I mean, throughout my career, throughout the time that I was working in Indian country, I mean, I was either a politician or a lawyer advocating positions, advocating for native rights, advocating for fishing rights, advocating for, you know, the native people. To get on a bench, all of a sudden you can't advocate for anybody, you're just an arbiter of these positions, right?  In Prince Rupert I did, I got a few cases, because there's only me and this other judge in the whole town, Judge Krantz, bless her soul, she's passed on now. But I had Louise in front of me in one case there, she came up and all the way she never changed a bit. And throughout the time that I was working on that decision, I would refer back to her factims that she brought forward, right? It was one of those cases to do with, and it was a good case for me because it was about self-government and how two different tribal councils, two different Aboriginal groups should relate in relation to that. Which case was it? I can't remember it now. I don't know how well I did actually in writing that, but I remember that case. And it was a pleasure seeing her in court. It was interesting for me, actually, because I started out of my career working with her as a research person. She was a lawyer and then I was working with her as a lawyer when I had my own practice. But seeing her in court as a lawyer appeared in front of me as a judge. It was always a pleasure to have Louise in court. I think a lot of people understood that. Her and I had this history, right? This relationship. And of course, you have to disabuse your mind of all that and look at the case in front of you and decide which I try to do the best to do. It seems to me it was one of those overlapping cases that had to be resolved between two different families. It was very tough, very tough to do. What do you consider the most exciting or meaningful part of working in Aboriginal law? Oh, there's, I would say, being in court, of course, is exciting. I mean, working on the cases and bringing matters to court. When I had my practice, of course, I had a lot of, I used to do a lot of fishing cases. Sometimes I'd have 20 people in total with me going to court and putting a case through and organizing it so that we could distill the principles down and then put a case forward that would resolve all of these other cases, right? You know, judges, of course, and the court system itself is, it's not that predictable and you never know what you've got to sometimes go back and talk to your clients and say, this didn't work out good. We're not going to be able to do this, you know, managing your cases is always a challenge. What was exciting for me, though, sometimes is when we'd actually be on the line. They'd call me up to go to, when the twin tracking was happening, Leslie and Louise were actually out on the line trying to negotiate, trying to get things settled and calmed down. When you're in that kind of a situation, it's pretty exciting. It's pretty interesting. I've been in a situation where, you know, there's a roadblock or something. You've got to go out and try to resolve the issue or try to help resolve the issues. And that's pretty exciting. That's pretty interesting. But I mean, law doesn't lend itself, it's not as exciting as many things. When you talk about law, people start going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you talking about law for? That's not even very exciting, you know. But locked up, for example, in a room to read the Delgamot decision after it came out of the BC Court of Appeal, for example. That's exciting for lawyers. Whoa, you're in a room going over things and then going out to talk to the media afterwards. I was in a room, for example, listening to Judge McEchrin as he talked to the lawyers and heard witnesses. I went and sat in on some of those hearings during the Delgamot trial. And that was exciting for me as a lawyer. That's very cool, you know, because that case has got such notoriety that's been written about for so long. And yeah, and I remember being in that courtroom, seeing how many people were there listening, the lawyers that were there. That was an exciting time, a very exciting time. And of course, standing up and intervening on behalf of the Union of Easier Chiefs in the Delgamot decision, that was pretty exciting. Sitting there and having your name called. Well, what do you have to say? I remember the first case I ever fought, and I wasn't even a lawyer then. I was in law school. A colleague came to me and she said to me, Steve, I have this case. I can't do it. I can't do it. She just couldn't do it. She'd frozen up. And I said, what is it? She says, it was a case where a Native woman had purchased a bed and put a deposit down, but her bed was never delivered. One of these hospital bed cases. And I go, oh, what are you doing in the lawsuit? We're trying to get the deposit back. Oh, okay. So I went to interview her and we filled out the documents. We filed a case in. And I said to her, well, I'll sit in the back of the courtroom another day. Your case is called just to give you support. I was in my blue jeans. I've been back, back on. I was on my way to law school. I told her, I just stopped into the provincial court to be with you. So the judge called her case and she stepped