get over you because they never process these emotions they never heal the traumas so knowing that all they can do is move on with that exact same energy of everything they did to you and they're just never going to let it go they will hold on to it they'll hold on to that bitterness and resentment those grudges and they will carry that with them into the next relationship or situation that they are going in which means that whatever they trying to do or achieve in the future it's already predestined it's going to be destroyed it's going to be all over for them and that's just the way that it goes for them because they're taking that energy that shame it stays with them they try to dump it onto you but it still stays with them as well or if they project it onto you you just project it right back often without even realizing because you know that it doesn't belong to you so yeah they don't get over you and it's very difficult for them to replace you because you were their grade A source of supply when they said jump you said how high you were willing to do anything you possibly could to please make them happy and nothing you did was ever good enough for them so they can never be sad satisfied and they always hear the groggy and green up and in a lot of situations yes it probably was but they don't see that until they've moved on to the next situation and then they feel dissatisfied as again just as they did when they were with you I mean that's what narcissism is really characterized by it's just nothing is ever enough and that is exactly how you will feel when you walk around them you will feel like no matter what you do no matter how hard you try to please them you will never be enough they will always see something wrong with you they will always want more and yet you can come around someone else and they can really value and appreciate you as I do myself which should reveal to you that yes it is them they just can't be satisfied they can't be happy and the reason why is because they have a mental illness they experienced trauma when they were young they didn't have their emotional needs met and those needs are not going to be met now it is far too late for them so yes they're stuck a lot of them they can't just move on they can't just forget about you if they've been with you long enough they focus their energy and attention on you and although they never fully attached they tried to attach to you and they failed to do that so that then creates this problem that they have but then they can't fully detach and instead what they do then is they try to replace you and they look for you in someone else and all that's really happening is it's that energy that they stole from you they project onto the new source and they try to turn them into you and you may even see that they're trying to get them to look like you to dress like you to do all of these things just like you do because they're just looking for another you they couldn't be satisfied with you and I think deep down they know that it was them they were the problem so then they try to turn someone else into you sorry I know there is a quite a bit of noise I came to this path before I didn't realize it was so busy let's let these people walk past I've actually been barged out of the way quite a few times already so I'll just step out of the way but yes my attention is on this video and to give you this message because I know it is very important for you a lot of you who are going through this and yeah I know you're looking for this validation I mean that's what we all need we need this closure after we've been involved with these toxic people because as I said they have a void so what happens is when you come around them or they come around you you're pouring all of your energy and you're getting nothing back in return and energy tends to be something that we can't really control it just is what it is so it's not that they're deliberately withholding this energy from you it's just you're giving your energy to them it's going into this void and then it just disappears without a trace and they can't give anything back to you because even that energy you gave to them that just disappeared they can't generate anything from within by default they are takers because they have a void so all they're looking to do is take and I know you may be watching this I'm thinking but that's maybe what you feel like right now I mean you've just been discarded left alone by a narcissist they're just forgotten about you you thought you had a relationship you thought it was love and they've just gone and now maybe you just feel like you need some love you need some attention oh that's normal there's nothing wrong with that it's just that you were involved with someone who couldn't give that to you in the beginning all they did was love bomb you manipulate you reflect all of this back to you so that they could steal your energy you're not willingly handing over your energy to validate the illusion because you don't believe in it anymore but of course when they discard you and they triangulate you you start to believe that yes they're happy now they've moved on you start to validate this other section of the illusion thinking that it's real thinking that yes they're happy they've got something better with someone else and I know what that's like I've experienced it myself yeah it's not a nice experience at all when you gave them everything you got and then you're left with nothing you're on your own you just feel like you're garbage like you're nothing because that's how they made you feel they just tossed you aside after everything they did to you they made you feel like you have no value you're nothing and yeah it's that lack of self-love because of how they treated you and you might think to yourself if I was worth anything then how could they do all of those things to me and then just leave me behind and move on to someone else like I never even existed so I get it I completely understand how that must feel you think they're just completely over you they've just moved on and you're left behind but as I said it's not like that at all it is just an just remember back when you first met them when they manipulated they loved bombed you all of that was fake it wasn't real as I said they hide that can never be filled energy that you thought that you were receiving where you thought you had met the one you had met your soulmate that energy was come from you were fueling the illusion and if you weren't there maybe it would have been someone else but if it wasn't someone else then they would have experienced a narcissistic collapse they would have experienced depression on the wrong way here go back this other way that's what it is when you see them when they targeted you they come in towards you with so much enthusiasm it's because they're pretty much a lapse they're completely drained out of it they're so desperate for something that it's like they're willing just to take it by force they just want to force it out of you especially when they begin to devalue you because by that point they know you're not going to validate the illusion anymore so they just want to force it out of you and make you pay attention to them because as I said they never had their emotional needs met when they were child and they learned another way to get attention which is by causing trouble drama and chaos starting arguments and just acting as though something is not right with them so that is an excuse to fight so that they can get supply and then it validates their feelings so that's all that really is that's why they do that and knowing that you should know whatever they do wherever they go it is still fake because when a person has to do that I'm coming to you with these manipulations this love bombing and they're trying to deceive you another person just barging into me again but that's how it goes a lot of people are just in their own world these days as you can see but yes as I said you could be sure that wherever they go whatever they do it's always going to be fake just as fake as it was with you because you weren't trying to force anything out of them with you you were very accommodating you were very giving you gave them the perfect space for them to just be themselves and if they couldn't do that with you they're not going to do that with anyone they're always going to be that way and it's never going to change you can be sure of that by how they treated you they didn't care about you and in the beginning all they did was just give you this illusion they love bombed you they manipulated you it wasn't real or when they move on they're just going to do the same thing with someone else and then they're going to get tricked are they going to be wondering why they have to change themselves and be so different for them without realizing that this new person they're just trying to turn them into another you but they're also triangulating them with you often without your knowledge or awareness you may not even know that this is going on but they're also comparing them to you when they're with them and that's changing the new supply it's getting them to comply with certain standards or certain things that they want barged in again but guess it's getting them to comply with certain things that they want so that and that's the whole point of it really the illusion and the manipulation it's just so that they by gaining power and control over their targets it makes them feel like they have some type of authority over them when they can tell them what to do and when they listen to them so sorry I know there is quite a lot of noise more people coming again try not to get pushed out of the way this time look more again just let them pass then I can continue with this important message but yes let me know down below in the live chat what have you been experiencing with the narcissist if you're watching this video right now I'm assuming that you may have been discarded and it looks like they've moved on so let me know what you've seen maybe you saw them in person maybe they were putting things on social media but you could be sure that whatever they do it's always for attention it's always because they never got their emotional needs met as a child it always comes back to that because of course if they were emotionally fulfilled emotionally stable they wouldn't need to do that at all but of course they give the appearance of that in the beginning by love bombing you manipulating you but it's all fake it's a false appearance they have an agenda and as I've said before pretty much everything they do it's driven by envy even when they manipulate you whatever they do they're desiring to take something from you but at the same time they don't even want to acknowledge you as a person because if you stand in your own confidence of knowing who you are then that energy is going to yourself so they have to keep you off balance to wear your authenticity your natural energy is then directed to them and then they can go off with that same energy as you feeling like they're on top of the world as you might normally feel as you may have felt before you met them try not to get pushed off the edge but yes it's just your energy that they want they envy your energy because when you look at it that's all that there really is in this life there's just energy and when they come around you you get completely depleted of that and then that's when they discard you when they think that you've got nothing left to give they've taken it all out of you then they just leave you alone to sit with nothing they just want to leave you by yourself because they already know exactly how that feels to have no energy of your own to feel like you're nothing