I am happy to introduce our last keynote speaker, Julia Reda. She's a member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party since 2014. She has a legislative focus on copyright and internet policy issues. She was therefore responsible for the parliament's evaluation of the copyright reform, which was very well received. Today she talks about free software and public administration. She says if the code is public, the public also has a responsibility. She will talk about how and why public administrations should care and promote free software, should also care about the code and about its security. Please welcome Julia Reda. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to talk about the relationship between free and open source software and government. Being a politician, not a very surprising topic, but from what I heard, it is a topic that has resonated with quite a lot of the talks this weekend, and it's certainly a topic of a lot of interest, whether and how governments and public administrations are using free software. And there are also lots of good arguments about that that we've heard about how free and open source software can make you more independent from a specific vendor. It can help the administrations to adapt to new tasks. And of course it can also save costs. But these are all different arguments that I don't want to go into so much in this talk. What I do want to talk about more fundamentally is what is a government and what does that have to do with free software? On a very fundamental level, at least the ideal is that government is all of us. It should serve everybody and it should be accountable to everybody. And one very important function that even the most critical people of governments recognize what a government does is that it provides infrastructure. So it makes sure that there are streets, it makes sure that there are cables in the ground, perhaps it doesn't actually run the internet and telephone services, but at least it makes sure that they're available and safe to use. But we can argue that for civic software, for software that is used by the government, especially in the interaction with the public, that this is also a public service. And the only software philosophy that would really make sense for a government that takes its accountability to the public seriously is that it uses, it takes responsibility for and it also contributes to free and open source software. I think that this task, making sure that government uses free and open source software is today more urgent than ever. That's because of two different distinct developments in society and technology that together can become quite dangerous. The one is the importance of technology in society. The other is what I call losing the freedom to tinker. The combination of these two developments means that technological progress can lead not to a gain in autonomy like we have all hoped, but to a loss in autonomy of the people. That the great promise of autonomy that it will empower everybody that the free and open source software community also stands for is at stake. So if we lose this fight, the technology can become a tool just for the powerful in society and not for everybody. So I've chosen a rather provocative term for the role of software in society that algorithms rule the world. You've probably read this in newspapers, usually in kind of a context where they say that software is somehow magic and only very few people know what's happening and we're all slaves to those new software magicians. This is not what I'm talking about. And it's also not to be understood in the sense of some politicians who are basically saying let's ban all technology. But I mean this more in the sense that computers are no longer limited to particular parts of our lives, but rather that they're an integral part of the physical world. So the best example of that, I guess, is that nobody really talks about real life anymore when they mean offline. I've come across this development, the importance of software in several sometimes rather unexpected parts of my work. And one that was most revealing to me was my work in the inquiry committee on the so-called diesel gate, the diesel exhaust fumes scandal. This is not just a scandal where governments turned a blind eye to obvious fraud by powerful companies. It's also a scandal that is based on the fact that cars are computers on wheels and our legislation is not adapted to this reality. The defeat devices that is the cheat codes inside the cars can be completely software based. And actually in the process for allowing a car to go on the road there is no check even to make sure whether the software run on the car that is tested is actually the same as the software that is sold to customers. So even if the car that is tested in the laboratory is completely safe does not have too high emissions, if it's the software alone that can influence this, our tests are completely inadequate for actually testing whether the cars on the road are safe because from a purely computer point of view they could be completely different devices simply because they're running completely different software. Another interesting aspect of this is that defeat devices can actually be legal in a very small exception and that is if it's necessary to protect the engine from damage. And unfortunately there is actually no requirement in the law that a car maker who uses such a defeat device that is switching off the NOX abatement technology simply to save the engine that they don't have to disclose this to the regulators in any way. That means they don't have to expose the source code not even to the regulators and they don't have to explain what the software on the car actually does. What this means in practice this is a slide from the CCC talk by Felix Domke and Daniel Lange this year is that in the case of Felix Domke's VW car there was actually a function programmed into the car that was switching off the NOX abatement technology whenever the distance driven by the car was deviating significantly from the test procedure that was written into the law. So in order to find this out I mean this is a very obvious fraud of course but in order to find this out Felix Domke actually had to reverse engineer the software on his own car and of course it would make a lot more sense if a car manufacturer actually had to disclose the software to the regulators and explain if there is a defeat device what exactly is it for and how the hell is this supposed to protect the engine. Another area where we're seeing an increasing importance of software is robotics and implants so it's not just that the cars that are driving on our streets will eventually not be driven by people anymore and will become robots we're also introducing robots into healthcare at the workplace in a way that they're directly interacting with humans and we also have software running inside humans a less scary example of this is perhaps a friend of mine who wears a cochlear implant which is a digital hearing aid that can transform a sound into a digital signal and allows him to hear if there's a software vulnerability in this kind of device perhaps the worst thing that could happen to you is that you don't hear something that is there or perhaps even that you hear something that is not there something more scary a more scary example of software not doing what it's supposed to would be software on a pacemaker and there was an accident talked by the security researcher Mary Moe called Unpatchable Living with a Vulnerable Implanted Device now that sounds a lot more scary actually in her case she was wearing a pacemaker she was not able to inspect the source code on this pacemaker and it turned out that it had a bug and when she suddenly fell down when she was walking up a flight of stairs they couldn't simply see what exactly the software was doing instead they basically had to put her on a treadmill and troubleshoot her so what Mary Moe is saying about this is that I want to know what code runs on my body which I think is an incredibly reasonable demand from government but this is also something that the European Parliament is discussing thankfully however whenever there's a good idea of what we should do with new technology there's also a bad idea so the European Parliament is also discussing whether robots and artificial intelligence that create new works for example an algorithm created song whether there should be copyright on that which I think is a terrible idea so these questions are definitely something that is under development in the governments at the moment and something that we need to pay attention to something that's a much older debate is the use of technology in elections in the US voting systems have not been considered critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security so even though there are lots of independent reports that show that a lot of the voting systems the voting software that is being used on a municipal or regional level even though it's known that it's unsafe it isn't really treated like much of a problem another good example from Estonia that is already doing online elections they had actually one invalid vote via the online voting system which apparently comes from one member of the pirate party so I think it's really important that we also have the possibility to inspect any kind of software that is basically being used to fulfill extremely important functions of course the Estonian online election system is not 100% free and open source software then there's also this debate about whether Facebook algorithms can influence election outcomes which I guess are more social debates but really show that there is quite an issue that needs to be discussed one more example what we call predictive policing which is basically the use of data about previous crimes to predict where future crimes are going to take place I think this is a really good example of showing that machines basically can only learn from our own dump behavior so for example this predictive policing has been criticized for perpetuating racist stereotypes so for example in the war on drugs on average white people take more drugs than black people and also engage more selling and buying however the number of black people actually arrested on drug crimes is a lot higher so if you base your predictions of future crimes on what has happened before you're not actually basing it on the real incidents of crime but only on the crime that we know about so there is a real danger that if we don't know how exactly this kind of software works we can't find out whether there are biases that are built into it and I think from a fundamental rights perspective it's extremely important that whenever a public administration the police or a government does something that is directly to your disadvantage that they owe you an explanation of why they came to this conclusion and if we use proprietary software in order to make decisions this is certainly not the case and perhaps on a less serious note everything's becoming internet of things sometimes it makes free software more critical because if you have Windows 10 running on your fridge basically if you have more proprietary software running on everything there are more fun ways how your software can fail so this is one part of the problem but I think the fact that there is more technology around us is not a problem as such it becomes a problem if at the same time we are legally barred from controlling this software and this is something that's happening on quite a lot of fields Edward Felton who was an academic and is nowadays the deputy CTO of the United States he coined this term of the freedom to tinker in the early 