Alright boys, Rags Eagle CFM coming off a big win. Week one, we are one and oh. Everybody else in our division right here, if you guys check it out, is 0 and 1. So we got, we're already popping. Jalen Hurts and the boys off to a great start in the next year. So we'll see how we do. We played the Minnesota Vikings coming to Philly. As you guys know, I guess this is the regular schedule for that would happen this year. So we got the Vikings on Monday night right now. Minnesota Vikings, Justin Jefferson coming to town. We'll see how that works, how we're gonna guard them. Will we be able to put Darius Slay on Justin Jefferson like they didn't week two this year and bag them? We shall see. You know, we got Darius Slay. We have James Bradbear. We have Greedy Williams. We got the Shawn Jacks. We got everybody. No, Slay was baggy that game. Slay was baggy that game. We can keep it real chat. Was not Slay baggy that game? Here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go. But is this actually Brandy Moss? Uh-oh. I can never escape this guy. I can never escape this guy ever. I thought it was the Vikings CFM, I got mad happy. No, this is Rags.  Oh, boys, come on, man. Jesus. Wait, my man can get 20 yards on that right there. But where is my team at right now, boys? It's 38.  Come on, Slay, that's gotta be you. You got to guard that. I mean, they just wanted him to score right there. Like, they really just wanted him to score a touchdown. I don't even know who to throw the ball to, right? Like, who to click on or who was supposed to make that play? I don't even know.  These dudes did not have the juice they got in the mud. I'll tell you that much.  It's sad that I say catching that pick is lucky, but it is 100% is lucky catching that interception. 100% is lucky. Dog, come on, boys. All right, dudes, come on, man. Bradbury, come on, man. Game, dude. Of course, I get shedded. Jason Kelsey gets shedded one-on-one by nobody right there. Jason Kelsey is shedded by some dabbing dog. Get the game.   I can't believe he caught that pick.  Unless he has pick artists, I don't think he does, though. I've been getting hitsticks way too much, though, honestly, and stripped way too much, too.  Like, can we figure some out here, boys?  Bro, what is going on right now? Bro, is that like a pass rusher out there? Penny, Penny, Penny! AJ, come on, AJ! Like, can we catch that? Get through there, bro.  Of course, nobody blocks that outside linebacker on that other side.   Dudes are just so bagged. The Sean Jackson, what are you doing, man? I almost smoked that. How'd I almost smoke that? I really trolled. I don't know how he caught that pick on the first drive. Like, that was horses***. He's blocking the running back and it's giving him extra time. It's giving him extra time to, like, have in the pocket because I honestly need to put Redick on the opposite side of the running back, give him a little more trouble. But I also need to stop respecting the running back in actual pass coverage, I guess. Or Pat, I don't have to guard the running back as much. I'll guard him myself here. Pick Slay! Come on, man, pick artists. I'm trying to tell you. I'm trying to tell you guys. Oh, my God, dude. Like, I hate this f***ing game, man. Like, if you saw this s***, get the f*** out of here, man!     And we get shattered by just beating the double team this fast. And now there's like no... I just won't be able to do what I want here. It's just impossible here. I'm looking for Watkins on the comeback, though. Dallas! Let's go, man! It's big, man. That's big. You weren't even supposed to be playing. We moved Slay to the inside. We really just got a double team, Jefferson. Like, we low key got Bradbury. Just keep guarding the running back yourself, Dougie. And we'll be all right here. There it is. Yep, see? If he doesn't block the running back, he's gonna get instant shetted. It's just nobody else is getting open. I got a double team, man. Like, I just have to... I don't even want to put Slay on him. I feel like that's a waste. Slay! Are you trolling? There it is. What did I get? There's no way I got a f***ing penalty. Are you kidding me?   Just trolling me right now. Run the ball, you f***ing puss. You're joking, bro. Like, just gotta be joking, man. Get this block. Come on, Greedy, come with me. Let's go, man! GG's. So much defense down there. So much defense. Look at Redick fighting.  Bradbury bagging, Bradbury bagging. Let's go, Redick. From Once Fletcher Cox, Once Fletcher Cox, get edge threat. Oh my God. I don't gotta do those double team f***ing Jefferson here somehow. Let's go. Jordan Davis, man. Well, I moved him to defense event, so he'll be good. Come on, man!   I mean, dude, my pass protection, like we gotta block better. How good is our own line? That we're getting shredded this fast, dude. Who's that one guy I called a pick?  AJ! Bro, we didn't, like, I hate to run in this game. I hate it.   AJ! Oh, come on, AJ! GG's, GG's, GG's, GG's. I hope they have this play. Look at this s***. Look! Kelsey Dickerson just all through, look. Look! Look! Then the worst part, they didn't even block his user. They all got the same animation. Look at this one. Lane Johnson, Dallas Goddard. Who are we blocking, boys? Nobody.   It's also sad that he catching that pick in the first quarter was lucky. It was. It was lucky that he caught that pick. It was flat out lucky. GG's, though. GG's, GG's, GG's, GG's, GG's.


pokazam, kako odliča vsega tudi zelo prisičiti vsega zelo pri stavu, če se zelo v skupov stvar. Prveti smo za skupov evdibirski generacija. Zelo vsega klujema in vsega vsega skupov vsega nekaj dojel ki učitaj na e-sv unlikely bo mene, tašnja je akืoda, da smo tudi prav in na vsega posledali kala posledali posledali posledali posledali posledali posledali posledali posledali lasnez To pa se borbečo odlada tako počelja in te spočelje, in svojo naredila pač, začnega kreža, negrošnja vsočenja vizalist, vga reactedak, ko so počelje vsemini in materijali, in zrlanja na 90 doleto. Dve vse možemo se izrešila vseminim vsočenjem, sa &publickim inkripsnicim vese, ko ne več nam izgleda publicnjeg kshop, razgal seam izgleda kurduža, kaj je inkripsniko kamenjeve, pot德 je zr Carnastikov, da se vse plagam z nepo mladneho inkripsniko hridov, as. There is noappe, kako pa ne nam izgleda, ta razgal si nekaj kripsniko, ta je inkripsniko kamenjeve, abstraction that all the C serait tax quickly is they are different from ... challenge ... ... and at the end of이랑 out this has big prime and the security requirement this interaction doesn't give much information in the sense that that if the opponents are efficient than probability that corrects the big he gets the bit correctly is not far from one over two is only negligibly close. Tukaj je bil tukaj razlog rezerle, na kjer se v sečetnih dobranih delov. Vse obrečenje tukaj pomutnih rezer, je genetija, pomembno v veti dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef na delov, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef, dolef.  Zato da me vseh izgleda boljazov kajim, tudi, zato boljazov kajim, kajim je tudi, se kajim je zelošnješnjev, in, kajim je odbičen algoritem, kajimi je generacijen algoritem vzelošnje vzelošnjev. Vzelošnjev, kajimi je vseh, kajim je da je vala početnju, včutno je vsočenja, kako je občina, vznikam je 1-1. Vejo in početnju, da je vznik, su početno je ubča, kako ga se priče, pomega. V nekaj mode, nekaj vse boljene boljene, nekaj boljene boljene, nekaj boljene boljene, nekaj boljene boljene, nekaj boljene boljene, sizes and number of, the size of the range of to the要 to the lands minus l. And the computational requirements we have for this family of functions is that given the description we cannot tell no efficient observer can tell whether, whether this describes the loss function of the injective function. And it does let me give Foexpl of how this tudi je tako pričoga. Vse bikovalo springe moroš naredile do definičnji vsom zdravne prehličnost in v tom včične, da je izgleda in v spolakih č MIL, z vse izgledaj, z vse z glasbelinom prehličnosti napal, da je pomečno vse prunutvo vmonje zdravnje prehličnosti napal. V situ najdagodne požave je napal, in je to naredil vse informacije o zelo. V zelo, Rosin in Segev skupili vse komputacijne analoge delajte vse občasne funcije. Vse je zelo, da je inovalo inovalo inovalo. Zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, da je zelo, koreljated inputi. And, again, instantiating these functions, from loss-interruptor function, the loss-ness amount required amount of loss-ness is, again, rather high. So, in this work, we build on the Rosen-Segius framework, especially we consider the same construction they propose in their paper, but we saw that you can instantiate these notions, so there are instantiations and input distributions that are one-way, correlated input distributions, starting from loss-interruptor function with a very small amount of loss-ness, in particular, not even a bit, a polynomial fraction of a bit is enough. As an outline of the talk, I'll first give some definition about what it means one-way in some of the correlated inputs, and briefly sketch the Rosen-Segius construction, and then I'll go to the main part of the talk, which is how to achieve CCA security, starting from loss-ness, slightly loss-interruptor functions. And I'll also give a construction of, based on modular square, squaring function of such loss-interruptor function that loses only a small amount of bits. So, let's start with a family of efficiently computable functions, and the WI's product is defined as follows. The generation algorithm simply samples W elements, W description of functions, by invoking the generation algorithm, W times, independently, with independent randomness. And on input, a vector of W components, the evaluation algorithm simply applies its function to the corresponding entry. And the one-way in this requirement is no efficient adversary given the description of the functions, and the corresponding outputs could recover the initial input. Let's say this is the definition for injective functions, where the probability here is taken over inputs sampled according to this distribution CW, and also over the randomness creating, generating the descriptions and the randomness of the adversary. And building on this notion, they presented the construction of a CCA SQ scheme, the basic components for this scheme is injective traktor function, which is one-way under CW correlated inputs. I'll elaborate more on this, what I mean, what is this distribution CW. They also need a strongly enforceable one-time signature scheme, and predicate, which is hub core with respect to these family of functions, and with respect to these distributions. And the construction is rather simple. They first invoke the generation algorithm to get W pairs of functions along with the corresponding traptors. And in the encryption scheme, every time we want to encrypt, we generate the verification key and secret key pair using the generation algorithm of the signature scheme, and then the bits of the verification key are used as selectors of which functions to use in the encryption. And now you