that's how they normally feel however you feel following an interaction or engagement with a narcissist that's typically how they felt before before they drain you just looking at the live chat here Paris Marie says luckily for us we're going outside the box thanks to NARC survivor we have a safe space a community where we can be inspired and build each other back yes that is what this is about that's what this is all about because as I've said I've been there myself on several occasions where I have been depleted by an energy vampire a narcissist and it's just that feeling I will never forget it it's a horrible feeling on several occasions where I was just sitting in my room well in my hotel room with my villa just sitting there got this three bedroom brand new villa with a pool brand new BMW parked outside and I'm just sitting there on the bed with my head and my hands feeling like I'm losing my damn mind feeling just completely worthless inside so alone that pathological pathological loneliness feeling like I'm nothing no one wants me no one cares about me no one wants to pay me any attention and it just tears you apart and it just makes you desire some sort of company and it could be anyone it's like you just don't care you just need someone there to replenish you after everything you went through you just want some company and it's just that feeling I will never forget it I've experienced it more than once but the last two times when I was in Thailand that was really the worst when I'm in this busy city and again at this beach town and I'm just thinking everyone's outside they're partying they've all got things going on they're having fun and I'm just stuck in this villa on my own and I just felt so defeated so worthless just felt like no one wants me I'm nothing I'm garbage and in that moment I think what we want is just that validation we just want someone to make us feel attractive we want someone to look at us like yes you are something you are attractive you are desirable you are all of these things about moment when you experience that to go from feeling like you're completely nothing and then suddenly you're everything to someone that is just an incredible contrast to go from that to that and that is what makes it so addictive it's like after everything you went through and then finally you're like okay that was bad but now this time this is real this person really wants me maybe they don't love me but they like me and they see me as I am and yeah I'll never forget that feeling it's just the anxiety you feel like the walls are caving in like you're boxed in and there's no escape you're suffocating emotionally and it's like you just can't generate anything from within which in fact is exactly how narcissists typically feel when they don't have supply but for them it's probably even worse I mean they could even do that they couldn't sit in the space to themselves and just be alone with their feelings but even for us in that moment it's like we just need some form of escape we need a distraction horrible feeling I remember myself on several occasions to just be so completely alone to not have anyone to talk to it's not a nice feeling at all and I really want to drive this home so that you know that yes I have been there myself at the time I felt kind of embarrassed even ashamed that I couldn't regulate myself I just couldn't get myself the attention that I needed as though I'd already been drained out nice all that time to have some company just to have someone who is close to me is of course when you're completely alone in that moment you may even want the narcissist back even if it's just negative attention like at least there's someone there I mean when there's no one there at all that is a very different experience it's very different and it's not nice at all how many of you can relate to that though just that pathological loneliness when you're just sitting alone in your house maybe you're just laying on the bed you're watching tv but you just want to call someone just want to have that company you want someone to be there and that's really what this community is about to provide that emotional support to you that validation that is what we all need we need someone to be there for us someone who understands someone who knows what it is like and yes I hope that I can be that for you just looking for the live chat here I have to hear that it's to come across what people can understand people know what it's like it's the situation that they leave us in when we're just alone we're confused we discarded gaslets you see them they triangulate with someone else just feel like you need someone there powerful impact has such an effect when you go from feeling like you're nothing to feeling like you're everything and it feels real it's just an incredible feeling and it's very addictive times that will just run you into another narcissist as well because that could just be their manipulation and you go through that what you really need to do when that happens when you're discarded when you're left alone by yourself you just need to find some source of emotional support it doesn't always have to be an intimate partner I can understand that as well sometimes we just need some company yes I get it it's also finding that way to validate yourself to find someone that you can trust someone that you can talk to whether it's a therapist or coach someone to validate your feelings because there is nothing wrong with that at all of course narcissists will try to shame you if you have a therapist or you have a friend that you're talking to they will always try to shame you for doing that but in actuality it makes perfect sense just once you've been invalidated all of that time being gaslit it's like your own your own processing is impaired to where you can no longer validate yourself and you've been told all of this time that whatever you think is wrong it's important to have a support system otherwise you will feel like you're losing your mind you will feel like you're going crazy like you don't even know who you are anymore thank you for the donation benefit Tarantino I appreciate it but yes that was definitely one of my main motivations for starting this channel about feeling of loneliness I mean that's what really motivated me because I just don't want anyone to go through that alone I know if you've been from narcissistic abuse you know exactly what that feels like anxiety become restless and it's like your mind is telling you that you just need someone there you need someone to comfort you to validate your emotions I guess I know what it's like I've experienced it several times I got through it that's how I'm able to bring this message to you after everything that I've experienced but you do need to remember that everything you're seeing from the narcissist you think that they've moved on they're happy without you it is all an illusion it isn't real which if they could have done that they could have just done that with you you are very forgiving and accommodating they were so emotionally secure to where they could move on like that then they would have just stayed with you to remember that and know that you are not alone a lot of people are going through this and a lot of people know what this is like experience that they come out the other side stronger the better now but the narcissists they don't get over you they don't process the emotions and they remember they never talked about it with you they didn't give they didn't give you any closure or validation they just moved on to those feelings that shame it stays with them it doesn't just go away but for you yes you can heal you can process these emotions that you can become stronger and then you can move on and find someone who is also emotionally healthy someone who isn't so insecure where they are very erratic very irritable like there's always something eating away at them to move on and find someone who isn't like that that's how it should be it's not two people who complete each other it should be two complete people who are coming together that is a much more healthier situation for people to be in and that's what I want for you as well it's for you to heal and move on from this instead of falling back into the arms of a narcissist you should know by now that yes they do have a point and when you really recognize that you're not going to want to be around them because this point all they can do is take from you this negative energy can only take they can't bring anything to regain that's why by the end of it you will feel completely confused like you're losing your mind don't know what's happening to you what's going on because they're very insecure they have no inner sense of value they lack a sense of self so they need your sense of self and your value so that they can survive emotionally and to sustain the illusion as well that's how it works that's pretty much how you know exactly what you are dealing with because a person who has a sense of self and not only that but an innocent of value you're not going to feel like that around them you're going to feel stronger you're going to feel more confident you're not going to feel confused everything will make perfect sense so you have to stop chiming in stop tuning in to the narcissist illusions and whatever the train to you because when you're doing that you're giving yourself a way to avoid that has an inability to replenish you because remember this person has no identity it's all fake there's no inner sense of value and there's no empathy coming to you to understand your feelings or experience to your being invalidated as well you just kind of switch it's like you trade personalities so they become more like you and you become more like them they become more emotionally stable and secure you become out of balance because you're taken they're taking your energy away from you and then you're being depleted and of course you need this energy to sustain yourself everything is energy that's all that there is so when they come around you should already know exactly what they want they want a piece of our energy and when you give it to them you will deplete yourself it's not like a normal interaction where you're talking to someone that you're giving energy to them they're giving energy to you understanding different ideas different concepts it's not like that at all to always check yourself after an interaction whoever you're talking to at the end of it ask yourself does this make me feel good does it make me feel more energetic or grounded in myself does it make me feel happy motivated or is it just draining the life out of me but also understand as well that sometimes negative things have a place to because negative things do happen we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug we do need to talk about it and that can provide you with some clarity as well and it can make you feel better afterwards once you process the emotions because that is healing as well yes that's really it for this video and I hope that I have validated your experiences I hope that I have brought you some closure and as always you can give this video a thumbs up down below it was helpful to you it helps to support our community let me know your thoughts down in the comment section as well I am reading your comments every day share the video subscribe I'm well on coaching sessions you can book one with me on my website it is not survivor.co.uk and they have my instagram as well it's not surviving youtube and instagram you can check out my pictures and videos of my travels which I post every day on there so thank you all and I will talk to you in another video very soon