2000 and it's one that goes beyond just the mere act of being able to access source code but it's a full freedom to inspect, to understand, to repair to modify both software and hardware and it's based on the idea that you can't actually learn to write only by reading so you do have to interact with the system in order to fully understand it and also to be able to build something new based on the things that you've learned so this freedom to tinker is really important as the basis of education as the basis for innovation and also in order to give people autonomy over the devices that they buy and I think this freedom to tinker should be protected in a similar way as the freedom of speech there are recently some lobby groups who are working particularly on protecting and enshrining this freedom to tinker a lot of them at the moment are based in the US there's for example I am the cavalry which is a group of security researchers that are really trying to make the hardware that is part of our lives trustworthy and secure and allow people to understand them there's also the right to repair group and other groups that are working on this theme but the freedom of tinker is under attack from a lot of different types of legislation one is quite a fundamental problem with the way that digital content is dealt with in the law that is that information is governed quite differently from physical goods so as a simple example if I buy a book I own this book if I buy an e-book I have a usage license that is perhaps not transferable so if I have a big collection of e-books I can't actually give this collection to my children when I die and of course when more and more products are kind of a mixture of physical good and information what the manufacturers and the industry try to do is to transpose this logic from the dealing with information onto those products and try to rent us things rather than have us buy them one good example of this was the controversy around the John Deere tractor where the manufacturer was basically saying that the people who had bought this tractor were not allowed to actually repair the tractor themselves because they were just license holder of this tractor and they were not able to modify it yeah it was said in the beginning of this talk that I had made some recommendations around copyright reform that were actually adopted by the European Parliament for example I fought for public domain status of official work so that would mean that any kind of work of art, of photography, writing, whatever that was created by an employee of public administration during their work time was considered to be in the public domain and was not covered by copyright another demand was that the circumvention of technological protections for legal purposes so for example if you have legally bought a CD and you've already paid the levy for being able to make copies of it then you should be able to actually circumvent the DRM to make copies even though quite a lot of such common sense demands were supported by the European Parliament the European Commission's proposal for copyright reform has now been leaked and all of these common sense ideas have been shot down instead we're going to get a new right for news publishers to control how we share news online and an obligation for any kind of internet platforms that have user generated content to use technology to scan for copyright infringement so this is a topic for another talk and I will be working on stopping these terrible developments for months to come but it's also another way of showing that also in the area of copyright there is no positive development yet that would actually give us more control over the stuff that we buy another area that is becoming more and more concerning are trade secrets so trade secrets started out as being a way of defending against anti-competitive behavior so basically if you're one car manufacturer and somebody from the other car manufacturer breaks into your office and steals all your plans that would be something that would have traditionally been covered by trade secrets nowadays it's no longer about whether or not there's a competitor involved it's the information as such that is protected so a car maker can claim for example that the software on the car is a trade secret and therefore the regulator can't even look at it to find out whether they're cheating on the emissions tests and of course the regulator is in no way in a competitive situation to this car maker so it actually doesn't make any sense quite concerningly the United States are slowly introducing this into trade agreements with other parts of the world and their argument is if you allow governments to require companies to disclose software then basically China is going to copy all our innovation and give the information to their own companies so I think we have to make sure that if we want to mandate more source code disclosure from manufacturers we have to make sure that in international trade our governments actually remain able to do this there are not just legal but also social developments that I think make free software and open systems more important on the 28th Chaos Communication Congress Cori Doctorow was warning about a future in which more and more devices have their functionality crippled on purpose so something that is sold to you that could be a fully functioning computer is somehow locked in that only certain functions of it work and of course we know nowadays that with every smart phone and every smart fridge and smart home we buy that we are coming closer to this reality because the consumer simply lose the expectation that if they buy a computer they are actually able to do what they want with it and that they are actually able to install the operating system that they want and so on so I think that is definitely really important and dangerous social and technological development finally there are also some moves from new laws regarding what kind of software and firmware can be installed on routers once again there is kind of a public security argument for that that is that the manufacturers of the router should make sure that users cannot accidentally or non-accidentally use the wrong spectrum with these devices but at the same time in order to allow competition for example the FCC in the United States has found that they should allow firmware from third parties to be installed but how do you do this how do you on the one hand limit what the third party software can do and on the other hand still keep it open to different firmware so I think what is going to happen one possible reconciliation is that on routers we are also going to have kind of trusted computing solutions with a cryptographic signature for any kind of firmware that can be installed on them and this is already the case for most computers that are being sold with secure boot and so on and is of course especially for lay people making the installation of Linux incredibly more challenging so a lot of these examples are kind of bad things that are going on in the legislative process but also some broader societal things so what can the government do about it and can we actually rely upon the government to do anything I think it's important to recognize that we can influence the government in activities if we actually decide to prioritize on this and to not just build software but to actually make sure that governments understand how free and open source software is in their interest and for that we do need the practical arguments that government administrations already rely on free and open source software in a lot of cases and that's in their interest that the software is secure that it's well maintained and that there's a community behind it that can actually do its work and it's not hindered by counterproductive legislation so in other words the government has to start taking responsibility and further the goals of security, safety, etc. that are represented by the free software movement so there are some positive examples of how this is being done there are simply funding ways like the prototype fund in Germany where basically money is directly given to open source projects and the prototype fund also not just gives money but also helps the project deal with the bureaucracy around it and make the process easier for people who are not used to working with public administrations on a daily basis but perhaps a more pretty obvious thing from recent news that's also important are security audits so in 2014 we had the hard bleed and child shock vulnerabilities that demonstrated that a lot of infrastructure is relying on free and open source software but quite often there's no responsibility even from large companies and governments that are using this software to actually contribute to its functioning to finding software bugs and to making sure that they're giving something back to the community that is developing these solutions so the European commission upon the initiative of a colleague of mine and myself has started a pilot project for free and open source software auditing now we had to somehow convince the commission that it's a good idea to try to build relationships with the free software community and to show them how this also has a benefit for themselves so some parts of this project that have already been placed is that the European commission was investigating different methodologies for how to do audits, how the software code is being maintained and governed in different existing community projects and also to do an inventory of all the free and open source software that is currently being used in the free software in the European institutions or that they use in order to build new software that is commissioned by themselves existing software libraries etc and the purpose of this is also to find common interests so to see this is a software that the European commission is really relying on but it also has a great value to the community at large so in order to find out which projects actually do have this common interest and that would be most interesting for the community to also be looked into in order to do that we did a public survey where we basically asked out of a number of different free software projects that were in use in the institutions which ones the community would like to see audited and from this public survey we had two projects that got the most votes namely the Apache HTTP server and KeyPass of course Apache is already widely used in not just in the European institutions but also beyond KeyPass is actually not used by huge numbers inside the commission so far but it got a lot of public votes and I think it's a good example of a user space software so something where the security is really important for the end user and there's really it makes sense to them why this kind of software should be audited so this two years pilot project is coming to an end there's currently a company that is doing the audit of these two projects and in the running of this project we've also run into some challenges that are mostly to do with how to make sure that the European commission as basically a public administration that so far has not had a lot of dealings with the free software community actually understand what they're doing how they get the expertise from the community and how we can hold them accountable that they actually listen to it and in this process the free software foundation Europe has been extremely involved and really always trying to push us in the right direction because I have to say as a member of parliament the amount of time that I can spend on running after a consultancy that is doing an audit is limited but I think we do have identified also how we