can think of it as the randomness using the encryption, these doubles. And for the rest of the scheme, the bit is masked with the hard core predicate, and then at the end, everything is bundled together with a signature that serves mostly as a proof that the ciphertext was correctly formed. I won't get into the details of the proof. What is important for the proof is there are two requirements from this input distribution. One requirement is the main hardness assumption. So we need whatever f family of functions we consider to be one way under whatever distribution we consider. And the second requirement has to do with the CCA proof and the ability of the simulator to almost perfectly simulate the decryption, being able to reply to decryption queries. And this requires that the whole, the entire input vector is reconstructable by given only a single component. And naturally, this led Rosa and Segev to consider what they call the W repetition distribution, which is simply just pick a n-bit string, and then from x2 through xw, everything is equal to x1. Unfortunately, so this already satisfies the second requirement. But in order to prove that there exist the families of functions that are secure under, with respect to this W repetition, they needed to start from lossy traptor functions that are highly lossy in this sense. So they had to lose almost all the information from the input. Interestingly, in the full version of their paper, they give generalized construction. And this construction, the only additional component is this error-correcting code from an alphabet, with an alphabet sigma. And k is the length of the plane, where w is the length of the code words. And also this code has distance d. And the construction is almost identical to the previous one, except that here, instead of pairs, we have w-taples of sigma element its. Again, we also sample the corresponding traptors. And again, the encryption is almost similar, except that now we first encode, using the error-correcting code, the verification key, and we use the output symbols as selectors for which functions to use. And the rest of the encryption scheme is identical with before. Now, let's see, for this new construction, let's see what are the requirements. So, again, for the CCA security to go through, the hardness assumption is the same, so we have the same requirement for the input distribution. But now the second requirement is somewhat relaxed, in the sense that in order for the simulator to reply to the decryption queries, it should be the case that this entire input vector, x1 through xw, should be reconstructable from any d disting xis, as opposed to one that was the case in the simplified construction. Again, recall that this d here is the distance of the error correcting code used. So, the starting point of this work is, okay, now considering this new input distribution, if we want to start from lossy function, how much loss should we require from this lossy function in order to achieve one vaneness under this distribution? And to address this problem, we start with a very simple observation that tends out to be crucial for this construction. So, let's say we start with one way with a lossy family that loses L bits and has domained N bit strings. And consider we have an input distribution, cw, that has sufficient mean entropy. Let's say the mean entropy is mu, where mu is larger than this value over here. And now consider the two ways we can sample functions from this family. So, first we have a vector of w lossy functions, sample according to the lossy, in the lossy mode, and w sample according to the injective mode. Now, if we get this output vector, so apply the input one by one, apply to the functions one by one to the input components. And because of the lossiness property, this vector over here takes at most two to the w times N minus L possible values, whereas because of injectivity, this vector over here takes two to the N times w possible values. This, in particular, means that now given the whole, the entire vector over here of outputs, if the input distribution has entropy mu, even given now this output, there is still sufficient remaining entropy, or stated in a different way, there are super polynomial many possible preemats, is given these functions. Whereas, if the function were sampled according to the, in the injective mode, there is only a unique, there was only a unique preemats. And now we are using also the fact that these w descriptions, the sample according to the loss mode are computationally distinguished from the w function sampled according to the injective mode. And so, because of this super polynomial in many preemats and unique preemats over here, it's not very hard to see that any inverter that could recover the entire input vector given this could serve as a distinguisher between those two, which is not possible by the assumption on the loss trapdoor function. So, stated otherwise, if we start from a family of loss trapdoor functions that lose L bits, then take the w-wise product formed by the injective family of the loss collection, and this family turns out to be one way under any distribution, as long as the entropy of the distribution is high enough. And so, also another observation here is that the lossiness and the entropy is, they are correlated in a negative way. So, since our goal here is somehow reduced the required lossiness, equivalently, we want to kind of find distribution that they increase this, the entropy of the input. And this gives the way to go, so we need these two properties. The first property is that we need this reconstructability property. Given any d components of the input vector, we should be able to reconstruct the entire input vector. Again, this is for the simulation, the CCA security proof. And fortunately, we know ways how to sample for such distribution. And one can think of the d out of w threshold secret sharing schemes, where we can sample vectors that have this property, this reconstructability property. And one other important thing is that, in some sense, this distribution are what we call d-wise independent distributions. So, the overall entropy of this distribution is d times n, if we consider each component of the input is an n-bit string. And now, somehow, the goal is to, for a fixed time, we need to increase this d as much as possible. Now, this takes us to the second idea. Recall that this d was exactly the distance of the error correcting code. And in the encryption scheme, starting from two verification keys, vk1 and vk2, and considering the encodings under the error correcting code, the basic property that we desire is that for any two different verification keys, we want the corresponding encodings to be as far apart as possible. And this translates to the requirement of having an error correcting code with high distance. And any code that belongs to the family of MDS codes, maximum distance separable codes, seem to be enough. In our instantiation, we are using read Solomon codes that do meet the singleton bounds. So, the distance d can be as large as w minus k, where w again is the length of the code word, and k is the length of the input of the plane word. So, I try to put everything together, and so how to get cca security from n comma one loss to trap their functions. Again, we have this error correcting code, read Solomon with this high distance, and again the input distribution with d times n, entropy, and this reconstructability property. And let's say k equals m to the epsilon for some constant epsilon, whereas w, how bigger product is, how dire product is, and then to the theta for some theta larger than one to the epsilon. So, if you do a math, the overall entropy of the input distribution turns out to be larger than this, strictly larger than this quantity, and then going back to our lemma, if you plug in one here instead of l, we show that there exist input distribution that have high enough entropy, and so the corresponding family n comma one loss to trap their functions starting from n comma one loss to trap their functions turns out to be secure one way under such kind of distributions. And this, in particular, by instantiating with this loss to trap their functions, the construction of Rosen and Segev, we get that n comma one loss to trap their functions implies cca security in a black box way. And choosing the parameters here more aggressively or doing some kind of loss simplification, you can drive this down to anything which is one of our polling. And as a quick overview, so the two parameters that govern the lossiness, the required lossiness is this distance d and the w, the size of the components of the product, and in the initial distribution d was one, which means one means that we can recover the whole input vector by just a symbol component, and this gave a highly correlated distribution, so distribution with very low mean entropy, and this was the reason that the lossiness required was rather high. So we saw how the Rosen and Segev if instantiated correctly with real Solomon codes and high mean entropy, distribution can take us down to the whole, to this very small amount of required lossiness. And so let's see how the picture has changed. Before this was the threshold that the required lossiness to get cca security in a black box way from lossy trap functions, and the only construction that we knew that achieved this much of lossiness was VDA, it's already by a pike waters paper. And now by reducing the required lossiness to this level already we get the LWG already has enough lossiness, to instantiate the generic construction and also the QR, the modular square function from the previous talk and also the RSA function from the forthcoming paper based on a fill hiding assumption. So let me now finish the technical part of the talk by giving a simplified, a simple construction of a slightly lossy trap function. Let me start with the hardness assumption first. So on the left hand side there is a, we sample a modulus N using two primes. So this is a product of two primes and on the other hand we have N prime being a product of three primes and they have the same bit length. So the hardness assumption is that these two ways of sampling give moduli that are indistinguistable. And given this hardness assumption there is a quite natural way to construct a family of function, namely the injective generation algorithm samples N plus one bit modulus N which is a product of two primes and the trap is the factorization of this modulus. The lossy is a product, which is a product of three primes and the evaluation algorithm is quite similar with the construction you saw in the previous talk. We again use the squaring function and then we add two extra bits in order to make the function injective. And in the paper we prove that under this assumption the family is N comma one over four lossy trap function and the proof can be sketched briefly as follows the indistinguistability of the loss and the injective mode is immediate from the assumption itself and then for the invertibility the first component, once we have the factorization, we can invert this first component and