Okay, gong hey fat choy to any of our Chinese followers a happy new year. Hope you all had a fantastic weekend Let's have a look what we can expect in markets this week We're going to talk a little bit about the China lunar new year We're also going to talk about US earnings really picking up pace this week And we're also going to talk about some of the data points coming out namely then you've got the flash PMIs the Bank of Canada Rate decision US GDP and core PC all due this week So first of all, let's talk about this Chinese new year the mass movement of people obviously on the ongoing lunar new year holiday period and the fear that it might spread Further the COVID outbreak being experienced in China at the moment where we have seen numbers pick up on the U-turns They've made with their zero Tolerance policy now one of the things that came out the weekend was this which was a report Citing a prominent government Scientist saying the possibility of a big COVID-19 rebound in China over the next two to three months is remote as they anticipated around 80% of the population Have been infected already therefore immune now I would definitely it goes fast to say that this is a government scientist So I don't think it's unusual for them to be saying this type of thing as part of a kind of PR containment Measure particularly when undoubtedly Numbers are probably going to rise in the coming weeks Given the fact of course that China estimates around just shy of 1.2 billion People will be traveling during this year's spring festival. Remember the new year in itself It means complete lockdown kind of will not lock down I shouldn't use that word bank holidays in China meaning they all their their markets are closed a seven-day long-state holiday Starts really from today The Chinese government has discouraged travel by enforcing stricter lockdowns in acting some stringent testing around this particular time given Its sensitivity on the mass migration of people But nonetheless signed to keep an arm going further forward in time probably won't really yet to see The results of that for another few weeks or so a couple of other things that earning season I mentioned it briefly and the reason why is because this week and next week really is the bulk of The volume of the company's reporting you've got over 50% of the S&P 500 this week the ones to watch out for are Tuesday you've got Microsoft Verizon Johnson Johnson If I flip over here, maybe you could see it a bit more clearly You've also got Microsoft the big tech giant first out of the shoot if you like ahead of meta Amazon the others they're not coming till next week They're gonna be reporting after close on Tuesday You've then got Boeing AT&T ASML on on pre-market Wednesday Tesla after market Always one to watch and then you've got Intel visa after market Thursday with Chevron AmEx and others on Friday. So definitely keeping an eye on anything season overall 11% of the companies have reported their actual results thus far for Q4 2022 to date off those companies 67% have reported actual EPS above estimates that might sound good But against a five-year average that's actually down about 10 percentage points and below the 10 year average of 73% So definitely reflection of some of the misses that have been happening there comparative to previous years gone by The other thing just on a macro perspective because it has been relatively quiet on that front overall And the weekend's news was this interesting piece coming out of the Wall Street Journal and in particular because of the author Nick Timoross, I'm sure I've said that incorrectly. So I apologize Nick But he is what's what we call in the market a fed watcher and these are the informed ear if you like of that the central bank uses an indirect way to communicate to the market via These these kind of well selected journalists and this chap is one of those so what he says basically is Mustard its high quality in terms of the source even though We know that it's not the Fed or Powell saying this we kind of read between the lines that it is So in this case one of the things here is saying is that the Fed officials are preparing to slow interest rate increases for the second straight meeting and The debate on how much then hire to raise them after gaining more confidence and inflation or ease Further this year as we've seen with various data points of late They could begin deliberating at the Jan meeting So the end of this month is when the meeting happens Their announcement comes on the first of Feb gathering as how much softening that there's been in the labor demand Spending and inflation that they would need to see before pausing rate rises then in the spring So yeah, and very interesting piece, but not too off-piste of what the market's been kind of pricing at this point in time Let's take a look at the week ahead then because there is quite a few things going on I'm going to kick off then in relative chronological order so Exing out Monday where things are pretty quiet things really start to pick up from Tuesday onward You've got the various flash PMI numbers The flash reading is always being the ones that markets most sensitive to this is for the month of January So we get the full sweep UK Eurozone the various European countries and the US The service sector is forecast to have moved back above the 50 mark when talking about Europe Indicating a majority of businesses reports in an expansion compared to the prior month The manufacturing PMI is expected to remain below that threshold, but still have risen from Jan compared to December Till talking about then Wednesday, we've got German iPhone That is the soft sentiment survey forward looking then that the Institute would be asking Companies to operate in a variety of different sectors in Germany about how do they feel about economic conditions? About the six month horizon and so forth so good gauge to see where heads are at in the Eurozone in Context of the current economic climate, and then you've also got the Bank of Canada rate decision They're said to be getting close now to the end point of their rate hiking phase Inflation is showing some signs of cooling off more recently But the jobs market remains pretty hot and therefore Most analysts including here this table you're looking at from ing are expected them to deliver another 25 basis point rate Hike on the 25th of January this Wednesday Then looking further on you've got one of the main data points of the week US Q4 GDP Obviously now we're into January of 2023 So it's going to be particularly interesting the consensus estimate then is that US GDP will print at 2.6% in the first three months To December 31st according to a poll from Bloomberg That would mark a shift down then from 3.2% that we've seen prior so here just to give you a bit of a sense so started to see some of that slow down coming in towards the back end of Last year and of course the the jury's out and whether or not we're going to have a recession in the US Banks like GS Goldman saying that there's only around a 35% probability other banks a bit more aggressive on their Outlook that we are going to indeed fall into a recession in the coming months in the in the US The other thing then going back to the calendar Including in the GP GDP release will be the personal consumption expenditures price index And that will reflect Changes in the price of goods and services that the data is expected to show an increase around 1.7% down from 2.3% And that's a particularly one that the market is sensitive to to looking out for of course I've just given the the overarching focus on inflation You've also got durable goods coming out us on Thursday out of the US Analysts at ING note that they will likely be strong and that's purely really down to a Boeing Large order they received Led by United Airlines who ordered more than 200 Boeing 737 maxes and 787 aircraft Exing that out the numbers really not as good as that's likely to be on the surface level And then you've got new home sales as well They'll likely suffer as a laggard response to the downturn in mortgage applications that we have been seeing of late No Fed speakers at all They are in their blackout period now ahead of that meeting that we just mentioned from that Wall Street Journal article So yes, there could be more leaks to come through various press sources like Bloomberg or all the journals So just keep your eye out for but overall no major Fed speakers will be Formerly at least speaking and then yeah as I said earlier You do have the core PC price index coming out on Friday expected to show relatively But nine point two percent month-on-month reading and that should then confirm the easing of the trend in price pressures that we've been Observing as of late and that is it. So hopefully that was useful any questions at all Feel free to to drop me a comment on the video Otherwise, don't forget to like and subscribe and I'll see you next time. Take care


So, as a professional journalist, I get to ask the first series of questions before we turn it over to the audience. And Rebecca, I'd like to start with you. You call in your book for a sort of a new way of looking at the way Internet policies are conducted and empowerment on the part of network users of us, regular people who use the Internet, both to hold our governments accountable, wherever they are, and also in the corporations, which can be as powerful as nation states. And I think in the past couple of months with the online protests over the rather aggressive anti-copyright measures that recently were withdrawn in Congress, people feel that this can actually work, that enough Internet protests and sharing of information can lead to changes in government policy. But it doesn't seem as easy when it comes to corporations who aren't responsible to voters. What would it take to get companies to balance their drive for profits with these more moral questions? Well, I think we can look to other sectors and how companies have changed. I mean, back in 1970, you had Milton Friedman, the economist, writing an essay that the only socially responsible activity of a business is producing value for its shareholders. That was also the same year that we had the first Earth Day, when I think we had a real social awakening about what sustainability means and the fact that the value that a company long-term is generating for society and for itself is about more than just short-term profits. It's about delivering value to society is how you're being sustainable within a larger context. And whether your products are ultimately contributing to the kind of life and the kind of planet that we want to have. And so I think when it comes to the Internet, when it comes to telecommunications companies, when it comes to Internet companies, service providers, and so on, I think what we're seeing now is an awakening, really, that we need digital sustainability, that just as we expect, it is not acceptable for companies to hire 12-year-olds, even though that might maximize profits. It is not acceptable for companies to pollute our air and water, even though doing so might maximize their profits. That's socially, the idea that it is acceptable has been now deemed illegitimate. It was much more controversial sometime back. And I think we're now recognizing that unless we, as we have entered now an era in which all aspects of our lives, we depend on these digital platforms and services, not only for our personal lives and how we conduct our business or education, but also our politics. And if the structure, if the way in which these networks are structured, the way in which they're managed, the way in which they're governed in terms of their private terms of service and so on, is not compatible with the kind of values that we want our