up. And the other party didn't even show up. The bed people didn't show up at all. And he said, well, can you tell me what your case is about? And she said, my lawyer's right there. She pointed at me and I'm sitting in the back room. I go, he says, who are you? And I go, ah, your honor, I'm just a law student. I was from the legal clinic. I just helped her. I'm just here for her support. He looked at me and said, well, you want to ring your case in? I'll let you do it. Really? Okay. Put my backpack down, took my coat off, put her on the stand and led the evidence into the record for her. I walked her through her statement and whatnot. That was my first ever case. I won it. Of course the other side didn't show up. It doesn't matter. Right? You won. And that was exciting. For me, that was like, well, you know, that's what you dream about doing, right? Going into court and fighting with your clients and meetings and things. So, yeah, I mean, some of the best things, those sitting in negotiations, when you're negotiating, sitting across the table. I remember sitting in a room one time with a mayor on one side and a travel chairman on the other side. And they were yelling at each other and I was the legal advisor sitting there.  They both looked at me and go, okay. I don't know why I said that. But this isn't getting us anywhere. We need to discuss this, right? And sometimes, yeah, negotiation is going to be pretty interesting. It's going to be pretty cool as a lawyer when you're sitting there and having negotiations. So, yeah, it was pretty cool, too. Anyway. But generally, law isn't all that exciting. You know, the ball stars or hockey stars. Lawyers, oh, yeah, okay. They're pretty exciting. Not really. But I got to meet some very interesting lawyers. I met Tom Berger at one time. Fascinating. I haven't talked to him. Oh, Harry Rankin when he came out of Chillowack. He defended some of our boys up there. He got to meet him. Had Oliver came out of Chillowack one time. I think his Mercedes, but not Mercedes. He had a Bentley, a silver Bentley. Parked right outside in the front of the courtroom. Everybody went in to watch Had Oliver. Because he was, he had such a reputation. I got a chance to meet him. To sit and chat with him. Yeah, so Al Scow. Great, great judge. God bless his soul. So you meet some really, yeah, you meet some pretty interesting people in this law. I went to graduate in 1985. It was called the bar in 1986. I've been a lawyer since 1985, I guess. So that's about 1985. Who would have thought you got this far? And how my mom got me into law school when she wanted me to go. She said, I'm going to have this lawyer pick you up at school. I was in law school. I was in university at the time. So Andy Thomas, that's his name. Andy Thomas. Andy, yeah. There's a lawyer in Chillowack. Pick me up. I was in second year of university. He drove me to a house. And there was, like I was telling you, this was during the hippie era. And there was a white two-story house. It was a pretty skinny-looking house. And the grass was not cut in the front. They had a goat there, I think. And there were kids running around those shoes on. It kind of looked like the Beverly Hillbillies, you know. And he brought me in. A guy with a long beard sitting there and his wife with a print dress.  And me and Andy were sitting there chatting with him. Then we left. I remember there was even a bed in the living room. You don't think there's a couch, but there was sort of an iron bed. And he, getting back to his car, he said, you know what they were? They were lost dudes. They weren't lost dudes. Holy crow. And they were working their way through law school. And when we got to his place in Chillowack, he gave me a book called The Life of Time and a Clarence Darrell. So he says, I want you to read this book. I'd been at the university, but I'd never read a whole book. No kidding. That's a real true confession. I'd never read a whole book. I mean, you read excerpts from your textbooks, but I'd never read a novel. I'd never read just ten reading. Wasn't that great? That was a very slow reader. Really slow, still read slow. Anyway, I put the book under my bed. I stayed there. I was in university until the second year that I left. I came home, got married, got on council, started working out with logging. I was a logger working in the bush. And then one year, I forget what year it was. I found that book again. It was dusty and it was in a box somewhere. I forget. I read it. I started reading it. I read about the monkey trial. I read about his work with children working in coal mines in the United States. I read about how he was helping people that were poor. I really admired him for what he did with his life in the law. When I remember sitting there one year and we're at the mountain, I was looking over the valley and I thought to myself, I don't have to be doing this for the rest of my life, working in the log. I could actually go back to school and become a lawyer. So that's what I did. I was 31 then. I went back to school and became a lawyer. Never look back after that. It was a long time though before we started actually making any money doing the log, because when I got out of law school, I opened my practice. Everybody else was getting paid except for me and Karen. I wasn't making