get at most these four preimages and then by using the second bit we can filter out two more two more preimages and then using the Jacobi symbol we can be left with just a single candidate preimage which is exactly the preimage of the function and lastly for the lossiness one way to go is we partition the input so we consider functions that have N bit strings as their domain and so when we think we start with co-prime inputs co-prime to N because this is a product of three primes this is A to N mapping so already the image of this set is quite small is bounded by this quantity and now these are already upper bounds for the size of the sets of these sets themselves not necessarily the remands so if you add everything up which is upper bounded by 2 to the N minus 1 over 4 so the image of the N bit strings of the whole set of N bit strings is upper bounded the size is upper bounded by this quantity which gives us the 1 over 4 lossiness and let me just finish with some conclusions in summary we do believe that even slightly lossy drabder functions are powerful primitive in particular we saw how to use the lossy drabder functions in a black box way and get CCA secure public key encryption starting from lossy drabder functions that have a very small amount of lossiness and was also the way to constructing a slightly lossy drabder function using a 2 versus 3 primes assumption and as possible direction for future research one main question is what does a slightly lossiness really buy so in particular is it possible to construct slightly lossy drabder functions and therefore CCA security from hardness assumption that we don't know how to get CCA security from and the other question is we constructed CCA security in a black box way is it possible to construct other primitives again starting from slightly lossy drabder functions thank you


Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the session where nature meets conflict. So current security paradigms were developed in a world that no longer exists. Human activities have brought profound changes to the earth, the results of which are frequently unpredictable, rapidly evolving, novel and intricate. While we have been framing the ecological disruption narrowly in terms of climate change, it actually encompasses a wide array of issues such as biodiversity loss, water scarcity, loss of fertile land, pollution, plastics and biogeochemical overabundance with diverse societal and security implications and immense challenges to risk management. But the relationship between security and earth system stability is yet to be considered in high-level decision-making. Some attention is being given to hotspots such as the western Sahel in the Horn of Africa and the intercession of rising temperatures, food insecurity, weak governance and ultimately collective violence. But the impacts of extreme weather events and resource scarcity and migration flows within and beyond national borders are still to be studied profoundly. There's also a debate in security circles about the risks of climate shocks and stresses in relation to military redness, but the issue also needs to be mainstreamed. Furthermore, the discussion tends to be one-directional, focusing on the association between climate change and nature degradation and insecurity rather than also on the other way around. This is very clear in the region where Antonella and I also come from, the Amazon Basin, where we see widespread environmental crimes generating massive deforestation, taking us very close to tipping points that are very dangerous for both climate and nature. So we need to take a look at the broader picture. At the Global Future Council on Nature and Security that I co-chair, Weorgan Vagley from the World Bank, we are calling to different stakeholders to reimagine human, national and global security on a changing earth. Security can no longer be conceptualized as a zero-sum game. This new context demands cooperative and systemic security strategies that our current systems were not designed to provide. And we urgently need massive investments in risk mitigation, adaptation, and resilience promotion, especially for those communities that are least resource to cope and adapt to the short to long-term implications of climate shocks and extreme events. And to discuss what to do about all this, we're extremely lucky to have with us here. Antonella DiCiano, Global Shaper from the Caracas Hub, Venezuela. Fakie Siebesman, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Royal Phillips, Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. Amy Pope, Director General of the International Organization of Migration. And Jojo Manta, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stop Ecocide International. So after an initial discussion, we'll have a Q&A. So think about what you want to ask to this amazing panel. And if you'd like to share about this session, please use the hashtag WEF24. So Amy, I'd like to start with you. So the migration issue I think demonstrates very clearly this multiple crisis at the human, national, international level. And I think you are the best person to give us the sense of how the disruption of earth systems is driving migration and displacement and amplifying conflict and humanitarian challenges. So thank you very much. And thanks for having the conversation. I mean, I think it's increasingly clear to those of us who work in the humanitarian and development space that the impact of climate on already very vulnerable communities will be catastrophic unless policymakers and other actors start to take very urgent action. You know, we see it firsthand in places like Somalia, right, where we know already communities that have been devastated by years of conflict, where there's still ongoing conflict, now facing the impact of years of drought season after season where people are unable to grow food or feed their livestock. And the result of that is massive displacement pressure, right, for those who are lucky enough to be able to leave. For those who are less lucky, it often means death, right. But for those who are leaving, we're seeing millions of people who are being displaced within their countries, within systems that are ill-equipped to manage the movement of people. And then when those people are unable to remain in country because of insufficient opportunities or continued conflict, we then see movement across borders. So this is increasingly important that we collectively begin to grapple with ways to build resilience to climate impact and to do so in ways that are conflict-sensitive. It's a very underdeveloped area of work for all of us who are working this field. We should go back to that because I think most people think migration will only occur across borders, but the impact within the countries, within the cities will be immense. And I think this has to be really highlighted. So I'll go to FAKEIT because I think we don't think about nature as, let's say, the source of our economies. So more than half of the world's GDP depends on ecosystem services. The services provided by planet, by nature. So how can businesses adequately address risks emanating from nature disruption? Yeah, good. Not only how, they must. I totally agree with Amy. I mean, we don't need to go to all the devastating impacts of climate. I think we all know that. And by the way, as often say, especially in Europe, by the way, we should realize that because Africa, next to Bangladesh and other region, Africa is hit hardest and people will not find a boat to Canada, but will find a boat to Italy and to Europe. And Europe cannot handle the migration of today already not. And the only solution is to help Africa and not to find all kinds of migration issues and whatever solutions in Europe to do it on the ground there and to take care we don't suffer. And we don't cause these further problems. As Makisal quoted him often last year, said in the Climate Adaptation Conference that I co-chaired with Ban Ki-moon, we Africans suffer the most. We Africans are the most vulnerable. We Africans cause the least. And you, of the West, dot, dot, dot. So, and some people say, well, if we start like this, it's not helpful. And I said, and I repeated, I think it's inconvenient for these things, but it is totally not incorrect. So we need to do something. Now, as you said correctly, almost half of our global GDPs are agricultural and input-related streams. And next to the fact that we need to work on loss and damage, because there is a loss and there is a damage and somebody costs it and somebody needs to be compensated. Next to the fact that we need to work on mitigation to prevent that this whole devastating actions continue. We need to work in parallel on adaptation and help the people, especially in Africa, because they need help right now. We don't talk about streets who are flooded or whatever.  That's something else than that the seller is on the water or whatever.  Business is globally financing about half a percent of the global adaptation budget. Really? I think there are two reasons why business should stop up. One is a self-interest of business. I don't get that one either.  So there's all kinds of self-interest of business to prevent and to take care and to adapt to ourselves. The second thing, businesses have the solutions to help. For example, in Africa, a lot of drought. Some Bangladesh, a lot of flooding. There are new seeds, new agricultural techniques, etc., which can provide food also when it is flooded or drought. Those things should become available for the most vulnerable. They need that right now. So both of a self-interest point of view, businesses need to stop up. And that is what we try to do also with global climate adaptation centers. And I don't even find the rational argument for business not to do that next to the humanitarian, next to the responsibility and all kinds of other arguments which are there. So therefore say, does business have to be missed for several reasons? I think we all agree with you. Go back to that on how to raise ambition. And I think, Jojo, you come with an issue that since we have to accelerate action and ambition from all sides, not only business, governments as well. And I think also there's a lot of individual change that we have to promote, to just really get where we need to get. So you work on a very new concept called ecocide. So many people don't understand what this legal definition is and what does it bring. So can you please explain a little bit to us but also tell us, in your opinion, what has to change in current business and investment models to make sure this long-term thinking and ecological considerations are included in decisions and practices? Absolutely. So, I mean, ecocide as a word is becoming more, it's becoming better known around the world and the concept is generally mass damage and destruction of nature. But legally speaking, what our organization and other collaborators aim to do is to have this recognized legally as a serious crime. Because one of the issues that sort of pervades all of this discussion is that we have a kind of cultural, very grained habit of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and property. And that, I mean, if you're campaigning for human rights, at least you know mass murder, torture, all of these things are serious crimes. But there's no equivalent in the environmental space. And so, and you know, unlike an international crime-like genocide that involves a specific intent with ecocide, what we see is actually what people are trying to do, what businesses are trying to do is make money, is, you know, is farm, is fish, is do all of these things that are, you know, producing energy and so on as well. But what's missing is the awareness and the conscience around the side effects, around the collateral damage that happens with that. And so putting a sort of outer boundary, a safety rail parameter in place that simply says, whatever you do, it should not create this level of severity, severe long-term and widespread harm. It actually starts to then steer decision-making and steer business projects and effectively all of those high-level decisions that actually end up with the suffering that we're seeing on the ground have those all sort of steered in a healthier direction. So something that's not really covered by loss and damage, mitigation, adaptation is actually deterrence and prevention.  