can improve this project so we're trying to continue it to get a budget for the next few years and to eventually make it a permanent part of the EU budget and one thing that we really want to do is in the future to do a bug bounty program where we directly take a large part of the money that is put in the budget in order to make people the experts in the community themselves look for bugs and get remunerated for that so for projects like this I think the involvement of the community is really important but also the patients of the community because of course working with the big administration can be quite frustrating and I think especially in this cases it really pays off to be organized as a community to actually have an advocacy organization that is doing this work for you so what's going to happen next what can we actually achieve I think on the one hand of course simply developing the software the direct action on that is incredibly important but at the same time it's also very important to try to work within the system and to try to build networks between the free software community and politicians who actually care about these issues because I'm certainly not the only one we can also look at some success stories where open source policies have been passed there's recently been one in Bulgaria there's also the US federal source code policy which you know are not perfect policies so what the US is doing for example is saying okay all software that a government agency commissions needs to be reusable for the entire government which just makes a lot of sense and they have a goal of actually publishing 20% of the software that they commission as open source software which is well not what we are going to aim for but it's certainly better than nothing and more than a lot of European governments are doing at the moment the European commission does have an open source policy but it's very well very basic in the sense that for example they commit to not disadvantageing open source solutions in public procurement which is nice I mean I think if simply offering a free software or open source solution were considered disadvantage that would certainly be a problem but where we want to get to of course is that they actually consider it an advantage and that they make it a requirement so here's my call for action and this is something that I think the free foundation has already laid the ground work for is that we need to move towards a sustainable public procurement system and that every government in the EU as well as the European commission actually have a free software policy that means that all the software that is developed with public money will actually be published in a public under a free license and is reusable for anyone at the end the government is acting in the public interest the FSFE is already starting a mapping exercise to see what is already out there what inefficiency could be addressed with free and open source software and if you want to get active in that I think they definitely well come people who maybe experts with what different municipalities are doing or simply have the technical expertise to contribute to that our goal needs to be to make government not just tolerate and use free and open source software but to actually promote and improve it thank you very interesting talk now it's time for question and answer first thanks for your talk thoughts about auditing software I think it's not enough to just audit the code because that is opening Pandora's box you also have to audit the processes of the people who create it are they actually reacting to security problems which brings the next problem if you audit code and you find a huge number of bugs in keep us for example you are being the nice person you put them all in their bugzilla and then you have a problem so it also has to be fixed how can you make sure that happens should that be public resources as well what are your thoughts on that well one thing that we really try to push for and as far as I know that actually has happened is that before the commission or the company that the commission has put in charge of doing the audit before they actually start doing the audit they do have to get in touch with the community with the developer that they know that this audit is going on that they are the first to be informed and that they can actually process this input in a meaningful way I think if we go towards the model of bug bounties of course actually fixing the bug can be a part of that and I think that's probably more easy to do if we create incentives for the people who are already developing the software that they can actually work on fixing those bugs the processes are actually part of the pilot project in the sense that the first step of it was that there was a comparison being done between the processes of software development within the European commission and in different free software projects however there were apparently some problems with that in the sense that not every free software project that was supposed to be contacted actually was contacted and so some inaccurate information actually ended up in the report I think if we do manage to get funding to improve or to continue the process and to do a next step based on this pilot project this criticism that also to a large extent was collected by FSFE and given to me is extremely invaluable because I don't have the expertise to know everything that may go wrong so to have actually the community actively involved and know who to tell either in the parliament or in the commission if something's going wrong is really important Hi, thanks for the talk here so I wanted to ask you said that software that is developed with public resources should be released and should be free and released as open source so you might have said this but what is the status of that? I mean is that something that is about to happen is that happening in every city in every European country but how does that work? At the moment it's certainly not happening everywhere I think it's more the exception rather than the rule that a public administration actually has a policy like that and we do have similar rules for example in the in the sciences funding by the European Union so the horizon 2020 program for example requires you to release all the research results under open access but unfortunately so far this doesn't include any software that may have been programmed as part of this research exercise so I think at the moment there's really a lack of commitment to this goal and as far as I know at least to my knowledge Bulgaria is the only country in the EU that I know of where this is basically a national level government policy there may be others but certainly in Germany it's not the case Yeah thanks for the talk so sometimes it appears to be like you're the only person in the European Parliament at least for me to understand some topics and what is the situation in the European Parliament and what would be your suggestions for normal people like me just FSE fellows to support the cause and to prevent stupid decisions in the commission and maybe you know also in European Parliament someone who can be just nudged in the right direction or yeah Well I think there are different strategies and certainly not the only person who is working on these topics but sometimes you have to draw a connection between the thing that the parliamentarian is really interested in and then your topics so for example all my colleagues from the Green Party are extremely interested in the diesel gate scandal and how exactly it worked because they're really interested in doing something about pollution so being able to somehow connect the topics to the topics that people are already working on is a really useful strategy but I think another thing that's important is that for volunteers it is still quite difficult to have the same level of influence as the industry so actually having an association that is represented in Brussels with people working full time on this is also really important but in comparison to I would say a national member of parliament the number of people who contact MEPs directly is still rather limited so if it's about stopping a bad proposal then sometimes just getting lots and lots of people to write to their representatives to all their representatives about this can be a useful strategy but that works much better if you want to stop something bad than if you want to get people actually interested in changing something for the better but we do have an intergroup that is made up of people from different political parties that deals with internet policy on a broader level and they do sometimes take positions I mean it's certainly the more progressive members of the parliament even though there are people represented from all over the board and for example they have been really active in opposing this new copyright for publishers for newspaper articles so I think yeah if you want specific names you can certainly write me an email but other than that organizing as an association and actually sending people to Brussels to knock on people's doors is extremely important Hi, what you've talked about there for free software is a very good move but one of the problems at the moment is that if you report a security vulnerability against some closed source software there's no requirement on the manufacturer to actually fix it so are you making any moves towards actually requiring that manufacturers support software or at the very least provide definitions of when they'll support it and when they won't I'm not directly involved in this I know that one of my colleagues Jan Philipp Albrecht was trying to get some vulnerability disclosure requirements into the network and information security directive which is mostly about like critical infrastructure and so on there are some moves in the areas of consumer law so basically if you buy a device that you have certain rights as a consumer as to continued support of the software running on that but this is really still in very early stages and these are the only developments I can think of where this is being addressed but at the moment there doesn't seem to be such a requirement so we have as technology makers and especially government the responsibility to make all technology accessible to every citizen you didn't talk a lot about that but that's also an important thing to make software free so anybody can extend them in different ways there's many people with disabilities of any kind or have not very powerful computers and so on doesn't matter any kind of so does that come up in conversations that or somebody's also mentioning that in the conversations? We haven't actually made the connection between accessibility and free software too much so far but it's actually a really good point the European Parliament recently passed the web accessibility directive which will at least force public administrations to make their websites and apps and so on freely accessible and of course in many cases actually doing that can be much easier by using free and open source software and you already have people who are kind of working on the software also to make it more usable for themselves and so I hope that this can give some positive impulses in this direction unfortunately I mean the web accessibility directive alone which is relatively limited in scope really to the government administrations will still take years to go into effect I mean you basically have really strong lobbying from the municipalities who are saying they don't have any money to do this even though actually forcing somebody with a disability to go personally to the administration and have them deal with the things