any money at all. It's not really a big money beaker unless you're in a law firm that's got big practice. But it's a way to get experience. I did it for three years. I got my import experience. Anyway, so what else do you have? I'm curious to know a little bit about how, what drives you in Aboriginal law. What drives me? Well, I remember going back home, opening up my law practice, and Karen and I rented a space in the old Safeway building, next to the legal aid office, just a block away from the corner. We didn't have any furniture, and we didn't even have a way of painting the building. So the court workers arrived, and they painted it. The Indian bands got together and they bought us desks and chairs for the front. Plants, things like that. So we got a little bit, borrowed a little bit of money from the bank, and we started working, hired a secretary, and we started working. I remember going to court one day, and one of the lawyers walked up and he was a lawyer from Abbotsford. He said to me, you're Steve Point, eh? I go, yeah. Because I'm losing clients to you because of you. And I said, really? I didn't know that. And he says, yeah. Every native client that I've got has come up to me and said, we don't need you anymore. We've got our own lawyer now. Steve Point. All of a sudden, I was everybody's lawyer. Native people would call me out of the blue and say, Steve, could you go down to the court and tell them I can't come until tomorrow? Okay, bye. And I go, who the heck was that? It was like this notion that we never in Salt Lake have a native lawyer before. I mean, I was the first one to come back to my community. In fact, the first one, not really the very first, for me, the first two or three that had his degree in anything. But definitely the first lawyer. And Monday morning, I go to court and I saw all these native people and they're all people that you know too, these were people that were from the community. And they had ever fallen through the cases. They always tried to get them to they always go down and they did, I did, I did. They're finding God. And the same was happening in Lowell. I wanted to live to do a case one time. And they were telling me how the court worked in Lowell. It or Found Monday morning most of the cases were native and everybody would plead guilty and they all would be gone by noon. Nobody fights their cases because they never believed in the system. They didn't believe that they would get anything from it. So I started working in the law, doing criminal cases, working with young offenders.  Well, I had one guy who was hit by an ambulance while he was riding his bike. An ambulance.  They're not part of mainstream. This isn't their justice system either, you know. This isn't, you know, the whole government infrastructure. It's not their government, you know. And they're more or less dragged into it from time to time. A lot of them don't even want to go to hospitals because they just don't get treated very good there. And so, being kind of a guide a little bit in the system, that's what they, that's why they came. They, so I get called to schools to talk, you know. And I began to get parents coming in and saying, could you talk to my son, tell him to smarten up, and I'd be like, well, how do I get this wrong? Steve Point is going to talk to you, you know, I'm going to go straight to their kids now. And yeah, it was an odd place to be, but you're dealing, Aboriginal people, they're oppressed, they're poor, they're shell shot from colonialism, they're mean, you know, so your office is a lawyer and you become someone that can help them. And so, that's what I become. Steve is a simple fact that there's a lot of bad things that happen to many people that they need help with. There's no agreement there to give them that help. Except for the court. My court workers are good, I mean, when you're in court they help you with that. But after that, there's not a lot of, at least when I was there, there were very, very few native people in the system working for the neighbors. There's not just the sort of an awesome weight that's sort of put onto you too and high expectation. It was good though. And I was doing much really good. Okay, one final kind of question. Kind of two parts. What do you think are the most important issues in Aboriginal law today? And where do you see or where do you want Aboriginal law to go in the future? Well, the most important issue I think in Aboriginal law is the definition of around a theory, at least about what Aboriginal title is. I mean, we've really, since St. Catherine's Millings, we've kind of moved the mark up lawyers and judges have. You know, it started out as a use of fracturing right. And now it's something, not total ownership, but something a little less than ownership with expanded rights. And the right to be consulted or there's some infringement. There's right to possession to hold on to the land and expanded fisheries rights, fishing rights on the sparing decision. Yeah, there's been a great movement I think in the law in regards to the definition of Aboriginal title. And that's clear. I think that what's happening in political realm though is from any international realm is informative because they're moving towards something like co-sovereignty, something that helps the flesh out of