But actually there are quite simple, for example, you know, with ecocide it's really straightforward kind of intervention at the legal level that could actually start to steer everything in a healthier direction. For governments as well, right? Absolutely, for governments, for individuals, for businesses, yeah. It's interesting because increasingly you see now in the legal systems the question, who have rights who can be defended? And normally in our normal thinking, it is humans, people who have rights and can defend it. Things, nature, countries in itself, fields cannot defend themselves. So they have no rights. And in the legal system, there's increasingly the question, people cannot defend themselves, things that cannot defend themselves, could they still own rights? And then you come into the area of Jojo, although I question not a question. I think we think a lot on the solutions, I'm not sure we think always alike, but on what is happening we do. I quote Kuminaydo, previous good friend and previous... Big fan of Vika Sardló. Sorry? Big fan of Vika Sardló, too. Although I quote him and he's a good friend of me also, and he said, from dream peace, I don't care about nature, one of his statements. He said, listen, I care about mankind. I mean, when you are expelled, nature will restore itself, don't worry. And so I'm not caring about nature at all, I care about mankind. And to your point, if we kill nature and we do that party, is that something that we do to nature? I quote Kuminaydo, he said, well, or indirectly we kill people. And that is the issue. I don't know how you say that. I mean, absolutely. I mean, ultimately, this is about its protection of nature, but we are utterly dependent on nature. We're utterly intertwined with nature.  No, absolutely. I think it's people and planet and people because we will vanish, as you said. The planet, you know, somebody else will take care of it. But this brings, Fakim mentioned something very interesting, Antonella, because nature doesn't go to the police station to tell what happens. So for many, many like countries, what we call environmental crimes or nature crime are very underreported. This was an issue of secondary, let's say secondary crime for many police forces, including until today in some parts. So we have very hands-on experience and would love to hear from you because your country, your region are struggling with the association of environmental crime and organized crime, an issue that I'm also very, very keen to collaborate with you. So how do you see this nexus between nature and security when it comes to social conflict and violence? So what prevention strategies could be applied? So yes, so talking about big problems, I come from Venezuela, I'm 28 years old. I worked for six years for the FCDO, the UK FCDO in the region in Venezuela. And that's when I first came across the environmental crime concept, which was completely unknown to me. And since then I continued the research and I'm now a Fulbright grantee in Duke University, continuing the research on environmental crime in the Amazonian rainforest. So Southern Venezuela, what we call Boliva State, has something very controversial called the Orinoco Mining Arc. The Orinoco Mining Arc was stated by the Venezuelan regime in 2016 in the midst of oil pricing reduction and the production of oil failing for Venezuela. And it is a zone that is completely dedicated for mining purposes. It is a zone reach of gold called 10 diamonds and we all know what comes with that, which is precisely ecocide. This mines are in hands of irregular groups, transnational crime. We have local, what they call sindicatos or armed working groups. We have the Brasilian Garampedos, which are like the art design miners. We have presence of the ELN and FARC dissidents in there, Guyana miners as well. So this is like a big soup of organized crime in control of the mines. They are interrelated and they created sort of a symbiotic relationship with the Venezuelan government because they're all collecting revenues from this huge environmental degradation because they're using illicit products such as mercury to explode gold. So talking about GDP, transparency, international, the chapter, the Venezuelan chapter recently had some numbers exposed saying that 16% of the Venezuelan GDP now is because of illicit economies and it comes in its great part because of gold and the illegal mining that is happening. So this is a huge environmental degradation. It's one of the, because of the mine, the orinoco mining art is part of the Amazonian rainforest. It's one of the fastest growing deforestation in the entire rainforest. 70% of the gold that's collected there has gone to smuggling and illicit crimes and talking also about human displacement. This mining communities overlap with indigenous communities who have been displaced and they're now in phases of tremendous violence, conflict and health hazards. There was a local NGO recently doing studies to the health of this indigenous communities that were displaced and most of them have mercury in their blood systems precisely because all of the rivers have been contaminated with mercury and the waste there are irregularly exploding gold. Yeah, we shared this border with you, the Venezuelan border in the North of Brazil and it's super tough and we see the migration issue. So Amy, I would like to go back to you because these are, let's say, very visible crisis today and we know this will be exacerbated and climate and nature and again, we're trying to explain this nexus that this becomes a stability issue when we disrupt nation and we just also don't provide the livelihoods to people. So, you know, that nature, nature ends up paying the bill. So can you give us a bit of, let's say, hope here on how international, national, subnational strategies to address this nexus could be, let's say, we're not talking at the decision-making level. How can we increase the importance of these issues to then mobilize finance, improve the partnerships that are there today? And I think the migration is, nobody can deny, it's an issue that today put us, it's in all election ballots that we're gonna have this year. This would be decisive for so many countries. So Jojo put it very well when she said that we don't need to take as a given the impact of climate change on vulnerable communities. In fact, the evidence shows that in 80% of the projected displacements that fairly straightforward interventions could help stabilize communities and build resilience. But there are two different problems that I think we need to address. The first is where the climate impact on vulnerable communities will fuel conflict, right? We see that across the world where there are scarce resources and persons, particularly those who are dependent on the land, either for agriculture or pastoralists for feeding their livestock, are both using the same water resources and then the conflict results because of that scarcity. So there, it's a question of identifying ways to build resilience. Some of it's water infrastructure management. Some of it is identifying additional skills that people could rely on. Some of it is even identifying where else people in the world may find economic opportunities and sort of moving away from the particular zone of conflict. But the second, and this one I think is a little bit more complicated, it's where we see conflict in communities that are severely climate impacted, right? So you go back to, I was in chat on Wednesday, right? We're seeing over 600,000 people have fled the conflict in Sudan. Their chat is already extremely vulnerable to climate impact and the ability to operate and create more resilience in a community that is already impacted by conflict and already extremely vulnerable is much more difficult. So then we very much need to look at what are the adjacent communities where we can build resilience? If it's not safe to build up climate resilience or bring in adaptation measures because of conflict, well, what's the downstream impact, right? And how can we work with neighboring communities in order to build their resilience? Yeah, I mean, we see the impact on cities and I'll just go back to you on the raising ambition because you mentioned very well that there's also, let's say, it's in business self-interest, there's opportunities with this crisis. There is also, of course, the intent that we continue to have an economy in the world. And I think we have all the science. Yesterday we were speaking here to one of the members of the Nature and Security Council, Johan Rockstrom, science is there, but we don't have the narrative. Some people don't get it, we're not connecting. So how do we raise ambition for net zero, for nature-positive practices? And I think more and more business will also have to do the public-private partnership. So from your perspective, in business, with your counterparts when you have to go into public partnerships, how do we do that? Why we're not touching people? Yeah, I think we all agree that we have devastating issues and that the most vulnerable countries and the most vulnerable people are at this moment the victim of that first, and that is a fact. Now we need to move. I think everybody would agree we need to move and we need to move faster. Question is how. And I think what you see in the world is that we do that how for multiple directions and actions. If we see crimes, we can say it is a crime and we bring them to justice. We define the right of nature by calling equal sides things as they are and therefore defend and therefore attack the people who are not adhering to that. That's quite a push, quite a pressure. And that's helpful. You can debate whether you can be criminalized if you did not influence laws. Jojo will say, but I'm going to change the laws. And then you can be criminalized if you influence the laws which need to be created and I'm an