that don't work in their software can be a lot more expensive and I hope that there's going to be more of a change in the mindset in the municipalities that making things accessible is actually a priority a human rights issue and also simply make sense in their own procedures this is something I'm wondering about this somebody who's kind of involved with FSFE do you think that it would make sense for us as an organization to also target national lobbying more or should we like focus our efforts on the EU because that makes the most sense I think both make sense because for example if you want your municipal I don't know your city council or your public administration to use free software then the European Union will have a very difficult time mandating that what you can get at the European Union is to make sure that we have sensible information policy laws so when it comes to copyright to trade secrets and so on and of course to get the European institutions to actually use and promote free software but as a general rule the national states they have bigger budgets they have a lot of oversight over the different public administrations that are really right in front of your doorstep so I would say that definitely both approaches make perfect sense hi additional question on the releasing the software as open source so as I understood there is no plan to enforce that right it is more of a suggestion to the government to start making software and releasing it or is there a law is there any plan to enforce that no there is no law yet so there is nothing to enforce but I think that should be our goal and it's something that I think if the governments really well get informed about the topics we realize that it actually makes sense for them too but I think what would make the most sense for an organization like FSFE is to actually lobby for such a law to be put in place both as regards the European institutions as well as on a national level but at the moment such law doesn't exist in well pretty much all of the European countries okay thank you so great speech I like the the fact that our funds now to do audit on security issues I was wondering if it would be feasible to do auditing compliance to interoperability to see if software is actually following the standards that we set as a community and currently it's actually very profitable for companies to not follow interoperability standards and this is costing us a lot of money so it would be great if we would set some money aside to actually check that software that we're buying follow certain standards that we require because currently there's very little information about that usually it's the member states that have to make sure that European laws are being enforced and that there's actually enough money to enforce them so I'm not a hundred percent sure whether it's possible to pay for that through the EU budget because it would basically be well admitting that the member states are not doing their jobs what the commission can do is if a member state is not following its requirements which usually includes enforcing the law the commission can start an infringement procedure against this state which can become relatively costly for the state but yeah I would have to look into that whether it's possible for the commission to actually or for the European Union budget to directly fund enforcement of existing laws because well this is something that they should be doing anyway so in the US I see some positive improvements like you already mentioned this White House policy which is of course not perfect but what I also see in the US and I at least had heard two talks like from the digital infrastructure agency or something and 18F so they're like groups of people building up I don't know exactly how the structure looks like but the government funded who are writing free software open source software which is all like on github great people they all do startup mentality in agile do you see any future for this in Europe because I think this would also drive this forward without any policies because if you have a body of people doing great work and free software then you don't need to reach out to proprietary vendors anymore right well as I understand this this project the prototype fund is that it does something like that so it basically gives money directly to projects that are building open source software for different uses and those could of course also be uses that have a direct use inside the government so but you know the prototype fund and also the open source security audit by the commission they have a budget of around a million euros so this is nice but it's basically just a start and it can't really finance such projects on a grander scale so from what you've described I would think that probably these projects have bigger budgets and that's probably something that we need to work on and therefore it's also important to make sure that these small projects that do exist actually become successful and that basically it becomes well useful for a politician to promote something like that if they see okay this is something that people are interested in is something that can win them points and they're likely to try to do it again well all this talk we've heard now was mainly about software written by the government or for the government and all the scary things we've seen in the beginning were about cars and pacemakers and things that are certainly not written by the government or for the government wouldn't it make more sense to put pressure on that sites to require the companies that write that code to make the code free software so that it can be expected sure I think there's not always a clear line the same software is the same free and open source software is being used inside government and inside large corporations to some extent but of course a lot of the problems are with proprietary software and but I do think that the government will be much more likely to actually mandate disclosing of software in critical devices such as cars if they are already using open source software themselves because if they feel like this mandating can actually make somehow their own governmental procedures insecure then they're probably much less likely to go down this route so I think it's probably important to go down both alleys but as a first step I think it's really important to kind of to try to get the government on your side on these free software topics and if they're not using free software themselves then they're probably not going to see the merits of it hi I just wanted to say that not only software is important but to be computed as you just in the hardware as you just try to lock down the hardware in the last years and it would be really important that we look at that and say that it has to be possible to have open systems which are not in lockdown for government institutions or for anyone really so one of those laws that we are working on is this router lockdown directive or that's what we like to call it where as far as I can tell nobody realized at the time that this directive was passed that it would create problems for like Freifunk and other open Wi-Fi communities and that it would make it difficult to run free software on routers so I think basically having people there who actually understand free software and who can look at the legislative process as it is going on and jump in there and point out problems is sometimes all it takes and at the time there was nobody there who was doing that so now we have to try to somehow avoid the problem down the line as the member states are transposing this directive international laws. Thank you. I have a question regarding the open source audit what are the arguments if somebody has concerns that the European Commission is helping one product by funding their security audit and thus making their position on the market better. Yeah we were discussing that but we decided it's not really a problem because if they find something this improvement at the end of the day benefits everyone and if for example there's a fork of this project that is developing it in a different direction which seems to be the case with key pass to a pretty large extent there's a good chance that any vulnerability that could be found is also relevant for that other project. So of course whenever the government is funding something that is organized by citizens or organized by the private sector there may be 10 different projects that don't get funded and you can say that this is unfair but I think it would be probably we would all be worse off if we reacted to this by not having any public funding for public interest goals at all. I have to say that Julia really has to leave in point so we have time for two last questions. At least in the UK we're seeing the increasing privatization of public services. Has there been any discussion that you've witnessed with regard to overseeing the use of proprietary software by these private organizations providing essential public services like education? Well there's certainly a discussion about all the problems that we have thanks to some of the privatizations that have taken place and how they have taken place. I'm not sure that the use of software by these companies as such is being addressed but I would have to look into that. I can't think of an example right now. Final question for you. The final question. So the aged cynic in me cannot help but remember that the proprietary software vendors have taken every opportunity to point to any areas in open source as being a big problem and because they're open you can see them whilst they're as a hidden. Is there any effort to also take the pieces of closed source software that are being used by the commission and get them also audited so that they can't go saying these flaws that have been found in open source they are then faced with the well yeah and look at yours which they're not as easy to deal with are they? Right. I have to admit I have not thought of that at all but I'm thinking about it now. Thank you very very much what an inspiring weekend we had haven't we? I hope you guys have shared a lot of ideas shared some software. Eric had shared his flu with me so before we carry on I would like to invite KDE up here they will be they will be doing their academy award so I expect a lot of film stars to come up here by now oh there's our first film star okay yeah tradition time so it's the year of academy again and I have the honour this year to give out the academy awards to people that have contributed a lot of good work to the KDE community and we will start with non-application contribution award which has been decided by this year's jury to go to Alex Paul for his continued work throughout all of KDE thanks a lot man you could have gotten lots of developer awards as well but we thought this one was good so then we continue with I think the application award which goes to something where we thought it's kind of odd that they didn't ever get the prize so far this year the award goes to Christoph Coleman and Dominic Hauman for their work on K-Tex editor K-Ride and Kate how long has it been 15 years your time has come thanks and then the jury thought that the jury award goes to another developer and actually the whole community it's actually this year for Daniel Rattl and the other KDE pimsters for his work and their work on Aconadi and keeping our mail safe so thanks a lot Daniel where are you come up thank you Dan and last but not least of course we want to thank and please everyone give a big big shout out to the organizers this year come up here and receive your award for your work on actually making this event happen Kenny Coyle it's you yeah thank