different theories of Aboriginal. The courts need to catch up with that somehow and we need to find a way of conceptualizing that so that it fits the framework of the gay constitution. I think where Aboriginal law needs to go though, particularly in the area of family law and in the area of property law, it's the whole idea of clarifying and formulating, bringing Aboriginal traditional legal systems into the judicial and the Canadian law system somehow. I was thinking about writing a paper, and I still might, but the title of it, what is it that Aboriginal communities, that Aboriginal Turtle Island, Native people, what have they brought to the justice system? Right. What we brought to the justice system is our perspective, our worldview, which is quite different from your view. Out of that worldview comes our traditions, our legal traditions around how we resolve conflict, how we deal with bad people, for example. So our legal traditions inform things like family and children that are in need, that sort of thing. And that sort of thing needs to sort of, we need to bring some of those things, unpack them in the justice system and find a respectful place for them in the justice system without necessarily creating another silo called Aboriginal justice. I think that if they can do that, then eventually maybe they will have their own justice system. But for now, I think what we need to go through is to begin to define and to unpack the whole question or the whole area called traditional legal, traditional Aboriginal justice, to see what that looks like and what we need to try to find a place for. Do you think a lot of, like, seeing what that looks like is working outside of the court system first and then, or does it kind of coexist at the same time? Well, take the area, for example, and I had this court case happening a while ago where children are being taken from a mother, right? And normally you'd go into court and call the social worker and the social worker would say what's going on in the family and why they think the child is in distress.  Well, that's based on the definition of what a family is from a European perspective. We've got a family from Aberdeen, that includes everybody, everybody that's connected to the family, grandparents, uncles and aunts, neighbors, this is their family. And that sort of process of conflict resolution isn't adversarial, it's circular. It's like they begin to talk together in a circle to understand what needs to happen. And when you allow that to happen, as I did in this case in Haida Gwai, I moved the hearing out to the old massive hall and we sat all day and listened to witnesses from the neighborhood. The bus driver came and gave us this motion, they opened it with a prayer and the elders had their button blankets on. It was like they kind of took over this hearing about the mother. And at the end of the day we heard great things about the mother, how she was being supplied with deer meat and cockles and clams by neighbors, how she would go clean houses, how she had so much work to do. And, you know, it was the community that stepped forward and said, this is how this should be fixed. And it was fixed that way. The next day the lawyers came in and said, we're going to do this, this doesn't have to proceed. And the children are going to go back to the mother. And so when the justice system allows itself to make respectful space for Aboriginal traditions, right, and allow that tradition to sort of play out within the judicial system, you can come up with a different solution, you can come up with a different place than just, well, the mother can have her children back in six months if she does this, this, and this. It's like a sentence from a youth court, you know. And so I find that that's important, right, that's really important. The other area is when moms and dads decide to go their own way, and they've got kids on the reserve, and they've got a house, a car, a property. There isn't any real, you know, the Family Relations Act doesn't apply on the reserve with property, and the federal government doesn't have any division of assets. And often the mother will get removed from the reserve because she's un-membered there. Or the father won't. So there isn't any rules around the division of assets, and it creates a very bad situation, right, where, you know, if they did have rules that were traditional to that community, that would be respectful, then, you know, there would be a way to fill that void right now, which is a void. So, yeah, I think there's areas like that. Criminal law, I mean, not everybody needs to go to jail. We've always talked about the rights of the offender and the rights of the victims, right? And what I've done in some of my cases is to bring them together in a room and sit them down and say, well, how do we solve this, right?  You've got to live there. And when you give voice to the circle and you implement what the circle is talking about, you actually can come up with different solutions again. Solutions that make sense within that community, not in Vancouver or Abbots River, in that community. It makes sense there, you know. So, yeah, when you make respectful space for Aboriginal law traditions, you end up in a different place where I think it makes more sense for Aboriginal communities.