society to have, the kind of freedoms that we expect, the kinds of freedoms and rights and ability to hold government accountable that people are risking their lives for around the world every day. If these platforms and services are not contributing the sustainable manner to the kind of world we want to have, that's not acceptable. If I could just follow up on that for one point before I turn to Jillian. Are there any early examples of an online effort or an effort by consumers in the U.S. to change that have been successful in changing a company's policy either here or in some other country? Rebecca, that's actually for you. For me? Oh, okay. Well, I think we're starting to see, for instance, recently Google Plus rolled out its new social networking service. And they started out with a very similar identity policy to Facebook, which is that you're required to use your real name. And a lot of users didn't like that. They had been hoping that Google would be different. And people started actually using Google's platform to lobby Google's management to change the policy. And they have now begun to adjust the policy to allow pseudonyms in some cases. And there's still, not everybody's happy and there's still a lot of bugs to be worked out. But you've seen Google's executives at least willing to adjust and willing to listen. And I think that's an example of when people get organized, at least with some companies that you can't see adjustments. And even with Facebook, you've seen, for instance, I know Jillian's been involved and other activists have been involved with trying to get Facebook to make certain features more secure. So it would be harder for governments, hostile governments to hack people's accounts, for instance. And have been kind of advising them on, okay, here are some things you need to do. So definitely I think there are cases where when you get enough people going to the companies and saying, here's the right thing to do. It's gonna increase trust. It's gonna increase the value of your service, not just commercial value. But the way in which people value an environment as a trustworthy place to be. And that's in your interest in the long run. Thanks for that. Jillian, Rebecca in her book describes an arms race between on surveillance, in particular surveillance and the techniques for avoiding surveillance. And I guess, China is probably the acknowledged master of this. And there are lots of other countries that are attempting to follow suit, notably recently Iran, which has really been beating up its surveillance ability. And on the other side, we have a couple of scruffy activists who are cobbling together things like TOR, which allow people to evade surveillance. Being maybe unkind to the activist crew, they're by and large motivated by idealism. It doesn't seem like a fair fight. How is that battle going? And is there anything that regular people can do to tip the odds? Right, so when it comes to the fight that we're having right now with surveillance, you're right, we've seen increases in Iran and more recently in Syria, which is likely to have been helped by Iran. And it is, it's really an unfair fight. You have activists who are trying to utilize the internet for whatever means of protests and also just ordinary everyday things. But then you have these governments basically spying on their citizens. And so the way that the fight is right now is that organizations like EFF and plenty of other organizations in the US that can't even name them all and in Europe are working to try to put similar standards as to what Rebecca has discussed, the similar standards that exist for some of these social networking companies to surveillance companies. And so one of my colleagues was in Brussels last week, testifying to the European Parliament about how some of these tools have used, sorry, have been used and how we think that we can hold these companies accountable. But on the other hand, some of the regulation that's been proposed is problematic in that just as back in the 90s, the crypto wars sort of blocked encryption technology from being exported. Sorry, the regulations on encryption rather than we had all these crypto wars. And now we have that ability to export encryption technology. There are similar issues with putting regulations on surveillance technology. As things stand right now, Syrians are prohibited from accessing certain communications tools because of existing commerce and Treasury Department regulations. And so the fear there is to strike a balance between ensuring that the surveillance tools don't get in the wrong hands, but also ensuring that communications tools are accessible to all. But it does seem like an unfair fight. And so in terms of what people can do, I think that really we should be looking at the same sort of model of lobbying these companies. Users need to be aware, not just users, sorry, obviously a lot of these have multiple uses, but stakeholders and sort of everyone involved in this process needs to be aware of how these tools are being used. And in the past year, I think we've also seen a lot of excellent awareness raising on the subject, not just from rights groups, but also if you look at Bloomberg's coverage has been quite incredible in terms of sort of delineating how and where and what is going on. And so I do think that that people are becoming more aware. Well, if I can follow up with you on that, it's nice that they call things like the wiretappers ball. I mean, it's actually fairly accessible to the general public. I mean, you see a problem there. But if we look at that export issue, as I understand it, there are virtually no regulations preventing the export from U.S. and European countries of some pretty capable equipment to some unpleasant places, except for the ones that we officially have no dealings at all with, because it's all dual use. It can be used for stopping porn or catching bad people, and it can also be used to spy on everybody. Is there any way to change that? Is there any way to either have greater restriction or do you think that there's some chance of investor or public pressure on the companies? I mean, it's hard to imagine, I hate to pick on them, but there's a company called Naras here. I mean, they don't sell machines to Ma and Pa on the street, and I don't think if there was a EFF inspired boycott, it would really make much difference to their bottom line. So how do you impact companies like that? I guess that could be for both of you. Right, I mean, there is a big difference. Some of the companies do produce tools that are used for home use as well. And so in those cases, it's much easier. But when you've got tools like what Naras produces, EFF has advocated a set of know your customer standards, where upon companies would be required to be transparent about who they're selling to, what they're selling, and what it's going to be used for. That's our position at the moment. I've seen other proposals from other organizations that also deal with similar ways of handling it. But I do think it's a difficult fight. And I think ultimately we will have to force the hand of these companies to be transparent without the shareholders. It is quite difficult to get them to move on that. Yeah, definitely I think we're starting to see socially responsible investors move into this sector. And they haven't been thinking until recently about technology companies in terms of the downside and whether there are certain companies you just don't want to invest in. And so that's certainly part of it. I think part of it is just greater awareness. A lot of these companies like Naras, for instance, they've been getting away with it with no public reporting on what they've been doing or anything else for a very long time. And so there hasn't been enough reporting on a lot of these issues. There also, as Jillian says, these companies are not required to be transparent and report on where they're selling. Also you have a problem that the US government is also one of the biggest customers of these tools. And European governments are massive customers of these tools. Are they saying anything to the companies? Are they expressing concern about who else is being sold these technologies? And trying to exercise some kind of influence through their buying power in terms of we're only going to buy products from people who set certain standards about the human rights standards of the countries they're working with and how they're being transparent and reporting requirements. I mean, the US government, even if you don't have a law, they could have standards for their vendors about we're going to require. If you're going to be a vendor for us on surveillance and security technology, we need to know certain things about what you're doing and we're going to report that publicly. They could do that if they wanted to and that would have a huge effect. So there's a lot that could be done that would at least shed light on what's happening and while these companies are not consumer products. I think if the broader investor market, if this information is more regularly in the Wall Street Journal, which over the past year has begun to be, but before then it really wasn't. I think you might start to see a bit of a shift. Okay, let me talk a little bit about the face of activism as we see it.  Certainly, it's sort of entwined now with the Occupy movement and probably most other movements from here on out. It seems to be a fundamental part of the program now. But it was also very much in evidence against SOPA and Protect IP in Congress. But still the thing that I think most people think about is anonymous, which is kind of mobby and does things that are against the law. Because it's so diffuse, it's sort of hard to, you can't have a sit down with the leadership and say, well, why don't you point your guns over here. But for both of you, is there much hope of that getting moderated or channeled or are people so, if people are annoyed with the behavior of companies or governments, is that just the easiest thing to do to sign up to participate in a distributed now old service attack against something they don't like? You want to go first? Sure, sure. I mean, it's interesting because we've seen a lot of despicable things done by anonymous and then we've also seen them hacking the website of the Syrian foreign ministry. And it's very difficult for me to look at something like that. I mean, in the case of Syria, what they had done was actually to face the site by putting up tips and instructions on how to use the internet safely in Syria. And so in that case, it was really hard for me to look at that and condemn it. Now I do, because I actually do believe that while those attacks can be used against governments, against huge companies in somewhat positive ways, they're more often used against small independent media and human rights sites that can't defend themselves. And so I take the stance that I don't think attacks like that are a good idea, but what we saw with the protests over the past, I guess it was almost a month ago now, but with the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, SOPA and PIPA, we saw a different kind of action taking root. We saw people raising their voices instead of sort of lobbying grenades, so to speak, horrible analogy, I suppose. And I think that that might be something that we'll see continue. It's difficult, though, because when we sort of looked back and debriefed over what happened with the protests around those two acts, it doesn't necessarily seem like those numbers are easily replicable. And so I've gotten the question a lot over the past couple of weeks. Were we far over the tipping point, or were we just barely with the number of people involved