you thank you and this prize definitely includes all the other volunteers from the other communities for helping out on this weekend thanks a lot everyone well we are in the part of just saying thank you so I would like also to say thank you to the representatives up here they are by far not the persons that done the most I don't even remember seeing last at a single meeting but they represent each of the subgroups that have been doing an excellent piece of work to make this happen it's seven or eight months ago since somebody got the idea why don't we get these what at least on the face value looks very diverse group to work together to create an event like this and we did and can you please for all those groups give them a big hand thank you very much it's been a really great few days thank you everyone for coming when we were thinking about this a year ago I definitely didn't imagine this so thanks for making this happen everyone who helped make organized this but also everything our attendee who made it great thank you very much and I've been told that if they are volunteers who didn't yet get a t-shirt or who still want another one they can go down to the registration after this and get more for academy we are going to continue tomorrow at the technical university everyone is welcome to join us there for hacking buffs and more thank you thanks I'm Felix I'm representing here and I'm one of those board members there and we're happy to be part of this weekend and we're excited to actually meet users which is something we don't do and to even welcome users to our codec talks about low level mathematics of how videos work and it was really nice for us and I hope enjoyable for you and maybe see you next year thanks I'd also like to extend another thanks to everybody who has really helped organize the event you know it's something like that people came to me and said why don't we organize a bigger conference together with KDE and then somehow FSFE came in and video land came in and I thought it was great and it's great to see so many people that came here to this event you know discussing for a weekend about you know the stuff that they're passionate for what they're doing and I think you know from all I've heard so far you know it has been a really great weekend for everybody you know we got lots of good stuff out of that and in the end you know it's all of you who are doing all that work on this project that will help us push this forward so thanks a lot to all of you for really contributing to the projects we had our first FSFE summit here at QtCon and I think it was a big success given the good feedback I've heard which is also due to the very good cooperation that we had here among us organizers of the communities that makes me happy but makes me even more happy is when I heard that fellows from the FSFE political activists were joining developers meeting here and developers were joining our political talks and also how I became aware that there are a lot of people here inside to contribute to more than one community who are part of FSFE end of KDE or end of VLC and this makes me really happy and I hope that we can have this a similar thing in the future I think this was a very good thing for all of our communities so one of the hopes we had when we started this journey was that you guys would not just go to your own so the KDE developers go to their KDE meetings and so on so we've been talking a lot about so did people do that so I would like you to be completely quiet if you didn't go to anybody's other talk clap a bit if you went to some of the other talks clap a bit harder if you went to quite a few of talks outside of your own domain so can I hear you awesome we can clap our own shoulders up here as long as we want but this wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for the more than 140 people who volunteered to do presentations here so should we all please give those hand a big hand for doing this it would neither have happened if it hadn't been for those people that had spent their last three days sitting running the cameras sitting in booth sitting in front of the presentations and making sure that they would shot up on time so anybody who volunteered during those three days could you please stand up quite a few of those so last but not least I want to hear how many of you managed to go to all the talks of this conference just see if there was somebody starting clapping there again the good news is that a lot of those talk has been recorded already so if you go to the acutecon.org page then at the front page you will find a link or find a number of links to where you can find those talks that you missed you can also find the slides if you click on a presenter or click on a talk there you can find the slide as soon as the presenter remembers to upload his slides so let that be a reminder to the presenters and finally I'm afraid to say this is over now have a pleasant trip home thank you


So recall that an integral domain is a commutative ring with the unity with the property that there are no proper divisors of zeros. That last axiom could also be rewritten as the cancellation axiom. So integral domains are very important in the theory of commutative algebra. That is the theory of commutative rings with unity. In particular, integral domains are going to be the background for which we want to talk about factorization. In this video, we're going to define the notion of a unique factorization domain, often called UFD for short. The D stands for domain, so these are going to be integral domains, and so thus it's an integral domain for which we have unique factorization. What does that mean? Well, unique in mathematics is an important word because it means two things. Unique means at least one and it means at most one. So when we say there's a unique factorization, that means we have at least one factorization of every number inside of the domain, but then unique also comes back and says that there's only one factorization. So the axioms of a unique factorization domain are given as the following. So take a to be any number that's in the domain that's not a unit and is not zero. Units do not have unique factorizations, and zero also doesn't have a unique factorization, so be aware of that. Because zero has the problem that zero times anything is going to always equal zero, even if r doesn't equal s. So you can anticipate unique factorization there, but then even if you have a unit, for example, unit meaning that this is equal to one, well, the problem with a unit is you can just keep on adding more and more units into that product.  So units are frustrating when it comes to factorization. Zero also is a big problem. So with regard to unique factorization, we're assuming that the non-units and the non-zero numbers are what's in consideration. So what's a factorization? These numbers, A, can be written as a product of irreducible elements from D. So we call that a factorization, a product of irreducibles, and that could be a lot of irreducibles. There could be two, there could be three, there could be 17, there could be 5,280 irreducibles. It depends on the number. Because multiplication is associative, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how many we have. And also because it's commutative, it really doesn't matter the order. We have this factorization. But that then leads, of course, to the second axiom here about uniqueness. So we have factorizations, why are they unique? Well, the idea here is if we have the number A, where A is again, it's a number in the domain that's not a unit, it's not zero, so it has a factorization, an irreducible factorization, a factorization of irreducibles, okay? So suppose we have two factorizations of A. So we have one of them where you have P1 times P2 all the way up to PR, and we have another one, Q1 times Q2 all the way up to QS. And so these are irreducible factorizations. Each of these factors, P1, P2 up to PR, those are irreducibles. And Q1, Q2 all the way up to QS, those are irreducibles. These are irreducible factorizations. So again, I also want to return to this idea of the units. Units can't have a product of irreducibles, right? Because if a unit was equal to a product of irreducibles, P and Q, well, since it is, since it is after all a unit, you could then factor this and show that, oh, this is equal to one, and then you'll end up with something like, well, U inverse times P times Q, well, this is equal to one. So, oh, Q in that situation would be a unit, units can't be irreducible, and irreducibles can't be units. And so that's why we don't expect irreducible factorizations for units. But in a UFD, every non-unit, non-zero element has a factorization. And if we have two different factorizations returning to that, then we can say the following. First, the number of factor, the number of irreducible factors in the two factorizations is the same. So R and S are the same number. And in particular, there's going to be a one-to-one correspondence between the P's and the Q's.  So some permutation on the numbers one, two, three up to R. This permutation will associate P i to Q pi i, like so. But this connection is an association. That is the two numbers, the Q's and the P's that get connected to each other are associates to each other. So in essence, it's not a different factorization because if these two numbers are associates for each of the irreducibles in the two factors, really what it means is up to reordering and up to a unit, this is the same factorization. And so that's why we call it unique factorization. You can scramble up the order, you can throw a couple of units in there, but that's the only thing that can change. So of course, the most obvious example of this is the ring of integers. The ring of integers is a unique factorization domain. And this is a consequence of the so-called fundamental theorem of arithmetic. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic says exactly this, that integers, typically it's phrased with positive integers, but negative integers would have it as well. Every integer that's not zero and not a unit, which is just one and negative one, every other number has a unique factorization into what we usually call primes, but in the integer ring, primes and irreducibles are the same thing, right? Prime numbers are irreducibles in any integral domain. So we might say something like the following, like if you take the number 12, well, 12 can factor as two times two times three. Two, two and three are prime numbers, so they're irreducibles inside of the ring of integers. And so up to uniqueness, this is the only factorization. Now, of course I could write this as three times two times two, I could write this as two times three times two. Clearly the order of things, we're not considering that, but I can also do something like this is negative two times two times negative three. This is equal to, let's say, negative two times two, negative two times three, something like that. So notice that negative two and two are not the same number, but they are associates of each other. Two times negative one is negative two, they only differ by a unit, they're associates. So when it comes to factoring the number 12, well, yeah, you can scramble up the order of the primes, you can negate some of them, which is really just introducing a unit into the factorization. That's the only diversity you have. And when it comes to factorization, we don't consider those different factorizations. So up to reordering and up to units, these factorizations are in fact unique. So the integer ring is a unique factorization domain because of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Now, there will be other UFDs that we