advocate of creating those laws. Okay, I think you need to be careful because that is not our global system to criminalize people who did not influence laws. Although you can condemn them from a moral point of view, from a humanitarian point of view, if you do not take up your responsibility. That is a kind of pressure. And at this moment, there are more than 3,000 lawsuits against companies infringing the rights of nature. Real lawsuits, 80 lawsuits against countries, 3,000 against companies. So something is happening and companies will say, well, this is far away from me. I would say be careful, that's not the case. That is the pressure and it's happening. And I think you need to be careful how you do so because if you have criminalized companies or people, maybe then they're after, they are not the best one to help you also with the solutions because they feel threatened. So think about that. But I see the right or I see the effects of that. The other thing is to seduce companies and to help companies getting more insight. Now here at the forum, to be honest, I've talked many times about adaptation. And still also this week, being in another session, some CEOs said, help me if I could, how do you define exactly the difference between mitigation and adaptation? And I think that's also a nice way of phrasing or asking that you have really no clue what is the difference between the two and that you did not dive into that. And I think we need to bring the knowledge level much higher and seduce then companies to bring them together, to use their power because the private sector has the power, the public sector has the legal power but not the implementation and innovative power that need to come from the private sector to implement. The other thing is building coalitions where the web is doing here very much and building coalitions of the willing. And then we have always a discussion also with the web of naming and shaming and I'm not for naming and shaming, I'm more from the naming. This is our alliance. And you know what, NGOs, media, et cetera, they will find out who is in that progressive coalition and who said, I don't want to be part of it. Well, that other part happens by itself without us doing that. So I see that we take multiple directions of solving these issues. What I'm concerned about is the speed. Are we moving fast enough? And for many people in vulnerable countries, there are 50 island states in the world. They see the whole country, the whole future disappearing in the coming decades. Gone. No place to live. And we cannot easily, we found that out in the Middle East, pick up a lot of people and place them in another area. That does not work easily. So what do we do with that? So I'm concerned about that. And therefore I put all my effort here together with the web of building this coalition. We have this coalition of CEO climate leaders and not everybody wants to be in there. Okay. I cannot force people, but some companies want to step up and do that. And therefore this week together with Eric, with Eric sitting here off the web, we started a community with small, too small, but the business community on helping on adaptation. Do you have the technologies? Do you have the solutions? Yes. They have the obligation, oops, to help also implementing that. Jo Jo want to interrupt me. Please go ahead, Jo Jo. This is quite a short panel, but yeah, now I'm in a couple of things. One, you'd probably be surprised at how many CEOs, including CEOs of major extractive companies, have told us in confidence that they really hope that we get this law moving through, which is happening because then they're actually able to say to their boards, hold up a sense, if the law is there, we all know where we are.  It's those who perhaps are not thinking about it, that actually just need that framework. And I think the other thing is the slight misconception of criminal law, if you forgive me, are slightly detecting your approach, which is that it's seen as a means of punishment. Now, of course that's true, that's how it works, but that's not what it's for.  That's the whole point. So the idea is that when you put something like that in place, you start to shift the kinds of decisions that are being made because that's in place. So, you know, in our ideal world, we don't see anybody in the dock because everybody's going, oh, of course, you know, we can't do that because actually that oversteps a certain line. And I think the other thing that's interesting is you were talking about island states, and actually it's those small island states who are really sort of driving this. And it's interesting that it's the victims, both in the climate and in the conflict context. So Ukraine is a very vocal supporter of ecocide law. I think it's very interesting that those two really key global problems actually kind of coincide at this same legal gap. It's very interesting. Jojo, the only thing is not the only thing. Wrong start. The maybe struggle question I have. At this moment, there are 3,000 lawsuits against companies. And companies in the world realize that that is happening. And I know that a lot of companies are saying today, I'm not going to set targets anymore of my reductions and my contributions because if I set targets, don't achieve it, then I can be brought for court. So I stopped setting targets and it is happening right now. And then I think we go the wrong direction because I want them to set targets. And I even want them to be responsible to achieving the targets, but maybe not in a criminal way because I understand that then they won't set targets. Here is a little bit the difficulty and how do you help them responsible in a legal way, in a moral way, in a publicitary way, in whatever way? And I don't know the answer, but I only see the effects which are happening right now. We're just adding to fake. And then if you want to just, I think we do need the transition plans because we need the companies to make the commitments. We need the goals. And of course, we need to understand who is actually doing something towards the goals and who is just putting the goals to just shy away from the debate and leave me alone. So I think we need to find the balance, which is in this world today, this is very hard. But would you like this to comment on, because I was thinking the other way around, I think, wow, this can nudge companies to actually accept and put forward transition plans with goals. And how do you see that? It's interesting. I mean, we sort of see it as a bit of a kind of reality check law, if you like. I mean, and it is in a very different sphere to the kind of treaties and agreements that don't hit on the criminal side. Because, I mean, yeah, boards of directors are going to take their responsibility. I'll come back to what you were saying earlier about creating new crimes. This actually doesn't create new crimes. It builds on and supports existing law. That's one of the key aspects to it. But companies take their responsibilities a lot more seriously if they understand that there's a level of criminality involved. And that doesn't really have anything to do with targets. We call it a kind of a reality check. I mean, at the moment, I mean, actually, interestingly, the EU is moving quite strongly in this direction. In the revised environmental crimes directive, they've actually included cases comparable to ecocide across a range of existing crimes if they go that serious. But one of the things that we see is that when you give people a list of things that they shouldn't do, specific behaviours that they shouldn't do, they'll put a lot of effort into making sure that what they do doesn't fall into that list. The important thing with the concept of ecocide and the way that it's moving with the international definition that has triggered political conversations all around the world and many proposals of law, in fact, is that what it aims to do is to say it's almost like a criminal version of a health and safety law in the sense that you say that whatever you do, it should not create this level of hazard. I mean, you wouldn't design a factory to almost break people's heads open on a regular basis. You design it so it's not going to break people's heads open. It's that kind of attitude. And so when you do that, you create a slightly different... When I say reality check, you create a different attitude. So instead of your risk managers and your legal councils looking at how do you avoid falling into a certain category, and let's not forget that a lot of the greatest damage is created by large companies, large multinational corporations. Instead, what you're going to be looking at is talking to your operational people and saying what on the ground is happening that might trigger this law, and therefore you're actually having to make that connection with what's actually happening as opposed to it staying sort of up here with the how do we avoid the... How do we gain the system? It becomes a kind of connection to what's actually happening on the planet. And I think that's something that is desperately needed. We have a big tendency to talk about incentives and I'm not saying that incentives aren't a great thing, but I think we also have to keep coming back to the fact that we live on a planet that our biggest companies are regularly creating harm to. Whether or not that's what they actually intend to do, that's what's happening. And so putting that sort of reality check law in place is super, super important. And it's not an innovation in the sense that it's not... You know, it's not a completely new crime. It's building on existing environmental law that is currently being ignored or gained because there is no really serious impact to breaking that. And I think that the other thing with criminal law is that when you bring in individual responsibility, and here we speak to the conflict in Ukraine, for example, when you can point to an act that actually creates a massive level of damage, I mean, the Kokovka Dam being a classic incident, you know, should you not be able to hold people accountable for an act like that that is effectively massively destructive to the environment but currently not adequately addressed? But crime is an infringement of law, right? Yeah, so you have to put that. We need to be clear what the laws are before you can be condemned for the crime. You also have to have a system to enforce those laws. I mean, that's the major... This is the major tension, I think, in this conversation. When we're talking about conflict-impacted areas of the world, it's very unlikely that they have the systems in place to hold people accountable for the level at which we're talking. So that's where I think we have to try to build in... Where's the jurisdiction where you can actually hold someone accountable? Well, I 100% agree, and that is by company. If we have a factory in Europe and put things into the river, you cannot do that. You build a wastewater treatment system. You cannot dump it in the river. Full stop. OK, then in some other countries, for example, China, you can put it in the river. It's legal, it's allowed. The competition is doing it also. It's changing now rapidly, but there are different jurisdictions in the world. And my question is, if we build a wastewater treatment for the same factory here and not over there, we are totally legal. In my company, in ours, you cannot do that because although it's fully legal, it's not a crime, it's morally totally wrong. If we think we cannot spoil the people here and poison them here, we cannot do that with people there also. Whatever is the law system in that country. So therefore, I want to go further to your point, Amy, I want to go further than the legal system.  