and the number of organizations and companies involved, or were we just barely there? And I can't answer that. And so I don't know if we'll be able to see that sort of action replicated easily. I don't know what Rebecca thinks. Well, to speak to the anonymous point, and then maybe we can talk more about the Stop Online Piracy Act and the activism against that. But I agree that there have been cases where the anonymous has done some helpful things like in Syria and helping dissidents. And there's, however, I think the attitude that the ends justifies the means that many members of anonymous has troubles me deeply, having begun my academic career as a student of the Chinese and Russian revolutions and having seen where those went. And OK, if a certain police department does something that violates citizens' rights, is it constructive then to go and hack their computers and expose the personal information of all their employees and their family on the internet and their home addresses? I mean, I'm not quite sure what problem that solves. Or when, OK, BART did not act intelligently in how it handled the shutdown of its cell phone system, its wireless system inside BART. But by hacking their site and exposing the account information of everybody who had an account on BART, what is that achieving exactly? How is that resolving the problem of the abuse of power either by government entities or corporate entities? It's kind of like King John was a really bad king. So Robin Hood went around robbing from the rich to feed the poor and he was acting civil disobedience, and that's great. But he didn't actually solve any problems of bad governance. He was just sticking it to the man, and that's about it. He didn't kind of bring anything forward. He was kind of cool and everybody thought he was great because he was sticking it to the man, romantic. But what problem do you end up solving? None. And it took people who were actually being more constructive about, OK, we need to come up with a new way of governing other than the divine right of kings. And we need to build new structures that hold power accountable, which eventually led to the American Revolution and so on that actually kind of helped to solve long-running, entrenched problems of bad governance. And so coming back to what Julian was saying, yeah, I mean, what we saw with the protests around bad legislation and bad governance and people kind of trying to figure out, OK, what are the solutions is a positive step in the right direction. But I think we need to be careful because I hear from younger folks. It makes me sound so old, but I hear from a lot of people, some people who have, I think, affiliations with anonymous or affiliations with different hacker groups who kind of use the language of the ends justifies the means. And innocent people, yes, are going to get hurt, but this is a war against massive abuses of power and there's going to be collateral damage. And that language really scares me because, again, I started my academic career studying the Chinese and the Soviet revolutions, which also had similar language and didn't turn out so well as far as human rights were concerned. I want to ask perhaps a fairly broad question. I stared away mostly from copyright because it seems like we spend a lot of ink in the journalistic business. We spill a lot of ink talking about copyright and there seems to be a lot of fewer in Congress about copyright and there seems to be dramatically less about human rights. And maybe that's just because of people in America make more money off copyright than they do off human rights. I don't know. But the broad question is, is there a lack of balance in the discussions about not just copyright but also security? Because we have a very big omnibus cybersecurity bill that is rearing its head again in the Senate. And may or may not pass. There have been lots of smaller cybersecurity efforts. But it seems like if that follows the model of the copyright language, it can be pretty short-sighted technologically and in terms of people's individual rights. So I want to ask both of you to take a whack at copyright and security versus privacy in terms of where the government is putting its emphasis. Yeah. Well, if I could just take a crack at it first. I think this is, we're facing a common problem with internet-related legislation not only in the United States but I think around the democratic world where legislators are faced with a problem. OK, we have attacks on our network or we have theft of intellectual property or we have child porn or we have cyberbullying. And constituencies are screaming, do something. And so they want to do something to resolve that particular problem. Whatever basket that problem happens to be in. And so they go for a solution. And without really thinking about how that solution is going to affect these other areas.  You've got to fix the problem. Rather than this is a space in which that society is extending into and it contains all the same contradictions that we have in the city of San Francisco. And if you want 100% solve the crime problem and have zero crime, you're going to have some trade-offs that may well be unacceptable because you'll turn the city into something like North Korea. And so if you don't want that, you have to think about what kind of solutions balance other concerns and rights. How do I make sure that all affected stakeholders are consulted? That's what you do if you're governing a physical place. But legislators I think are not used to thinking in those terms when they're solving problems in the digital realm. And I think what was good about what we saw with the Stop Online Piracy Act and the debate about this particular legislation, which was trying to solve a problem, and it was like in response to one constituency that was screaming about the problem without consulting with everybody else who was going to be affected to see what are the other ways of solving the problem that might not be quite so damaging for free expression and put technical mechanisms that look like the Chinese firewall and legal mechanisms that impose kind of unacceptable burdens on internet companies to police their users. And just have a broader conversation about what the solutions are. Just as you have a broader conversation coming back to security, so look at policing in physical space. If it's just about kind of whacking the criminals and cracking down, you're actually not going to solve the crime problem, because you don't have the community buy-in. You don't have the community involvement. In fact, you might kind of turn people against you. And your measures will lack legitimacy. And so again, how you get the buy-in from all the stakeholders when you're going after resolving a problem. And I think whether it's child protection or cybersecurity or copyright, just legislation has not taken that approach. And that's why it tends to fail. And then they just keep coming back, trying to add more legislation, and it still doesn't solve the problem. It just makes everybody else mad. Yeah, I mean, I think there are a couple of great examples outside of the US really similar to this. In Tunisia, tomorrow it will be announced whether or not the government has to filter pornography. And this was a long series of appeals. And the final appeal was made to the country's highest court. And tomorrow, if it's determined that they will have to filter pornography, then they will have to re-implement the same systems that existed during the Banali era. And what that means for Tunisians is the fear that the government will overreach. And I think that that's the same thing that we saw with the Stop Line Line Piracy Act, is that that provision that would allow the government blocking of websites is the same exact fear, the fear that that will then be used to overreach or will cause collateral damage. And we're seeing this in India, we're seeing it in a number of countries around the world. And I think, again, generally speaking, the digital rights groups, the technical minds are not consulted in these processes. And that's what we saw with those bills, and that's what we're seeing in Tunisia. Well, I've had monopolized enough of your time. I'll turn it over to audience questions now, which I will pick from the sac. I think if you have any more things to ask, please send them up. This is a question I'm thinking is for Rebecca, it's certainly outside of my extra days. Maybe not, maybe it's still interesting. How significant is the experiment with online free speech in Iceland and in parentheses, I-M-M-I, close parentheses. Can it provide protection to dissenters, journalists and regular users, or can it raise the bar on free expression online internationally? Are there other models that look promising? I have no idea what the questioner's talking about. Counting on one of you to bail me out. So I-M-M-I is the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, but I am afraid to admit that I haven't followed its progression closely over the past year. Yeah, I'm not quite sure exactly where it stands the moment either. I know that there was discussion of kind of setting up basically a set of laws and regulatory structure that would make Iceland kind of the haven for online free expression and prizes. Including WikiLeaks, this is vaguely coming back to me. And so on, and kind of ironclad protections against surveillance and whatnot. The details of which I would have to go and check. But it's again unclear exactly how far they've gotten, so not sure. So there is no free speech haven where you can just host everything and then not worry about it. Well, there are people talking about creating islands, like manmade islands in the ocean that have no legal national jurisdiction. And that's kind of the no actual nation state has the ability to demand access to servers. But the problem is in any nation state, there's law enforcement issues. And there are constituencies demanding that terror be fought and nasty people who do bad things to children be chased and so on and so on. So it's really hard to ironclad things from state access. And then if you do have law enforcement access, even in a very democratic society, how do you ensure that that's not being abused and how do you have the right kind of checks and you're ensuring that it's accountable? And this is the problem that I think all democracies are really struggling with. We haven't and worked out the model. There's no model democracy right now that has gotten it right. And I know there's a couple people sitting around who work on this full time as well. But I think there are some countries who've gotten some pieces of it better than other pieces. And you could maybe cobble together the laws from several countries and say that this is ideal. But I don't know if I've even seen anybody put together. Here's what the model set of kind of laws and regulations and kind of political checks and balances and corporate practices, like all combined. Here's what you need if you want to have digital infrastructure and corporate behavior that's really gonna be democracy compatible. Free expression, civil liberties, maximize compatibility, here's what you need. Here's the model to go off of. I haven't seen that anywhere. We need it desperately. Here's another question for you, another broad one. Is it possible to have censorship without violating human rights? What is the balance that can be struck between the two? Oh, it's a tough one. Is it possible to have censorship? Do you wanna do this to that? There are some people who argue that it's not because it's impossible to have censorship because the whole point of censorship is people don't know what you're blocking. I mean, I suppose in theory, if human beings were perfect, you probably could. And if government was perfect and so on. But even in Europe, say, where there are a number of countries in Europe that have blocking systems, censorship systems in place for child pornography. And there's been some studies done on a couple of levels. One is, is there mission creep and are there mistakes made in terms of some of the sites that end up on the list? And based on leaks and other information that's come out, in pretty much most cases, there's some over blocking that happens. So there ends up being what people in the field call collateral censorship. It's very hard to do it completely right without accidentally censoring stuff that you didn't intend to censor, even if you're getting it all right. It's also very easy for stuff to get on the list kind of in weird ways. So in the UK, there's kind of, it's not sort of mandatory, but there's this kind of watch list that most of the internet service providers use for blocking child porn. And for a short period of time, WikiLeaks was, I'm sorry, Wikipedia. Parts of Wikipedia were blocked because there was an Oasis album cover with a prepubescent girl on it and somebody in this organization making the watch list put that Wikipedia page on the list as child porn. And so there are these borderline cases that sometimes end up on the list and then who's deciding and who's exercising that power and how you get it off the list.  