talk about in this lecture series. And so those UFDs will also have irreducible elements, those will also have prime numbers. And so to make sure we keep things clear, when we talk about the prime numbers of the integers, we will typically call those the rational primes. And the reason they're called rational primes is because of the field of fractions, the field of fractions for the integers, of course, is the rational field, the prime field of characters is zero. So the prime numbers inside the integer ring are rational numbers. And so those are the rational primes if we ever get confused with something else. Because after all, let's talk about another integral domain that we've talked about before. Let's talk about the Gaussian integers, z a join i. I claim that this is also a unique factorization domain, but that's not something I'm gonna prove in this video. We'll do this some other time, but let's just assume for a moment we have a unique factorization domain. We then might be interested in who are the irreducible elements of this ring? Who are the prime elements? Which of course we're gonna see shortly that in a unique factorization domain, irreducible elements and prime elements are actually the same thing. So what are the prime, what are the Gaussian primes? We might be interested in such a thing. And so a lot of what one does in algebraic number theory, really loves these things, unique factorization domains, principle ideal domains, Euclidean domains, Dedekind domains, a lot of these things are very important in algebraic number theory. How one often studies other integral domains besides the integers is often to use a norm of some kind, something that acts like the absolute value function. So we've introduced this before. So if you have a Gaussian integer z, then its norm is gonna be its complex conjugate for which remember the property here that if you have the product of two numbers, then the norm of those numbers factors, so the norm of z becomes the norm of u times the norm of v and we'll use that throughout. So that's why norms are very useful in this type of factorization situation because a norm is going to be a multiplicative homomorphism from the ring we are studying into the ring of integers. So we care about that. In particular, it's actually gonna map into the natural numbers because we can't get negative norms, okay? So previously when we first introduced the Gaussian integers, we proved the following statement that a number is a unit inside of the Gaussian integers if and only if its norm is equal to one, for which I should also point out that if you have a complex number a plus bi squared, then its norm is gonna be a squared, a squared plus b squared. That's what we're gonna get. And so this is the norm for these Gaussian integers. And so when you look at this equation here, how can a squared plus b squared equal one? Well, that happens if and only if a equals one, b equals zero or b equals one and a equals zero. I guess you can also have a good plus or minus. So a could be plus or minus one, b is zero or b is equal to plus or minus one and a is zero. So you get four units in the Gaussian integer ring. You get plus or minus one and plus or minus i. Each and every one of those has its norm equal to one. So we are able to classify all the units using this norm. Now by similar reasoning, if the modulus of a Gaussian integer is equal to a rational prime, that actually is gonna imply that is an irreducible number and irreducible element of the ring there. Sorry about the typo here. I had said a moment ago that if and only if and that reverse direction is not true. We'll talk about that one in just a second though. So let me first show you that if the modulus of a number is a rational prime, a Gaussian integer's rational prime, that actually makes it irreducible. So consider a factorization of your number z. So it factors into u times v. Well, then the norm of z, because this is a norm, it factors the norm of z becomes the norm of u times the norm of v. And then by assumption, this is equal to a prime number, a rational prime number, okay? But as this is a prime number and these are themselves integers, then the factorization must be, and I should also mention these are positive integers, okay? Then one of these numbers has to be one and the other one has to be p. So we either have that the norm of u equals one or the norm of v equals one. And like we said before, if the norm of a Gaussian integer is equal to one, that implies that that Gaussian integer is a unit, okay? So that means let's just assume u was the unit. So we have a trivial factorization of z as this was chosen to be an arbitrary factorization then we actually get that it must have been irreducible. So that's a very simple way of checking whether a Gaussian integer is irreducible or not. You can look at its norm. And so it turns out that in the ring of Gaussian integers, there are three types of Gaussian primes, three different families. And I just gonna list these three families, but this is just up to association, okay? So the first family, and don't worry about the jargon too much. This makes a lot more sense in algebraic number theory, but the first family is referred to as the ramified family. So you have something like one plus i. I want to point out to you that when you look at the norm of this, the norm of one plus i, this is equal to one squared plus one squared which is equal to two, which is a prime number in the rational sense. So one plus i is equal to a, it's equal to a Gaussian prime, okay? This would also include, this would also include things like one minus i, you're gonna get one minus plus i, and you're also gonna get minus one minus i, okay? These are all examples of these ramified primes, okay? Then there's also the inert primes, which these are gonna be primes, these are gonna be rational primes that are congruent to three mod four. In number theory, it's important to distinguish between odd primes, which are three mod four and two mod four. They behave differently for many reasons. And so the inert ones, we call them inert because these are, these are rational primes that stay prime numbers, even we extend the domain from the rational integers to the Gaussian integers. So this would include things of course, like three is such an example, seven is such an example, 11 is such an example, we can go on from there. So these are still gonna be prime numbers in the usual sense. So three is both a rational prime and a Gaussian prime. I wanna point out though, that if you take the norm of three, this is gonna become three squared, which is equal to nine. Nine is not a prime number. It's not a rational prime, but three is still Gaussian prime. So this is a counter example to what we saw above, that if the norm of a Gaussian integer is a rational prime, then it is a Gaussian prime, but it is possible to have Gaussian primes whose norms are composite numbers. So the inert family is such a counter example. That's why I had to fix that typo before. Sorry, I didn't detect it before it was on the screen. The third family is the split family. So these are gonna be complex numbers of the form a plus bi, such that a squared plus b squared, a squared plus b squared is equal to p, where p is a rational number, a rational prime, excuse me. Which of course notice, a squared plus b squared, this of course is equal to the norm of a plus bi. And so the norm is equal to a rational prime, like we argued before, those such a number necessarily has to be a Gaussian prime. And this p will of course happen only when p is congruent to one mod four. And so I actually wanna point out that this distinction about one mod four and three mod four has a lot to do with what is colloquially called Fair Ma's Christmas Theorem, right? This is the same Fair Ma as like in Fair Ma's Little Theorem, Fair Ma's Last Theorem. Fair Ma has a bad habit of getting theorems named after himself when he perhaps didn't necessarily prove them. So Fair Ma's Christmas Theorem tells us that an odd prime can be expressed as a sum of squares, such as in this situation right here, if and only if that number is one mod four. And so the sufficiency is actually pretty simple. And this was first proved by Gerard, Gerard in around 1625 or so. And so it's pretty clear the sufficiency in which case the proof, like I said, there's it's, I guess what I'm trying to say is if this equation happens, if p is a sum of squares, then you can argue that it's congruent to one mod four. I'm not gonna go through the details of it right now because I don't wanna make this argument too long but the basic idea is that since p is an odd number, a, one of these numbers, you have some two numbers here that add an add to an odd number, one of them's odd, one of them's even. Let's say that, let's say that b is even and let's say this one's odd.  And so when you mod out by four, you end up with just one. So I guess I proved it. I said I wasn't going to, so that's an official JK everyone. So Jard had proven that direction, that if a prime is a sum of squares and it's one mod four are in the, around 1625 or so. So the name, where does Fairmont come from? Where does Christmas get involved in this? Necessity, which is the other way around, that if a prime is one mod four, that it can be expressed as a sum of squares. Well, the history behind that is that Fairmont wrote a letter to Merciin on, of course, on Christmas Day, 1640. So that's what, you know, mathematicians, I guess, do on Christmas. They write each other about prime numbers and such. So about two, so about two decades later, Fairmont writes to Merciin. So this is as in the Merciin primes, right? Same dude. He writes to him, and this is where the name of Fairmont's Christmas theorem comes from, for which he then expresses, he claims that this statement is true, that the necessity is true. So like I said, Fairmont has the bad habit of claiming many results without proof. The first proof, the first known proof, I should say, of the full Christmas theorem here, both necessity and sufficiency. Again, sufficiency was due to Gerard much earlier, but necessity, actually, the first known proof was actually due to Euler, for which Euler proved it in 1752. So it's again, very unlikely that Fairmont had a legitimate proof of this. So it's just interesting to bring this topic up, because the way that the prime numbers work for the Gaussian integers is very different than it works for the rational integers. For example, the number two is no longer a prime number in the Gaussian ring, because for the Gaussian integers, it factors as one plus i times one minus i, where both one plus i and one minus i are ramified Gaussian primes. So two is actually composite Gaussian integer, but it's a prime rational integer. Same thing with the split ones. The split ones, so if we take an example of this one, let's take 13, for example, right? 13 is one minus four. So I should be able to write 13 as a sum of squares, right? It's the same thing as nine plus four, okay? Nine squared is, of course, nine is three squared. Two squared gives me four, like so. So that then gives me a factorization. I can take this as three plus two i times three minus two i, like so, for which if you foil that out, you'll end up with 13. Neither of these are units because their norm is actually 13. So neither of these are units. They're in fact actually Gaussian primes, split primes. And so factorization over Gaussian integers is a little bit different than factorization over rational integers, because who's a prime and who's not kind of changes. This is sort of like the idea of split. These one mod four primes split the rational primes. They split into a factorization, something like this.