You are in the middle of a war, and then what remedies do we actually have? And if we move a little bit further, what if it's not only companies perpetrating these crimes? What if it's actually the state? How do you hold them accountable? How do you pose an entire legal framework and an entire legal system to a state that is actually perpetrating these environmental crimes? That would be easier on the ones that are signatory for the Hague company. So that's actually something that is already happening there. Yeah, and that conversation is building that very. Yeah, but I mean, I want to give the audience a chance, but I wanted to finally, a final question to you because this is, we know around the world that younger people are feeling anxious about what they know is happening without, let's say, the power to change. And I've fragmented, unfortunately, of all that we need more cooperation, we need the enforcement, and we don't have even the conversation. So we're here at a weft to build trust, right? To go back to the table, we really need that. So how can we bring this intergenerational perspective? We're discussing at the UN now the rights of the future generations, but I think we have to include not only the future generation, but the children, the young people that are here now. So how do you see that and how can we bring you to this conversation? Well, we're starting right, because I think including young leaders into the conversations is one of the big steps. I heard some data yesterday from WEF saying that more than half of the population is considered young under 30 years, but we currently do not represent even 3% of the decision-making positions worldwide. So that's the first thing, that's the basis that needs to change because we need to give young people the expectations to be able to, okay, if I can seat in the table, if I can at least have my voice be heard, then this is worth it. This is worth investigating. This is worth having. And there's so many young initiatives worldwide that are taking over and that are tackling this topics. I have the pleasure to work with instance, a Brazilian NGO called InfoAmazonia, which is currently doing a technological advances in reporting environmental crime. So they're doing satellite monitoring on the Amazonian rainforest to map the forestation. So they're working on this incredible project and giving governments irrefutable information of how deforestation is working and how it's actually linked to serious organized crime. So I think if we actually give these young leaders opportunities to sit on the table, to be part of the decision-making processes to the legal of everything, it's going to start moving a bit faster. I agree and I mean, meet the global shapers and they're going to see that we have the responsibility to live like, you know, when you take the pen, the world has to be yet, you know, like we have the possibility to save it because they're amazing. So make sure you connect to the shapers during this, during this weft and beyond. And I would like just to ask, who would like to ask questions to our panelists? We have a short time, so very brief questions. The conversation is too heated. Maybe nobody wants to get in. We'll continue. There's one here, please. Antonela DiGiano, is the situation in Bolivar State a question of the collapse of the entire Venezuelan state? Yes, of course. I think it's one of the answers because of the collapse of the entire Venezuelan state. That's why our GDP has moved forward to illicit economies. That's why the whole answer of the creation to the famous Arco Minero or the Orinoco Mining Arc, we're moving a bit more towards illicit economies and illicit economies come with environmental degradation as we see it in illegal mining. So we have illegal miners now moving from other countries to Venezuela and even there's internal displacement because it's more profitable to work in mines and in gold mining now in Venezuela than any other job. So yes, it's a complete response of the economic collapse in Venezuela. Anybody else? One here, one there. Maybe we'll take the two and then let's first the second and then we'll come back to the panel, please. Hello, good afternoon. Thank you very much for the discussion. I am a global shaper from Bogota. That also works on forest protection and conservation, especially in the Amazon. And environmental crimes is one of the most a thing and challenging drivers of deforestation to tackle because it's on a regional scale. And I wanted to ask the panel what strategies do you see, for example, to be able to address these issues on a regional scale taking advantage that Latin America is somehow aligned politically and that there's a lot of importance put in the Amazon in the Masonic biome. Thank you. Let's get a second one and then we'll come back for a final round here. Hi, Rebecca Varazval, Land Life. My question is, how can you anticipate the potential risks in, say, you're able to reverse or protect the environment and the potential social backlash for those high-paying jobs all of a sudden being taken away? How can we make sure that environmental protection and restoration also provides meaningful futures for these people in this country? Thank you so much. Maybe Amy, just to answer any of them with your final reflections, please. I actually think there's tremendous opportunity in building out a workforce for the future, right? Especially when many of the communities where we work, people are reliant on things like rainfall agriculture, which we know is going to become increasingly difficult. At the same time, we know that we will be unlikely to meet the Paris Green Climate goals because we don't have sufficient migration in order to get the people who have the skills to do things like, for example, manufacturing of solar panels. So there's an alignment of interests that I think can work out very well here if we start to connect the dots across borders and invest in training, particularly of young people, so that they have the skills in order to enable them to be part of the future. So thank you for bringing that, Jojo. Yeah, I mean, we obviously focus on the outshot knots, I suppose, that side of things. But what's interesting is that what it's bringing up, for example, in the discussions at the ICC at the International Criminal Court, are issues of restorative justice, for example. And those aspects are becoming an ever-increasing focus. And I think things like, I mean, to speak to your point earlier about our capacity to deal with these things, the trainings, the reporting, the education around investigation, the data mapping, all of these things are kind of developing in parallel. And this would actually bring me, as a last point, back to you again, actually, because I completely... Careful with me. No, no, I just wanted to agree with you about the cultural aspect of the concept and how important that is. And what we've realised is that the two things kind of move along in tandem in terms of a narrative.  But to actually have that equivalent around the natural world has those implications for people. And it has the beginnings of what we might need, which is a kind of a taboo, you know, to have a taboo around mass destruction of nature. And, of course, it's a balancing act, because you can't build a house without damaging something. You know, so effectively, it is all about balance. And I think at that point, we also need to look to those local communities, those indigenous cultures, that have never lost that understanding of that connection. And actually realise that it's an issue of balance. And that, you know, beyond a certain point, it's out of balance. And we are, obviously, right now, very out of balance. Thank you so much. We have 30 seconds for each of you. OK. I could go... Going back to Alfonso's question on... I think cross-border policy is key. For instance, I don't know if you've seen, but there's a recent research on OECD, an illegal gold mining. And one of the solutions they propose is... they post an entire baseline on how to identify Venezuelan illegal gold. So we could hold companies accountable if we actually know they're buying illegal Venezuelan gold. And that's how, from the outside, you're starting to put constraints into illegal mining and actually not make more profitable what illegal mining is causing and the high-paying gaps. So I think that's how I wrap up both. It's sad, by the way, what's happening in your country. I've been there over 20, 30 times in such a beautiful country. Yes, it is. To your point, I've been several times also to Somalia, Ethiopia, refugee camps, and still close to me, if you stand on a hill in a refugee camp and can look to the horizon with shelters, displaced people who have no future and increasingly no future to the horizon. I mean, this is devastating. What I think is, and you made your point, that not every country has a rule of law or can enforce it. And I think before, because the word crime and criminal was used a few times in this conversation, and I understand the pressure created by that. And I like that there's pressure created. In addition, I would be careful with the word crime because officially you can only do a crime if you really influence the law. Now, you can say, but laws over time are changing, absolutely. And we want to change laws, absolutely. But there need to be a rule of law in countries also that you can trust that if you do not infringe the current legislation, you cannot be condemned for a crime. So I think we need to be careful on that word, crime and criminal. But I understand the pressure being created because I totally agree we're not moving fast enough. I want to close positive because a lot of negative things and concerns were raised, and Eric and I discussed also this morning, the technologies, the solutions, the innovations, which especially the private sector can bring, it is enormous. And instead of using that for negative things, let's mobilize all that technology, all that innovative power to change the world to a better place. This is, by the way, the slogan of the forum and why we are here, committed to improve the state of the world. Well, if we look to the state of the world today, there's room for improvement. So I think let's mobilize all those forces to do that. So on this positive note that I think everyone agrees, thank you so much for the audience, for these immense panelists, amazing panelists. And to be continued, this is a hot topic here to stay. It's about ourselves and this balance with the planet. So let's get going. Thank you so much.