Is it actually resulting in a reduction of exploitation of children? And the answer is it doesn't look like it is. It's just putting a band-aid on the problem for the general population. The sick people who really want the material are still finding ways to get it and the people going out there kidnapping kids and exploiting them are still doing it. And so it's actually just putting, diverting people's attention from the problem and not enough police resources are going into the hard problem of human policing. So that's the other issue with censorship is in how, and there needs to be a lot more research, like in what cases does censorship actually solve the problem you're trying to solve?  Yeah, I would agree. I mean, I guess I was interpreting the question more philosophically, but I think that when it comes to filtering or blocking of websites, I actually don't believe that it's ever the solution. I think that if we look at the way the U.S. deals with child pornography, which is matching photos in a database and taking down the websites, going after the hosting, that I feel like that's a much better solution to what other governments do, which is, again, just blocking them and forcing the problem underground. And I would agree with what Rebecca said, that I don't see it solving the problem, and the same goes for other issues as well. And if we look to the United Kingdom where last summer, during the riots, there were pushes to Twitter, to Facebook, to censor certain content, that was another example of the same thing, where by doing that, would it actually solve the problem, or would it just push people to use other tools that are less recognizable, to coordinate by other means? And now the same thing, just this week, the UK put out another paper recommending, again, the censorship of online extremism, and I'm just not sure how that's going to solve the problem. And so I would say that no form of, say, blocking of websites, that type of censorship, I don't think that there is a way to do it while still respecting human rights. Here's another question. With the New York Times story this weekend, that the Justice Department has ways to monitor reporters without approval by a judge, how much safer online from their government are US citizens over Chinese? It seems that both the US and China can and do monitor their own citizens when they decide to. Well, I mean, that's certainly true in terms of the potential access, I think. I think the difference is what is done with the information, ultimately. I mean, there are a few more controls in terms of what the US government accesses under what circumstances. All those controls are excessively loose and excessively unaccountable, and not sufficiently subject to constraint.  And to my knowledge, that has not happened in this country. I know that somebody, a tourist who was coming to this country posted a tweet and wasn't allowed in, but it's not quite so bad as throwing him in jail and torturing him. But I think we are definitely entering into, I think a recognition that if you really want to be untraceable, if you really want to be completely sort of not monitored or you want to be ironclad, ironclad sure that you're not monitored, don't conduct your conversation electronically or your interaction, you need to be completely analog. And journalists and diplomats working in China have kind of assumed this from the beginning.   So, but yeah, if you really, the US Postal Service is certainly the most secure way to communicate with people. That's absolutely true. Handwritten letters, you need a warrant. The government needs a warrant to read your mail. It's really clear that the protections are very clear cut and to read your email, they are not clear cut at all and there are all kinds of gaps in the loopholes. If you're email, if you're using Gmail or Hotmail or Yahoo Mail or whatever and your email's over 180 days old, it's just totally fair game because the law regarding electronic communications and surveillance and government access was written back in the 80s before you even had the World Wide Web and when they assumed that if email's stored kind of by a company server, it had to be abandoned. And so there are all kinds of loopholes and the EFF did a study that came out last year that came to sort of national security letters that are issued to companies for access to so-and-so's account or the set of accounts and so on and the percentage of requests that were actually of dubious legality was quite high and the percentage of instances in which the company's actually challenged the legitimacy of the request was quite low. So even things that companies could challenge they're not challenging on behalf of their users and that's even the kind of more troubling thing and of course if a company like AT&T was found to have done a few years ago collaborates with blatantly illegal surveillance. So for instance, in 2006 I believe it was a whistleblower who had just retired from AT&T let it be known that actually here in San Francisco the NSA had this secret room and they'd gotten the engineers to funnel all communications through that room and it was being captured. There was no kind of warrants or subpoenas or national security letters being issued to see whose information could be looked at. It was just all being hoovered in. And the FF and others tried to sue AT&T with a class action lawsuit and it was thrown out. Why? Because AT&T is immune from liability for collaborating with blatantly illegal acts from a law called the FISA Amendments Act. And so which Obama as a candidate said he wanted to overturn and then soon before he got elected decided well maybe not and now he definitely doesn't want it revised and his administration is not favorable to revising the Patriot Act either and the kind of gaping lack of accountability when it comes to government access to information in that sense. We are not China by any means I can tell you I've spent enough China to know that the United States is nowhere close to what it's like in China if you're trying to organize a protest. Occupy Wall Street would not happen. They had Tiananmen Square, they occupied Tiananmen Square, that didn't go so well. And people trying to do that since don't fare so well. But still there are very troubling trends. Okay, I think that's a pretty thorough answer. Not too long. Another question from Mark Glazer. What happened to the money that the State Department of the US had to promote internet freedom?  So, see if I can give the broad overview rather than the detailed and whiny one. So, a lot of that money has gone toward tools. Circumvention technology, TOR also, so anonymity enabling technology. Tools that are used by people here, used by police, used by people in other countries. And so, tools that I would call for the most part, relatively neutral. And some of that money has also gone toward trainings. Less neutral. And then of course, we've also seen, it's my brave, we've also seen a lot of contention over which tools that money's going to, whether those tools are effective or safe. And of course, who they're targeting. And so there's been a lot of back and forth in Washington over funding of specific tools and I won't get into that. But what I would say, sort of the broad answer is that I think that those tools have been incredibly useful in enabling the safety of activists in a number of countries all over the world. In that sense, they're wonderful. But in terms of the rest of where that money is going, I haven't seen a whole lot of sort of output there. I haven't seen, trying to kind of couch this in the right language. But I just haven't seen proof that that money has gone to the right place and that it's really making a difference. And so, circumvention tools are wonderful. Don't get me wrong, they do help people get around censorship in a number of places, but they're not a silver bullet. And I personally believe that that type of funding and generally speaking, those efforts need to be diversified. And I don't think that we've exactly figured out how to do that yet. All right, I think that's a fairly thorough. Apparently some digital companies and I'll have to just, a member of the audience alleges that some digital companies build a backdoor into their software to allow government access. Is this true? Do you have any examples? And are there any legal restrictions that would prevent that? Well, a lot of technologies are required to have lawful access built into them. Which is different from a backdoor, is I think most people think about it, I think. Yeah. Folsom Street is a backdoor. That's a backdoor. So as opposed to sort of collia with the sort of lawful access. So it depends on the technology, really. Do you know of any, is there a version of, I mean, there have been great fears in other countries that Windows comes with its own NSA peak ability, but has any of that ever been exposed? I mean, there have been, you know, there. Adobe in China. Well, it was hacked. Adobe was hacked. But there's a lot of software that has flaws in it that hackers then exploit to access other people's computers. But that's not the same as a backdoor. That's not something that the U.S. government, or some other government required that the company deliberately built so that others could access user information. We could, of course, preserve deniability by hiring the hacker that finds the exploit. Right, yeah. I mean, not knowing what the intent of the person writing the question was, I mean, I think that it would be worth pointing out that a number of these companies, even if they don't have backdoors, and I actually can't think of a good example at the moment of one that does, but that a lot of these companies don't have safeguards in place for how they deal with legal requests from other countries. And so obviously, this is Rebecca's area of expertise and goes back to sort of why some of these protections are now being put in place and why some of these multi-stakeholder initiatives are forming, but at the same time, we still do see companies, examples of companies handing over information to foreign governments without much consideration of what that sort of legal process is. And then I would say even more commonly, we see companies taking down content at the request of foreign governments without