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical overload here since I'm about gibberish for this video here again Say gibberish reborn. I know I said I would not have another video That was a solo video until the review But that all changed because of the fact that several of you DMed me the footage that has been going around that has been showing a lot of details about the movie and What I'm gonna do is just say of course Yes, but not even potential things that are spoilery to some of you are going to be discussed in this video So if you don't want to have anything spoiled Not even certain things related to a costume a character is going to wear then you shouldn't be watching this video But we're going to go over what this footage had to show My thoughts on that and I'll talk about some of the reactions again That I've just been seen and share my thoughts on that too now as pertains to this footage I'll leave a link to it in the description If you want to actually go out and watch the footage before you see the movie tomorrow or anytime during this three day release That starts tomorrow so With the footage we get to see the creeper crawl out of What is again supposed to be taggards barn? Even though I know some of you have pointed out it looks like a brick house and it not even that it looks like an abolished I well, I guess that is better a an a Diminished or abolished brick house like it's been destroyed completely It doesn't look like a farm or farm house or anything or barn in any way So whatever he's crawling out of and clearly with the post puncher there that's supposed to be in relation to taggard So we see that we get to see the creeper eating worms and it looks decent the quality of course doesn't doesn't compliment it all that great But it does look decent as far as like seeing him crawl out and then getting to see how he's going to get His attire that he wears for a bulk of the movie He walks over to a scarecrow and he steals the attire that's on the scarecrow which explains now why he looks like that What I do also think was interesting from this footage Is how we see a clip of a character who I think was gabriel freylic's character of sam who was friends with chase and lane We see them In the woods getting distracted by something and then I guess they don't know that the creeper is behind them And the creeper and this parasitic like thing that many of us think is in control or some of you think is in control of the overall creature itself Devours its entire face or his entire face that being sam's face when he turns around so again In a lot of ways I do like that aspect of that from that footage that I saw because it gives another insight Or gives another layer to the idea that maybe The thing on the back of the creeper's head is what is ultimately in control but I was also told some other spoilery stuff that related to witches And again, I'll have all of my thoughts on this movie in the review tomorrow And I'm just going to tell you in this video. It's going to be spoiler filled Obviously, I'm going to label it in the title as well of the video It's going to be spoiler filled because I know several of you while you might not have your tickets now You're planning on seeing it tomorrow and you will want to have something to laugh at If it ends up being a negative review from me By the time you come out of the theater and I'll probably have it up around 10 o'clock or something that same night But Yeah, the footage that was shown showed him coming out of the barn showed him devouring sam's face There was other stuff out there of like, uh Lane dressing up as harley quinn Chase and her just playing around with costumes um, I saw other shots of Ja Rule Benjamin as the creeper in some clips of the footage One shot didn't look too bad, but then another shot his face looked completely unlike anything We've seen the creeper look like in the past. So it's like what is this? Why is he why is his look altering so much? Of course, again, you'll get complete context when the movie releases tomorrow when we see it in theaters Now, I know also some of you aren't even bothering wasting your time going to see it Some of you have actually found a stream online and you've watched it that way If you want to watch it that way and don't care if it's in English or not, that's fine Of I'm gonna watch it in theaters tomorrow and I'll have my review up on the channel again later that same night But just to talk about some of the reactions some of the reactions that have been out there Again, I'm not seeing a lot of majority of majority of positivity regarding this movie And some people I know have already chimed in I've gotten some dms already talking about how I'm dogging on the movie Well, I will say this if you if you think that I'm dogging on the movie Keep in mind that a lot of us were very excited for this movie and I can say that maybe some of us feel feel a little bit Silly for being so excited after after what happened with three We were excited because it seemed like there was that breath of fresh air. You had victor salva gone But then you know doing some digging into who's making this movie and finding out they don't really have the best resume when it comes to A history of quality filmmaking and then also seeing that all screen media is involved again That's a sign that you're not going to get much marketing. You had lackluster marketing altogether. Anyway, you had the lawsuit arise Finding out that the people involved then it might not be delivering the best performances If you're someone who went out of your way to look up Look up what they were doing and other projects So there were plenty of things that started to slowly but surely Dwindle any excitement that me and a lot of others had because Nothing was pointing towards this movie being good. The reviews coming out are not good They are some aspects of the reviews that are that are giving Praise to the meta aspect giving praise to what jaru benjamin has done as the creeper Some people are knocking what he's done as the creeper. I've seen comments Going as far as to say they're treating the creeper like batman. It doesn't come off. Well, it comes out very comical I've seen people mention. There's no suspense. No atmosphere. No real feeling of danger with this It's mostly just a compilation or collection. I guess of bad scenes bad filmmaking That might ultimately be a a kick for you because it's so stupid It's funny You find humor in how bad it is like how a lot of people found humor in how bad jeepers creepers 3 was So they ultimately had a good time watching it so This has nothing to do with just necessarily wanting the movie to fail The movie going out of its way to have so many red flags is something that I was taken into consideration And it's not something that I think should be ignored when you have so many red flags That's not something to say. Oh, yeah, this movie is going to be a masterpiece F that there were far too many red flags if the movie ends up being Good, I'm going to tell you it's good if it ends up being trash. I'm going to tell you it was trash Again, these reviews that are coming out, these are from people who've already seen it in other countries They are not giving too much praise to this movie. And I know a lot of you are not surprised by it This is not a movie that many of us wanted to fail It's a movie that basically set itself up to fail and also someone involved with the production took time out of their day To make comments about other movies when they clearly haven't checked their own according to these reviews But let me know what you guys think about all this down in the comment section below If you haven't already, of course, make sure you subscribe turn on post notifications So that you never miss a video in the description. I will have links on my social media accounts I am on facebook twitter and instagram You can message me there, of course to let me know if there are any movies news or reviews You'll like me to cover in the future with all that in mind guys. I will see you in the next video