All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the first ever NBA 2K19 playground hide and seek game. Today with us, we have the one and only base Chico. Say what's up. Yeah. We have Juice Man. Say what's good. Yeah. We have our guy Hank the Tank. Yeah. And we got my guy Wayne. Say what's good. Yo, yo. All right, so we got the cast with us, ladies and gentlemen. I purposefully didn't walk around so I have no idea what to expect on the playground. I'm gonna be it the first time around and I'm gonna give you guys one minute to hide and after that minute is up, if you get caught, you get added to my squad, my team and we hunt for the rest. The last person to not get caught, what do they win? I don't know. Let's say like 50,000 VC. All right, let's do it.  I'm gonna look in the sky or something when you guys are running away. I'll close my eyes. All right guys, the countdown starts in five seconds. Five, four, three, two, one. Ah. If you guys snitch on one of your teammates, you get 10,000 VC. Okay. Oh, that's amazing. I'll play it, I'll play it, all right. Hold on, you can go all the way over here? What's right? That's all I'm saying, like, all is lit. Uh-oh. All right guys, your time is up in three, two, one, zero. All right. So since I was watching you guys run away, I know you're coming in this direction. Good. Okay. I think I'm good. Is that an alley? No. Yo, this is gonna be impossible. What the? I think I'm good. Can you hide it? What's the chances? In it, in it. Okay, no. All right, alley number one is complete. What's the chance that somebody's hiding behind these boxes, man? Show yourself. I hear some footsteps, man. I know somebody is nearby. One of you guys is too close to me. You can't get him through? Oh, I got you, Juice. Oh, my God. I got you, man. Oh! All right, man, Juice, you're with me now, man. Let's find these guys. Yo, you guys can't go into tattoo shops. I just realized that would be the infinite, like... Yeah. That would be crazy. All right, damn it. You blew my car. I think I'm gonna be the last one to get caught because I don't think you know what it is to be honest. You know what's funny? When I get near you guys, it actually pops up your name too. So like, if I get close enough, it'll kind of just give me the answer. Oh, what? They got a spot back here? Yo. I don't think I'm gonna find you guys, man. This is too... Yeah, you ain't finding me, bro. This is too detailed. I'm like, in a corner of a corner of a corner. I need some parkour to get to where you're at. Wow, this rooftop is nice. What? What? He just casually dropped that information. Nice exercise. It is indeed. I don't know where you guys are, bro. Oh, you know what? I know some of y'all think you're slick, man. I probably should have blended it in the middle. Oh, damn it. Look, look, I ain't... Look, look, look, look, look, I ain't know. You found it? Where was he hiding? See, I'm behind a wall, but the goddamn name on the bottle? That's your fucking... Dude, Agent, I went to the stage and he found me. You were in the stage? Yeah. How? I don't know, man. I didn't even get there yet, man. So now all there left is Chico. Guys, do you have any additional intel we can use? I'm just chilling. He's probably in plain sight. Watch him be in the middle of playing a game of park. Just trying to... The one place you'd never check. Yo, where could you have been, though? In the stage. There's no one else. I was in a corner. I was in the stage. Philly Agent. Oh, okay. I haven't been back here. Interesting. So is everybody looking for me right now? Yeah, we are. Yeah. Oh, well then. I'm over there, guys. Over there. That's nice. Is he trying to finesse? What's the chances he's not in the park right now? I think I... Oh, okay, he's in here. What? Oh, Chico, where could you be? I feel like... He probably... Bro, look, I... I... I went in a full circle, man. Show yourself. Dude, he actually is playing park, man.  That's it? No! Is he really? No! I'm fine. Where is he? I saw you walk right past me. Wow. That was a good spot, though.  Where was the spot? You gotta go through like an alley and then go to the back. It's just like tables. All right, Chico, show me the spot. You wanna pet me? No. What? No. No, Hank. No. I think I came back here, didn't I? No, you didn't. How did I miss this? Nobody can't get self-reducing. I was hiding right here. It's a corner here and then another. Like this corner here? I was hiding right here. Jesus. I thought I came by here. Maybe it was a place similar to this. All right, let's run it back, fellas. This time, Chico. Actually, you know who was the first person I caught? Juice. Juice, you're gonna be it. All right, man. Juice, count us down. One, two, three, four, five. I'm supposed to go.   Nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20.  Oh, that was one of y'all. All right, man. Hey, man. Oh, this is the spot. I'm gonna finish counting down before leaving.  I didn't even know you could do that. That's a cheat. It could be. I mean, most of us probably aren't on there. Yeah, you can't even see.  Huh? No, that's not what I said. Hey, Hankie, I was just about to pass you, but then that thing popped up. It just popped up. I'm warning you. What's up with your shot? I don't know. Wait, what? Oh, no, that's something else. Oh, that's so cool. Nobody got shot. This is when you put your headphones on it mutes all the noise in the playground. Bro, my camera is bugging, man.  