really any consideration at all. There was actually a great study done recently by the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India, where, so now India has this law that allows anybody to sort of go ahead and request an intermediary to take down content and the intermediaries required to do so. There are certain parameters, but they're very broad. And this organization did a study where they submitted something like nine requests and to mostly American companies, and seven out of nine of them, I believe, don't quote me on that, were complied with and they were all absolutely outrageous requests. And so I do think that a lot of these companies are not, not only is their terms of service not really compliant with free speech principles, but then they're also just kind of taking down content at the request of anybody. I mean, one example, and again I'm not quite sure if this kind of fulfills what the questioner was really asking, but Skype, in order to market its software in China, went into a joint venture arrangement with a Chinese company called Tom. And it turned out that that version of Skype was logging everybody's text messages on Skype and sending them to a public security bureau computer in China. And there was a researcher in Canada who uncovered this. And apparently, the Skype head office claimed that they didn't actually know that it was, you know, that they were unaware it had been quite this bad. I mean, they knew that the company had been doing something, but you know. And so there, again, this kind of speaks to a lot of companies not thinking through how they're going to protect their users' interests. And, you know, I mean, there are a lot of, there are a number of Chinese companies trying to do business in the United States now and running against a lot of suspicion that the Chinese government might have a backdoor, you know, in a lot of these technologies and kind of worry about that. And this is why I think it's really globally in the interest of industry everywhere to kind of set up a set of mechanisms to prove, look, we are really, you know, we have a global standard on how we're protecting user information and we're allowing ourselves to be kind of audited that we're actually adhering to these standards. And there'd be a lot more trust, I think, in our networks if that would happen. And I think commerce would benefit. And the entire network would be more valuable if that happened. Well, I actually wanted to follow up on that because one of the things that's quite valuable in your book is that you talk about the sort of the insidious pressure on companies to collaborate. And one, I mean, China's got some pretty nifty technology just in government hands, but the most powerful tool really is the fact that companies have to cooperate with their law, which pushes the burden of censorship and down onto them. And that gets vague and maddening and then they probably overreach. And that's one of the things that drove Google nuts and eventually partially out of the country. But that happens in lots and lots of places and lots and lots of ways. I know with your global network initiative, you've tried to get companies to be, companies who sign up for it to be adhered to certain best practices and explain what they are. But that's been around for a while and there hasn't been a mass adoption of the, by the Facebooks and a lot of the newer Silicon Valley companies. How is that going? Do you think more companies will participate in that? Well, I think if you look at other initiatives and other industries, it takes a few years for them to build momentum. If you look at the Fair Labor Association, if you look at initiatives in the extractive industry, trying to get oil, mining, and gas companies to sign on to principles and be held accountable, it can take a while to really get the industry to kind of accept that they need to be held accountable. And so, global network initiative, we launched in 2008, Google Yahoo and Microsoft joined. We now have two more companies.  I think there's a range of companies who are recognizing they can't go alone and that they need to figure out how to kind of demonstrate to the public that they're trustworthy. And it takes a long time to go through their legal departments and get all the sign off. It can take a couple years for a company to get all the sign off throughout the corporation to actually join an initiative. So it takes a while and we're this year just going through our first year of independent assessment where you have an independent assessor is actually looking at to what extent are the companies actually living up to their commitments. And that process is still ongoing and the report is not out yet, so that's also a test. But so it takes a while and like I said, we're sort of like a 1970 Earth Day where you didn't get companies when it comes to environmental standards, when it comes to human rights standards, just to wake up one day and say, oh, I'm gonna do the right thing. It took a massive social, political, consumer, shareholder movement over decades to get companies to recognize their responsibilities. And we've just not seen too much pressure coming from the public, coming from consumers, coming from users, coming from even from government or from investors on companies to step up and recognize that there's this new component to sustainability and it's called civil liberties. And until you get sort of a similarly strong and broad movement in which kind of the social norm, the social license to operate includes respect for civil liberties and digital rights. If a company can get away with not being held accountable, of course it will. It's gonna commit to as little as it can get away with not committing to. So these kinds of things don't happen overnight and they don't happen without a whole ecosystem of people saying, this is what we value about a company and this is what we don't value about a company. If I might add to that though, I think one of the greatest things that's happened at the Global Network Initiative in the past year is one of the companies that joined more recently is a different type of company than Google Yahoo and Microsoft and that's WebSense. And what's interesting about this company, they produce filtering software. So software that is sold to people for their homes primarily to censor the internet, child safe internet, home filtering, great. Much better than the government doing it. But WebSense a couple years ago was, we noticed that the country Yemen was using their technology to censor political content and all sorts of other content. And when WebSense found out about this, they were quite angry and they attempted to stop Yemen from further updates. I know it took quite a while but essentially what happened was they ended up coming around on this and I think in the past year, I don't know their particular impetus for joining but in the past year with all of the news around surveillance exports and filtering exports, I believe that this company saw this as the right time to step up and really push those standards and I hope that their joining will cause some other companies like that to start considering this as well. Okay, might have time for two more questions or this might be it depending on how long your answer so you can spend some of your time on this one or all of it. What should individuals do to ensure that their privacy is protected as much as possible on the internet? Besides turn it off and resort to the as opposed to service. You know, I mean, I think the first step is a lot of what Rebecca's book talks about which is that we as users, as the general public need to become vigilant and start caring about this. People don't start caring about censorship generally until it affects them personally but these privacy questions affect all of us personally. We just don't think that they do because we're not criminals and so we think that we're immune or presumably. But you know, on the other hand, I think that's where we need to start moving forward and pushing companies, whether it's pushing them to join the global network initiative or pushing them to adopt their own policies or you know, really, I mean, I think this is a matter of sort of naming and shaming and something that needs to happen. Yeah, I mean, definitely what she said and it's public awareness. It's just being aware in part of what you're using and how that information is being shared who has access to it. I mean, I think a lot of people use stuff on the internet or mobile devices without really paying attention to how private or public it really is. And so part of that is just public education, educating ourselves, educating our children to think about, you know, is this just, I'm sending, I'm posting this thing on my friend's Facebook page but is this really just as public as me sticking it on the wall over there and letting everybody see it, you know, except it's magnified and, you know, just kind of think, again, think about what you're doing and sort of what its implications are. And a lot of that is just socialization because the technology so do, you know, we socialize our kids to look both ways before they cross the street, you know. There was a time when nobody was used to cars and you know, things were much more chaotic and then you kind of socialize yourself to live in a new kind of environment with new technologies and we haven't kind of socialized ourselves to this. So that's part of it too, I think, just in terms of education, you know, from primary school on up. All right, let me get one last quick question and I'm gonna synthesize from a couple of the questions in here because this is one of those relatively new things and that's the targeted advertising and the sort of the deep mining of information about individuals. Now supposedly this is to show dog lovers ads for dog food as opposed to cat food but it all sort of goes into this world of shadowy middlemen who are auctioning the right to advertise to you in a split second. Is that the only place it goes or is it going to go someplace else that we might find very unpleasant? Yeah, yeah, a security consultant who works for certain government agencies can then buy the information and then kind of work out what your preferences are and then maybe it might get used as part of an investigation in ways that are, you know, not appropriate. Well, how paranoid should we be? Let's all go, you know, it's, you know, that's a, I think we need to demand transparency and accountability and we need to be aware. And I think though that we've gotten to the point where yes, a lot of information is collected about us. We need to require that companies obtain more permission before they collect information. That they're more clear about how it's being used and sold and that there'd be more regulation about things being resold and so on and that there'd be more reporting on it. So that at least if something's being abused against us we understand who to hold responsible for it. And this is I think a lot of the problem is how do you constrain the abuse of this? Because sometimes we consent to the collection of our information because it's convenient for us. And so, okay, maybe we wanna do that but we also wanna make sure that it's not abused for purposes that we did not consent to. And right now we just don't have the mechanisms to prevent that abuse. And I'm sure Jillian would have great things to add to that, I'm not going to give her the chance. I'm sorry about that, we're out of time. That concludes our program for tonight on behalf of the World Affairs Council. I'd like to ask the audience to join me in thanking Rebecca McKinnon and Jillian York for this excellent talk and discussion. Thank you.