Hello everyone. Welcome to another Narc Survivor live video. And in this one I'm going to be talking about something that I talked about in a video around four years ago. And this topic is why does the narcissist hate and envy you? Why do they do it? Why do they hate so much? Why are they so envious? The reason for that is actually quite simple, although it may be something that you haven't thought about.  That's why they hate, that's why they envy because they can't get the same fulfillment. And it's kind of like if you're allergic to a certain food or medication, it's like they have an allergy to you. They want to be around you, but they can't digest it. They can't metabolize it because it conflicts with who they are and what they're about. And normally if you don't like something, if you don't agree with something, maybe it's a television show you don't approve of. Or maybe it's a restaurant and you don't like the service there. If you are a normal person, you're probably not going to keep going back to it.  But instead of just leaving it alone they keep coming back to it. They keep coming back to this thing that they think they don't like, they don't agree with. They don't approve of it. They say it's bad, they say it's wrong. Then why keep going back to it? Why not just leave it alone? Narcises, well, because they are not right in the head. They're messed up, so they keep coming back to something they say they hate. Something they say they don't like and they come back just to hate because they're envious of it. They desire to possess what you have. They desire to partake in it. But they already know they come back and they try to partake. They can't get the same fulfillment from it as other people can. So what's the point? But at the same time they don't want to leave it alone because they feel like they're missing out on something. Because they're very jealous. They don't want to see anyone else take it. It's like they don't really want you. They just don't want to see someone else have you. That's why they keep holding on. That's why they keep coming back. That's why they keep trying to get your attention. Because they already know that they can't find fulfillment in you. There may be nothing wrong with you, but they can't find fulfillment because there's something wrong with them. And they don't want to see a normal person come into your life and find fulfillment with you. Because they can't experience that. So they don't want to see someone else have it. But what they really need to do is just leave it alone and let those who can partake and find fulfillment in it. Let them consume it. Let them enjoy it. Because obviously it vibes. It resonates with them. Clearly they like it, so let them consume it. Instead of keep going back to it and it's clearly upsetting you, then just leave it alone. It's as simple as that. But they don't. They keep going back to it. They don't know how or when to stop. And this is really the psychotic part of the disorder. The way they keep going back to something that they cannot find fulfillment in. And it's a completely different story, of course, with those of you who are watching this. You may develop an addiction, a trauma bond to the narcissist. That's completely different, of course, because you have been lied to, manipulated.  They've told you all of these lies about how they want a relationship, marriage, children, a future, everything. So, of course, that's a completely different story. I'm talking about what the narcissist do. Because I'm pretty sure most of you, you haven't manipulated them. You haven't future faked them, nothing. They are just coming back to you and it's like you want something and you are led to believe that they want the same thing. But they know they can't partake in that. They can't find fulfillment in it. But they keep coming back to you. They keep coming back just to hate. Just to hate on the very thing that you were meant to build together anyway. But they couldn't find fulfillment in that. So you try to build it with someone else. And then they can't leave you alone. They're coming back to hate because they envy us all of you. They're very jealous. They're very insecure. We just need to leave it alone and let those who can consume it and find fulfillment in it, let them partake and enjoy it. Because clearly it does vibe with those people. So it's not going to hurt them. It's not going to do them any harm. They can partake and get the nourishment that they need. So, the narcissist just needs to let those people do that. Leave them alone. You don't need to hate. Just stay away from it. But of course they're not going to do that. They will keep coming back because of the disorder. It's just the way they're wired. They're going to keep stalking you. They're going to keep monitoring you. That's just what narcissists do. And all you can really do is just protect yourself on social media. And in person as well. Because these narcs are out there. And they're hating. Because they can't partake. They can't find the same fulfillment. They can't find any nourishment in it. They have an allergic reaction. They keep coming back to things that they say they hate. Things they say they don't like. And yeah, that's just the way they are. Normal people, if they don't like something, they will just leave it alone. They're not going to waste their time because they have other things that are more significant in their lives. But this is just what narcissists do. Definition of insanity. They will keep coming back. That's just that. So what you can do is of course just not do what they do first up. Let those who find fulfillment and nourishment let them partake. Let them get what they need.  It's not going to harm them. They will find nourishment in that. It will fulfil them. And it will fulfil you too just by doing that. As long as there's an equal exchange, as long as there's reciprocation, there's no harm in that. But narcissists, no. They can't do any of that. They won't do any of that. All they're going to do is hate and plot to take things from you because they envy you. And that's really all they're going to do. Why narcissists hate and envy because they're fools. Instead of hating and envying someone, what they really need to do is just use their brains and realise that those same people that they hate and envy, those could be the people that help them, that work with them. They would just cooperate with them instead of hating. I mean that's the crazy thing about it is that they hate on the very people who could help them. They shout at those people. And then things go wrong for them in their lives and then they wonder why. They wonder why. After you've just treated all of the people who try to help you like crap, what do you expect? What do you expect them to do? You expect them to still be there for you? It doesn't work like that. You need to respect people and then they will respect you. That's just how it works. That's how it's always been. If you disrespect someone, don't expect them to still respect you. That does not work that way. It has never worked that way. Even if that does work for a short period of time, that just means that you may be dealing with a fool, but fools aren't fools forever. At some point they will wake up and become wiser. Then there's going to be a lot of resentment. They may even desire to take revenge on you. So it's not worth it. There's no point in disrespecting anyone just so you can feel better about yourself for a moment, feel like you're powerful and in control. What is the point in that? Cos it's not even real.  It's all a lie. But this is what they do.  They hate and envy the very people who are there for them, take care of them. You can learn something from their behaviour. You can learn to not be like that. You can learn to appreciate those, congratulate those whom you admire, instead of hating on them. Cos that's the thing that's really, there's positive and negative aspects to everything in life. But these people, they choose to hate. Whether ways, either positive or negative and something, it's usually not always, but usually just a reflection of how we feel about ourselves. I mean, unless what someone is doing is negative or harmful to us, then of course you shouldn't see the positive aspects in that. But we're talking about positive things. You were there for them. You tried to help them. And yet all they can see is the negative aspects of it because it's just a reflection of how they feel about themselves. Everything. It really has nothing to do with you at all.  They don't even know you. They never took the time to get to know you. They never sat down and talked to you. They don't even know who you are. You're just a reflection of them.  In the beginning you were a reflection of their false self. You were everything that they aspired to be. They were hoping to learn from you. They were hoping that your qualities and traits would rub off on them.  Everything that they disowned these parts of themselves that they then assigned to you. So there's really no such thing as a separate person in the narcissist world. It doesn't matter who they are. It doesn't matter if it's the primary source of supply, the secondary source of supply, the tertiary. It could be your family member, friend, co-worker, whoever they are. They are all just reflections of the narcissist. And they are either a reflection of the false self or a reflection of the true self. It's either one or the other. Like I said before, the narcissist lives in a world with a population of one. It's just them and no one else. They don't see you as a separate person. They see you as an extension of themselves. So all they really are doing when they're going about hating and envying they're just hating on themselves all of the time. Everyday they're just hating on themselves and they're going to keep hating themselves for the rest of their lives because they're never going to get it, they're never going to self reflect or look within. They're never going to see themselves not directly anywhere they can only see themselves through you. And that's why they end up hating you. It really has nothing to do with you at all. They don't even see you as a separate person. Okay. I think I've gone deep enough for one video. I didn't expect it to go so deep. But I hope it was helpful for you. If it was as always please give it a thumbs up down below and hit that subscribe button if you haven't yet then you will receive the notifications for my future videos. Leave your thoughts down in the comments section I read the comments every morning and for one-on-one coaching you can go to my website it's narcsurvivor.co.uk you can book a session there and check out my Instagram as well there's new pictures and videos every day on Instagram it's narcsurvivor YouTube on Instagram alright thank you all for joining me and you all have a great day.