Now, Auto-Lite and its 60,000 dealers and service stations present... Suspense! Auto-Lite brings you Edmund Gwenn in murder in black and white. A suspense play produced and directed by Anton M. Lieder. Friends, have you got that faraway look in your eye for faraway places? Well, it's spring, so let's get going. Replace old narrow-gap spark plugs with white-gap Auto-Lite resistor spark plugs.  You see, Auto-Lite regular-type spark plugs have long been standard factory equipment on many leading makes of cars and trucks. And now, six, that's right, six of these leading makes of cars and trucks have switched to Auto-Lite resistor-type spark plugs for factory installation on their new 1949 models. The new Auto-Lite resistor spark plugs are tomorrow's spark plugs today. Remember, you're right with Auto-Lite. And now, Auto-Lite presents Edmund Gwenn in a tale well-calculated to keep you in. Suspense! Tom, to sleep last. Now let's see. I wrap this blanket around the gun to muffle the sound. Aim about there. Then... Tom! Tom is dead. Now, my notebook. Tab A, preliminary procedure. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah. Tab B, performance of murder. Yeah? Mm-hmm. Yes, yes, everything has been carried out exactly as I planned it. Tom is dead. Now, 9.15, good. Everything is working out right on schedule. Now, Tab C, procedure to follow murder. Yeah, here it is. Replace pistol in my left jacket pocket. Fold blanket across foot of bed, making sure that it's not still smoldering from the discharge of the gun. Using clean handkerchief from breast pocket, wipe soda dispenser and replace on sideboard. Then, pick up decanter and glasses, take them to the kitchen, wash glasses, dry them on handkerchief from breast pocket, put them away, holding with handkerchief. Get dry handkerchief with handkerchief, return to Tom's room and restore it to sideboard. That's it, the decanter there. Replace handkerchief in breast pocket, pull covers up around body on the bed, put on my hat, take off my gloves, put them in my left hand pocket with gun, and place notebook in right hand pocket. Remember, there is no hurry. No. Now, now let me see. I believe I anticipated everything quite correctly. Oh, yes, yes, the bedroom lights. I'll leave on the downstairs light, naturally. Yeah. Oh, now 9.30. Thomas Cena and Clark can't possibly be termed before 11.30. And I doubt if they'll want to disturb Tom at that hour. No. No, I'll just stroll across town to my apartment house. People are quite accustomed to my taking a walk each evening after dinner. Then the train at 11 o'clock for my usual weekly business trip to the city. I'll go directly up and arriving in the city in the morning to my usual hotel. And shortly after that, someone should notify me of Tom's death. Yes. I believe this has been a most satisfactory murder. For suspense, auto light is bringing you Edmund Gwen in radio's outstanding Theatre of Thrill's Suspense. What's that? That's my sound man. In this commercial dramatic, we start with the deep, solemn tone of a gong. Oh, well, let's say it's a train load of car owners rushing to get wide gap auto light resistor spark plugs. Because they know auto light resistor spark plugs make an engine idle smoother, give better performance on leaner gas mixtures, actually save gas. Now have the sound of a happy engine idling more smoothly because it has wide gap auto light resistor spark plugs instead of old narrow gap plugs. Hey, hono, that's a horn. Oh, that's sound man. Well, all right, let's say that's folks who missed the train galloping to town to get auto light resistor spark plugs. And next, the happy hoot of a hilarious horn. Sounds like a big celebration. Sure, that's the way folks feel once they install auto light resistor spark plugs because their engines idle smoother, give better performance on leaner gas mixtures, actually save gas. Ah, hono, before your sound man loses his head, let's get back to suspense. And now auto light brings back to our Hollywood sound stage Edmund Gwen as rice archer in murder in black and white, a tale well calculated to keep you in suspense. I hope you had a nice trip, sir. Yes, very pleasant. Here you are, sir. Ah, yes, my regular room. Put my luggage on the floor there. Yes, sir. Thank you, boy. This is for you. Oh, thanks for nothing. My train was two minutes late in arriving, so it must be, yes, 8.32. Now my notebook. Tab C, item four. Procedure upon arrival in the city. I, yeah, yeah, yeah, she is excellent, excellent. Your order, please. Room service, please. Just a minute, sir. This is room 459. 459, yes, sir. I'd like some grapefruit to be sure that it's fresh. Two eggs, boiled exactly one minute and a half, three slices of whole-wheel toast. I'd like to toast it exactly two minutes on each side. Plenty of butter, a pot of coffee with a double order of cream. Yes, sir. Oh, yes, and would you sign up at times and find out if there's an Amesville Gazette around, will you? Yes, sir. Let me see now. Undress, take a shower, then shave and get dressed. Wear the blue shirt with matching tie, and by that time breakfast should be served. I'm sorry, sir, but there was no Amesville paper. It's not important. I have a niece who lives in Amesville. She works for an aircraft factory, the Hanigan Company. Well, that's our company. Well, that is, I'm a junior partner in the firm. The senior partner was Tom Hanigan. Well, I must remember to tell my niece, will there be anything else, sir? No, no, no, thank you. I'll just sign the bill. I'm adding your gratuity to the bill. Thank you, sir. Perhaps you know my niece, sir. Her name is if you... I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the names of the employees. That'll be all, waiter. Yes, sir. I must be more careful. Almost referred to Tom in the past tense. I believe I should make a note of that. Yes. Be sure to speak of Tom in present tense until after the notification of his murder. Too bad I couldn't get the Amesville paper. But to have made an issue about them sending out for it would have been two-pointed. Perhaps the city paper. They must have discovered the body by this time. They probably haven't called or wired out of consideration of the hour, yes. Yes, now let's see. Cold War gets warmer. President fishing in Gulfstream. New highway. Politics. Benefit. Prominent citizen dies. Yes. No, no, the wrong one. Society. Sports. Drama. Oh, nothing. It must be that it's just too early, of course. Of course, that's it, yes. Fortunately, I've prepared for every possibility. All I have to do is to look in the notebook. Should be right here. Yes, yes. If nothing in the morning paper and no notice received by time breakfast is served, eat breakfast leisurely. Then proceed with normal business calls, checking back with hotel at frequent intervals. Yes. That's it. That's it. Normalcy. Normalcy is the proper note. Now, let's see. Plenty of butter. Toast. Just right. I hope you didn't come in to tell me that the Hannigan Company can't deliver that order on time. Not at all. This is merely one of my courtesy calls. Tom and I like to keep our customers happy. Then all you have to do is to continue turning out precision parts as well as you have been. Tom. Tom is fine. Hotel Sherman. Mr. Archer speaking. Mr. Rice Archer. Room 459. Are there any messages for me? Just a minute, Mr. Archer. I'll connect you with the desk clerk. Thank you. I must be sure I have this right. Tab C, yes. Here it is. Procedure with hotel clerk. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Ah, good. Good. I have an answer for anything he may tell me. Yes. Desk Clerk. Hello, Desk Clerk. This is Mr. Rice Archer. Room 459. Any messages, please? Just a minute, Mr. Archer. They are probably telephone. Mr. Archer? Yeah? There's nothing for you, Mr. Archer. Nothing? Not a thing. Thank you. Very much. I'm really in town on business, Mr. Whitickham. But I couldn't resist stopping in long enough to see if there was anything new in Jade on the market. I don't know if you're interested, Mr. Archer, but I've just heard that Joyner in Philadelphia is willing to sell his snuff box from the Ming Dynasty. You know, it's white Jade with an inlaid green dragon. Joyner is asking 12,000. From the Ming Dynasty? Try to get it for me. All right, Mr. Archer. Business must be good, eh? Business is... excellent. And how's that old son of a gun, Tom? Tom, he's... I believe he's fine. Not a thing, Mr. Archer. There's nothing for you, Mr. Archer. And sure, the eggs are one and a half minutes each. Three slices of whole wheat toast, toasted two minutes on each side, plenty of butter, a double order of cream with a pot of coffee, and that'll be all. Only four hours since I arrived in the city and still no word. Well, there must have been some sort of slip-up at home in some manner. Some manner perfectly plausible if I knew what it was. News of Tom's death has been delayed. It doesn't mean anything except my plan of action must be held up until someone calls me. Oh, surely I'll hear sometime during the day. It's nice of you to take me to lunch, Archer. I must say I look forward to your regular visits. How's Tom? Tom, I haven't... I mean, he's fine, very fine. Well, Archer, you certainly know your restaurants. That was quite a dinner. Thank you. You know, the last time I was talking to Tom, he mentioned you had a lot of bomber clips ordered by the government and then cancelled. He said you'd sell them cheaply since the government paid for the cancellation so no one could figure out a use for them. Well, I believe I've got an idea and I'd like to know what you and Tom think. Tom? Why? Tom's fine. Your order, please. This is Mr. Rice, Archer, Room 459. Any... messages? No, no messages, Mr. Archer. I see. I'll be checking out in a few minutes, Clerk. Taking the midnight train back to Amesville, you might send the boy up in 15 minutes and if there are any messages before I check out, you will call me, won't you? Two days away from home and not a word from anyone. Well, they must have discovered the body. Well, I'll be home in the morning. I'll go straight to the factory and then someone will tell me surely it's... because it's entirely possible that everyone thinks I've been told by someone else. Of course, of course, that's it. Things have been very strange today, why there have been times when I almost felt as if I... as if I hadn't killed Tom. That I'd imagined the whole business. Yeah, it's... it's really most fortunate that I wrote everything down in the notebook. I only have to reread it to remember... to remember that Tom is dead and that I killed him. Huh? I'll be home in the morning. Nothing to worry about now. Now, I... I have everything in the notebook ready to say and do when I at last hear the news. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Archer. Good morning. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Archer. Strange. Everyone seems to be acting quite normally. Perhaps because they're only employees. Of course that's it. The workers would feel no sorrow. They didn't know Tom as... as I did. Now, now, let me see. Any procedure would be to let Clark Henry know I'm back. Yes, Miss Gordon, would you inform... Oh, never mind. Morning, Clark. Good morning, Mr. Archer. How was your trip to the city? Excellent, Clark. I managed to get a couple of orders and pre-substantially. Everything go... all right here? Sure. That's, uh... fine. How's Tom? Great. He'll probably be back to work in a day or two. He will? Fine. Excellent, in fact. Yeah, it'll be great to have him back. Morning, Mr. Archer. Huh? Oh, yes, yes, yes. I'm just thinking about the additional orders. Well, Tom will be glad to hear about those. He'll know how he worries about the business. Well, gotta get back to work. See you later, Mr. Archer. Yeah. Yeah. Procedure following murder. What to say if notified of Tom's death by Thomas Cena? By Clark? By police? What to do if read of death in paper before personal notification? Everything. Everything except... How is the Wicked City, Uncle Rice? Like it always is. Everything is normal. Uncle Rice? Yeah. What is it, Thomas Cena? Purple lipstick. See? I'm going to leave lathers of it on Clark's cheek. You know why? He proposed last night. Congratulations. I suppose your father would be pleased. Tom? He was delighted. We're going to have an engagement party tomorrow night. Couldn't have it until after you got back. Tom wouldn't hear of it. Tom? How is he? Fine. Tom's fine. Mr. Archer, I'm going home early. Huh? I'm not feeling too well on tomorrow's big day. But I'm taking some work home with me. Yeah, yeah, yes, of course. I suppose you'll be going over tonight to tell Tom about the new orders. Tom? Oh, yeah, yes. That might be a good idea. There'll be tickle of death to hear about him. You know Tom. Oh, Mr. Archer. Yeah? What is it, Miss Gordon? Clark Henley just called. Huh? He said he'd taken one of the account books home with him. And he suddenly thought you might see it was missing and worry about it. So he just wanted you to know he had it. Oh, which account book? Mr. Henley said he had the one covering our old government contract. He but... Why? Well, Mr. Henley ordered a general audit for tomorrow. And he said he wanted to go over that book tonight. Why, Mr. Archer? What's wrong? You've turned as white as a sheet. Order and control! Those are the important explanations why they haven't told me about Tom. Why Clark has ordered an audit and why he's looking into our government contract. Everything is in my notebook. Yes. Here it is. Plan for killing Tom Hannigan. Reasons why murder is necessary. The government contracts. Yes. Yes, it was so easy when the war was over and everything was being cleaned up to make the government pay twice for the orders. Just a few little changes in the books and that money was mine. It wasn't my taking the money from Tom or our regular customers. And it wasn't as if I... as if I was spending the money foolishly. No. No, it was spent on my jade collection. But Tom might have misunderstood him. Might have called it stealing and I would have been put in jail. I wouldn't have had my jade. No, no, no. When Tom was ill, he started thinking about the government orders. Yeah. Maybe Clark Henley put him up to it. He didn't think of that. All I knew was I could let Tom live and lose all that was dear to me, which was unthinkable. Or I could kill Tom and keep everything. Yeah. Now I did put Tom to sleep and I did shoot him. And here, Tom's daughter, who loved him, giggles about her purple lipstick which I'm seemingly I'll demand that she... control... Now what? What would be the normal procedure? Yes, of course. Good evening, Ethel. This is Mr. Archer. Well, hello, Mr. Archer. Is Mr. Hanigan there? Yes, sir. You want to talk to him? Yeah, please. Just a minute, sir. But I'll tell him you're called. He ain't feeling so good this afternoon. Well, what seems to be... trouble? Oh, he must have had something. Something that didn't set right. He's got kind of... Too bad. Bye. Doesn't anyone know that Tom's dead except me? I can't be the only one I've got to tell. I've got... No. Order. Control, yes. Yes, I've got to think this out. I... Yeah, I know. I know that Tommy's dead. I saw him die. But Clark and Tomasina announced their engagement plan a party. Clark. Clark, Tomasina would do anything, he says. Clark ordered an audit of the books for tomorrow. Clark took home the book of government accounts, the book I had to alter. Clark! Bipsqueak. I'll fire him. Right now! Now! Control. Yes, I shot Tom. And I... I know I did. Because I wasn't sure I could stab him. A human being as a human being's frailness, Tomas, my friend, had been for 20 years. It was just unthinkable that I could take a knife and stab him. I couldn't do a thing like that to a man who was my friend. No! No, that's why I shot him. I can stab young Clark Henley. Impudent, interfering Clark Henley. Pierce him like a child's balloon. He's home now. Looking for the mistake that'll catch me. My notebook. We'll take a new page for this. Yes. Yes. Plan for killing Clark Henley. Good evening, Clark. Well, hello, Mr. Archer. How are you? I wanted to talk to you about something. I hope I'm not intruding. Not at all. Come right in. In fact, I'm glad you came. We were just talking about you. We? Yes, Tom and I. Tom? Yes, he's in the kitchen mixing a drink. Come on out, Tom. Mr. Archer's here. No. No, he can't be Tom. Tom's dead. What did you say? I think... How did you know Tom was dead? Well, it was either my notebook. It's right here. It's... There must be one of them. I'll take that notebook. And now! Yes. Yes, just as I thought. All right, officer. Here's the whole story in this little notebook. I guess you were right, Mr. Henley. But I never thought I'd see anything like this. No, you can't. You can't do this. It isn't the way I planned it. I knew we'd trap him this way. He's never been able to do anything without preparing a notebook. Yeah, but... Tom told me you couldn't even hire a secretary without planning all the dialogue in advance and writing it out. Right! That's why I made everyone pretend Tom was still alive. I knew if he didn't have all the answers in his little book, he'd have to break. Break! Break! Well, come along, Archer. It really wasn't fair not telling me. And I had it all written down in black and white. Thank you, Edmund Gwen. Friends, Autolight Resistor Spark plugs are ignition engineered by Autolight which makes over 400 products for trucks, cars, airplanes and boats in 28 Autolight plants from coast to coast. Yes, sir, and Autolight also makes complete electrical systems for many makes of America's finest cars. Spark plugs, batteries, generators, starting motors, coils, distributors. All engineered to fit together perfectly, work together perfectly because they're a perfect team. So folks, don't accept electrical parts that are supposed to be as good. Ask for and insist on Autolight original factory parts at your neighborhood service station, car dealer, garage or repair shop. Remember, you're always right with Autolight. Here again is our star, Mr. Edmund Gwen. You know, I really enjoyed returning to the suspense playhouse. This program is a favorite of most Hollywood actors and much of their enthusiasm comes from the opportunities suspense gives them to play a different kind of part. See? Well, for instance, I'm sure you're going to want to hear next week's show when Betty Grable appears in an unusual role in a story called the copper tea strainer. Another gripping study in Suspense. Edmund Gwen appeared through arrangement with MGM, producers of the technical picture Little Women, starring June Allison, Peter Loughard, Margaret O'Brien and Elizabeth Taylor. Tonight's suspense play was adapted for radio by Eli David from a story by Ann Wormser and Jess Oppenheimer. Music was composed by Lucian Morrowake and conducted by Lutt Bluskin. The entire production was under the direction of Anton M. Leder. You can buy auto-light resistor spark plugs, auto-light stay-full batteries, auto-light electrical parts at your neighborhood auto-light dealers. Switch to auto-light. Good night. This is Cancer Control Month. Do your share in the fight to control this vicious killer by generously supporting the American Cancer Society. This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.