Bundy is saying Russell Wilson appears to have a to be a Vinny system quarterback and Seattle This is an underreaction to the week that was Denver appears to have threatened their immediate future with a sighting So what would you just blow up the Broncos? What are we doing? Poor Louis Hamilton? Yeah, yeah, some things were underreacting to Pat Mack if he having his mouth open when he jumped in that water and this take A look at the Giants no one in the NFL is having more fun than this team and it matters This is of course the Victor Cusack and he did a good job off to asshole Victor about this Then you had Dabel in the wink post game. They were super excited. Look at them. Love you Super excited they're having more fun than anybody the coaches are in on it and we're also seeing raw motion too. Take a look And why does it matter because I do in fact think in 2022 the Bella check-in hard-nosed No days off all business approach is a bit of an anomaly and it does not work for most teams If you look at recent history the teams that surprise and they go on runs are usually the ones that are embracing camaraderie and embracing fun in the process think about that 2017 same team they milked every defensive celebration. They run their taken pictures the whole thing 2019 Niners kiddle his antics the t-shirt on t-shirt stuff Remember the Eagles with their dog masks we looking at the Eagles now with their Batman capes and all of that going on the Bengals burrow the press conference the quotes that you know the wardrobe when you look really at the way this league is Going and you remove the old men and women yelling at a cloud about what's going on This is an element fun is an element necessary for success in this NFL And so that's one of my under reactions for this week Let's keep them coming here because everyone loves to overreact Let's get into some of it and let's get into the Tennessee Titans. Shall we? Okay, yeah, let's do it. They're coming off a bye. So literally no one is talking about them, but they you know reigning number one seed in the AFC Wins three straight Derek Henry looks like he's starting to cook again averaging a hundred forty total yards per game Four touchdowns over the course of this win streak and even in this bye week They've generated plenty of headlines. Okay, but it had lines, but not really right? No one's talking about this I'm gonna go ahead and say this is one of my favorite players of all time to Laney Walker deciding to officially retire as a Titan And it's very fitting because the three-time Pro bowler sort of perfectly embodies what this team is Understated he was always out there and performed he was tough as nails and he meant the world to the city of Nashville He went through immense tragedy that was very much connected to what was going on with his team Or at least bonded with in memory with what's going on with his team and then he has stood for You know, no drunk driving. He's stood for things and he did everything the right way I've always been a huge fan of Laney Walker one of the first jerseys I ever purchased so congrats on his retirement to this perennially and Weekly and daily underreacted to team and they're getting a new stadium. That's another big headline They've got funding for 2.2 billion dollar dome that was approved So you may see, you know, you know what this means Super Bowl Nashville, which I'd be so here for in the future All right, the second thing that I think everyone's underreacting to is George Kittle and his comments Oh, he's so fun and he's great and he should be in the WWE Well over the past two days when you know, he kept it real and when we're talking about the Niners even on the show We had analyst Mark Schlaerith on Monday and we talked about the San Francisco injuries We're a big part of that story. Take a look. I Know there is deep as anybody in the national football league, but when you lose six players and you lose guys You know the likes of starting corner Emmanuel Mosley Nick Bosa Eric Armstead, Javon Kinlaw, and that takes its toll So we're talking injuries. Darius Butler also alluded to both injuries When you think about the Niners and how talented they are anything that could get in the way of their success It's always the injuries Kittle though had a different take I mean you could use as an excuse, but we were the San Francisco 49ers We have a standard that we play at and we play at a very high level a lot of energy 100% effort on every single play and You know, I don't watch the tape yet, but I don't know if we gave that today, you know at every single position Very on Kittle in a great way. I like it being injured as an excuse everyone makes for this team for every team He's not letting that be the story or set into the locker room. And yes, the injuries are vast You can totally make that case and bad Eric Armstead and Bosa and Trent Williams We the best guy out there, especially, you know, Mark Schlaer said anybody would say it But then I don't know Let's let's jump off this full screen because you just got a look at what the Giants are doing and I could point to many teams But you know the Giants fans and the Giants can be sitting here making every conceivable injury excuse But instead they have changed their plan of attack and they have found a way to get it done So listen, it is game of thrones in the NFC West everyone's running around without appendages Children are crying. It's ugly, but the throne is there for the taking everyone is still alive in the thing And I think it comes down to who figures it out first. Is it the Niners? Do they figure out a way to attack with their injuries? Do they you know the Kittle questioning their effort? We're not talking about this enough 49ers Rams this weekend Which has always been a fun one-sided joust. So we'll see how it shakes out All right, I want your under reactions at up an atom show Carmen Vitali is coming up But the third thing that we are under reacting to is are we not doing Trabisci? No, I'm confused because I'm confused Anybody want to speak to me? Are we so we're not doing Trabisci then? No one's listening in the control room. No one's listening in the control room No, we don't want to do Trabisci now because okay, are we doing it? I guess we are Portra Biscay, let's just be real here. He's gotten the shaft on our show We want to talk about him on Monday. It got pushed to Tuesday We want to talk about him on Tuesday get pushed to Wednesday I want to talk about him today and then we start going to the break instead of talking about him But we're gonna give him a love because he was nearly perfect after Kenny Pickett went out with that concussion We are under reacting to his potential Second story to his second act to his second rewrite because we've been keep wanting to it to happen We don't know if it will but he was awesome game-changing touchdown toss to chase Claypool game ending 10 play four minutes 38 second drive that said see ya Tom Brady more drama about you You know Brady's dealing with a whirlwind at the tornado of the drama at the hands of Mitchell Chibisky Which is amazing So he was sort of unceremoniously benched against the Jets and now it was really awesome to see him sort of Get his moment. He got to go scorched earth and he sends Brady packing the Steelers season saved now from the brink of oblivion Hopefully saved and we don't really know how things are going to play out here Tomlin is very much being Mike Tomlin about this But the truth is Mitch gave the Steelers fans a moment They won't soon forget a bright spot at the very least so a big-time decision for old Tomlin And we will now go to break because we gave Mitchell Chibisky his love in the sloppiest segment We've had in the last 15 of 32 shows, but that's okay. We're still learning here We had Pat McAfee Carmen Vitale is in studio. I wanted to get up and greet her but I can't cuz my mic pack is off It's fine. We'll be back. We'll be back


Former president George W. Bush war criminal was interviewed on CBS News and During this interview. He called for compassion. I repeat War criminal George W. Bush called for compassion in America. Take a look You ran as a compassionate conservative. I did Do you believe there are compassionate conservatives today? Absolutely. I'm one and I think there are a lot The problem is With an angry society It's hard to punch through with compassion Is it an angry society or is it a certain leaders and people who've stoked that anger and fear? I think there's a that's an interesting question I'm a big leadership guy and and so therefore I think maybe Maybe the latter part of your question is true that people stoke anger in order to advance their apolitical agenda I do believe there is a more well my dad spoke of the kinder and gentler And he truly believed it and I believed in a unifier not divider and They just can't be empty slogans. You have to believe it in order to be credible I think That yes, it's going to require leadership to help heal heal wounds That is rich coming from him and let me just say shame on the interviewer there Because when you're interviewing George W. Bush if you're even going to platform him at all Which I don't think anyone should be doing but if you're going to interview George W. Bush There's only two questions you should ever ask him One when can we expect you to turn yourself into international authorities to be tried for crimes against humanity and two How do you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you are responsible for catastrophic losses to human life? That's the only two things anyone should ever ask Of this criminal who should be in prison For the rest of his life now. It's funny. She says uh, you ran as a compassionate conservative. Did he though? a compassionate conservative would you call it compassionate to base your entire 2004 campaign On introducing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages Do you call that compassion to make sure that gay people in america never have the opportunity? Even in their state to get marriage equality. I mean thankfully he lost that battle, but do you call that compassionate? I don't call that compassionate someone who wanted to kick people off of welfare partially privatized social security For wall street. Is that compassion? It's shocking that a reporter have the audacity to say this But uh, he responds and says that he believes that there are still compassionate conservatives And he believes that he is a compassionate conservative. That's hilarious But he adds the problem is with an angry society. It's hard to punch through With compassion because everyone in america. They're just so mad right now. We're all at each other's throats Why is that george w bush? Is it because the economic ideology of elites? Capitalism has absolutely decimated the population and the planet and we all feel as if we're marching towards Climate catastrophe and an apocalypse. Meanwhile, we're all miserable. People are starving Homelessness is on the rise in america I mean, why is it that we're angry? Well, according to him his theory is that people are angry Because we don't have someone who's a unifier or a divider his dad. He claims was a unifier His dad by the way, uh, groped numerous women doesn't sound like a unifier to me sounds like an actual terrible human being Also, he says they can't be empty slogans. So when politicians speak the rhetoric of unifiers You have to believe it in order to be credible. So when you're espousing these types of platitudes It's not actually going to work. It's not actually going to resonate with the american population Unless you really believe it to your core. That's What's going to, uh, you know foster the spread Of compassion in america You want to know what might bring americans together george bush? Is if we saw you arrested if we saw you In handcuffs serving time behind bars with your buddy brock obama with your buddy donald trump for committing crimes against humanity it's just It's interesting to me. It's so rich that he has criticisms for american society If there are issues with american society and there are many one of them is that you have freedom right now You shouldn't have freedom. You should be behind bars But the media has gone out of their way to normalize and rehabilitate george w bush because donald trump is so bad That he makes someone like george w bush even seems sane But you never normalize someone who committed atrocities to the extent that george w bush did george w bush Is a mass murderer and a war criminal and again any journalist who interviews him Should never shove it up with him never ask him softball questions The only two questions you ask him is when will you turn yourself in and how do you live with yourself? That's it and i'm not being hyperbolic. I literally think that should be the only two questions that you ask Because what else do we need to hear from this individual? This is a monster who cares what he has to say about american society and policy I couldn't care less. All I care about when it comes to bush related news Is that he's going to be in prison the fact that he's not speaks to the moral depravity of our society