Yo, I can't see anything. I know where he's at. No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm out of the open, so my camera's fine. Oh, you really got nothing? Why is he stopping?  What's wrong with him? Savitaged me. All right, was I the first one caught? Nah, I got to go first. OK. What you got? Was I found yet? I was taking a piss. Nah, you ain't get found yet. Oh, boy. Wait, how do you say you got me? You ain't find me? I found you right behind a dumpster.  Right now?  Bro, you ain't been saying nothing, bro.  You can just click R1 and find Hank with his giant-ass afro. Yike. You can catch him on a bird's eye view. I still not been found. Nah, we found you. Oh, yikes. Yeah, you can take it. Look at the way, though. Look at the way. Damn it. I saw you coming. I was about to run on the other side of the road. Yeah, yo, Hank. Let's meet back in the middle. Yeah, yo, Hank right here, too. Oh, really? I was trying to bait him out. Wait, what? You didn't find me? You didn't find me? You baited? Oh, you. Did I win, though? I think you did, actually.   He was alive.  All right. Yo, I told you last game I was at the stage, man. Look, I was just chilling right here. Where at? Like, I was just chilling right in front of the door. No, you weren't. That's where I go.  I know. All right, that was pretty entertaining. There's pretty much alleys behind every single building this year, but because you can't run far away. Like, remember in 2K18, you could run across the map. Like, it would take, like, a whole minute to get there. It's a little bit easier, maybe quicker, to find people in this year's game. But if I was to, like, put on some camo and then hold up against the wall, and for whatever reason, if the name stopped popping up, then we would be talking. Anyway, Chico Juan, he'll get to 50,000 VC. If you guys enjoyed, drop a like, subscribe to the channel. I got a whole lot of videos coming. Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot wait. I'm gonna see you guys there. Peace.


St. Lucia has lost an illustrious son of the soil. National cultural icon Honorable Charles Cadet died Sunday 17 January 2021 after a prolonged illness. The renowned composer was 96 years old. Honorable Cadet was born on December 16, 1924 into a family with an intense love of music and was well endowed with the musical talent to express that love. In a statement, the Cultural Development Foundation, CDF, highlighted his service to the government and people of St. Lucia in a distinguished career of some 40 years. Honorable Charles Cadet served in several capacities, including Permanent Secretary, Councillor for Trade for the OECS Subregion from 1976 to 1986, Acting High Commissioner to London 1986 to 1987. He was awarded Commander of the Order of the British Empire 1987 and St. Lucia Cross in 2005 in recognition of his distinguished and outstanding services. He was the first recipient of the MNC Fine Arts Lifetime Achievement Award. His compositions shall see Marianne and Poincette of Blossom remain classics and relevant in today's society. Meanwhile, Minister with Responsibility for Culture and Creative Industries, Senator Honorable Fortuna Bell-Rose has described Honorable Charles Cadet as a national and treasured gem. Jesse Leos tells us more. The Government of St. Lucia pays tribute to the late cultural figure Honorable Charles Cadet, who passed away over the weekend. A prolific composer, Cadet is remembered for his invaluable contribution to arts and culture, having penned the iconic tunes for the play Banjo Man and the musical Chanson Marianne, the guitar man song, the legend of Tom Foole, the wonderful world of Brother Rabbit, and last but certainly not least, the classic Christmas record Poincette of Blossom. Cadet also served the Government and People of St. Lucia in a distinguished career, spanning 40 years in several capacities, including Permanent Secretary, Councillor for Trade for the OECS Subregion, 1976 to 1986, and Acting High Commissioner to London from 1986 to 1987. On behalf of the Government and People of St. Lucia, we really want to extend sincere condolences to the family of Honorable Charles Cadet. Charles, as you know, was a phenomenal St. Lucia. He contributed significantly to the development of our folk music. He also was a public servant extraordinaire. What I got most out of him was a continuous desire to perfect the craft in every possible way. Cadet has over the years received many awards for his musical genius and service to country. They include the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for 2012, the St. Lucia Cross for Distinguished and Outstanding Service to St. Lucia in 2005, and the Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in 1987. He had received the recognition in our society. I think what we need to do and to continue to do as a country is to ensure that the legacy lives on.  Charles was committed to his craft. He was a perfectionist. These are lessons, you know, that we continue to learn and we want to value to ensure that our citizens continue in that vein. And so I know the Folk Research Center, the Cultural Development Foundation, these institutions are grieving because of his loss. But I know that they had worked with him daily. And so the work that he has done will continue to live on not only in terms of the documentation but in the hearts, you know, and lifestyles that we live, you know, as citizens of this country. Honourable Charles Cadet passed away at 4 o'clock Sunday morning, 17 January 2021, at the age of 96. For the Government Information Service, I am Jesse Leance reporting.


I mean, I don't, I don't find this, you know, I get what you say, I, yeah, I agree with what you're saying, but I don't find, I'm just going to pick on one little phrase here. I don't find the phrasing of resisting evil very helpful. It's not, I mean, it's very Christian again, it's very original sin. It's very the fall kind of attitude.   There is no resisting evil. I don't view it as resisting evil, I don't resist evil.  Evil is a non-existing force. That's what objectivism gives you. Evil is just not there. What happens if the guide to living your life is reason and rationality? If, if, if the issue is you should live rationally, then you're living rationally. And, and in what context is, do I resist evil? Oh, now I'm not going to live rationally. Why would I ever think that? Why would I ever want that? Why would I desire that? Why would that ever come into my mind? And it doesn't. Not once you integrate objectivism fully. There's not this temptation or to use what's his name, Ben Shapiro, there's not that temptation to go sleep with every good looking woman at the bar. Why? Why would I even go there? Why would my mind even go there? It just doesn't. It's just not, I'm not constantly fighting my emotions because my emotions are lined. I'm not constantly suppressing them, putting them down. Oh, no, we can't do that. That would be evil. It's, it's, this is what it means to live a rational life and to integrate your life around rational values is there is no temptation of evil. There are choices to be made. And there are options. It's not like the path is easy and there are no choices and it's just one way. But, but it's not, it's not like, you know, it's, it's, it's choices within scope of the things that are open to you, and the things that are available, and the things that are rational. But it's not like, ooh, they're doing cocaine there. I wonder what that's like, I should go do cocaine. So resisting evil comes from a religious perspective that views good and evil as metaphysical forces in the world. And, and, and, and all it comes from a Christian perspective that says, we are all fallen, we are constantly tempted by bad and by evil. And life is a constant, is constantly a resistance of, of those temptations. But that's nonsense. It's not what life is. Evil, by the way, is not a religious form, not at all. Evil existed before religion, before Christianity was invented, before formal religion was invented. Evil is a concept in morality that relates to, you know, moving against life, moving towards death. And evil in the objectives context is about evasion. It's about not being rational. But there is no evil force in the world. There is no evil temptation in the world. And there, and evil is not, again, it's, it would be like morality is a religious term. No, not at all. There was morality before religion, and there certainly is morality after religion. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support, by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals, and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube, so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who already subscribers and those of you who already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Now I have got another topic for you and that's about software timers These are by default switched off when you set up a cube MX The software timers are disabled. So if you want to use them, you have to enable them and At the same time you have to set up the stack for the software timer task and the length of the queue For the timers timer events the software timers work. So that you can register an event with a callback function and a delay and The timer will get this It will calculate the position of this event in a list and it will put it in the waiting list and As you get periodically awakened by a time base it decrements the time of all the tasks that are registered and When such timeout drops to zero the callback is called and is removed from the list So you have got a one off and that you can call a function in a pre-programmed time However, you can as well Mark at least in the native API that such event will be periodical So then it will not be removed, but rescheduled with the same delay and It will continue periodically Of course, you can stop the callback the event and you can restart it So it's very useful if you need some longer term periodic behavior. You can see that There are two types of the timer events Or timer types the first one periodic where you register it and you start this event with the OS timer start and The software timer task takes care about the timing and when the right time comes It calls the registered callback the function that you create and It reschedules The call to the same task again So you can see it's automatically called periodically It can be for example a refresh of a display. It can be check of your keyboard of the buttons It can be a periodical communication Pink to another board another component and so on another thing you can as well use this task for For example a watchdog Let's imagine that You have a watchdog in your application activated in a cuba mix and I highly recommend to use watchdogs and Now you need to Make sure that your application is alive and that all components are running So what you can do you can set up a periodical event To refresh the watchdog However, it has got one drawback because the tasks which happens in an interrupt and Some other tasks can be deadlocked while this one is perfectly okay There is a question whether you should refresh the watchdog conditionally or unconditionally So what would you choose? Conditional you can define a frequency of each task and Each task can send an event one bit for example to the signal of the timer task and When you get to the callback routine it can read the signals Or for example a stemma force or any other state and If it doesn't have a ping of life from all the guarded tasks, it will simply avoid Refreshing the watchdog and it will let you reset the microcontroller So such way you can as well guard the micro Against the deadlocks and against some unwanted behavior or freezing of some of the tasks So each of each task has to periodically send a signal and when this callback collects all of them and You can see if all tasks have sent the timeout the proper signal then you refresh the watchdog. Otherwise Restart and start from the beginning The second mode of the software timer is a one pulse One pulse like you can hear simply starts the counter and after a given delay calls the callback However, it removes the callback from the timer task So it's no more cold. Of course, you can restart it by software Automatically, it is called just once to enable the timers. You have to do it in a cuba mix or in the free artist config By enabling this macro config use timers when this is done the X timer create timer task function is called in the retask start scheduler and It instantiates the timer task responsible for working with the timer list and calling the callbacks Additionally, you can define the task priority for the timer task and the stack depth This is very important to guarantee that all the callback functions have enough space on the stack and They can run correctly Additionally, the timer task creates a message queue where it holds the timer events So all the pre-programmed pre-scheduled events are held in the message queue And the finally the queue length can be as well defined in the setup of the free artist Speaking about the configuration here. You can see all these config parameters and How can they be set up? Now let's look at the API The timer can be created and when it's created it gives you a timer ID It is created with a definition So with a callback and a timeout then it is created with the type whether it's repeated or one time and When it starts the callback it can as well pass it an argument So you can parameterize how you call the callbacks then the timer has to be started and You have to give a timeout the delay in milliseconds after which it will be called So once you start it depending on the type it starts Calling it periodically with a given timeout or it starts just once and removes from scheduling Additionally, you can stop any selected timer if you don't need it anymore and Then you can as well restart it if you want software timers as I said can be very useful in Programming different actions in time if you want to test it we can set up the lab So you can come to kube mix and we can enable the timers so first thing Open the configuration of the free art os Scroll down to software timer definitions and Enable the software timers After you enabled the software timers jump to the timers and semaphores tap in the artos configuration and add one software timer callback You can set it up as OS timer periodic So that it gets called periodically Okay, and Right now when you generate again the code you should see that one timer was added to your project and There was a swell created a callback So we can set up or we can put in the callback a Function that gets called after a specific timeout Here there is one critical thing the callback should not be blocking So the callback must be quick and return very important thing is that If you put any blocking function inside That can create trouble and delay in other callbacks because all other callbacks come in the same context in the same task So if you put a blocking function, you are blocking the whole timer task What would you do if you need to start some action and Then wait for something if you for example have After the OS delay timer elapsed How would you do this effectively you create a specific task you can for example wait for a semaphore and When this Callback releases the semaphore The task can wake up can print and use OS delay for Waiting and then another output or communication and One more important thing. We have created the timer. We have created the callback But we need to start it so please choose one of the tasks that are alive in your application and Start the timer once with the OS timer start handle of your timer and a period of your choice and This way you will be able to Start the timer we set it up as a periodic So periodically in this case every one second you should get this function called and You should see either the output or if you place a breakpoint. It should be hit periodically


Hi everybody. My name is Luis Villa. I'm the co-founder of Tidelift, a programmer turned attorney. Some of you may know me from prior hits such as Mozilla, Wikipedia, and brief stops at Red Hat in the year, the first year of the Linux desktop at Zimian and the GNOME project. I'm here to talk today about security, but in particular what security means in a new era of maturity or sometimes what we call professionalism in open source. And so somewhat jokingly, but somewhat deadly seriously, I want to talk to you about what expect when you're expecting professionalism. There's only a 15 minute talk. Hopefully we don't really need a TLDR, but nevertheless, I want to really, if you take away nothing else from this talk, if you hang up right now, I want to say there's really three things here. We, I think there's a critical distinction between maturing open source and professionalizing it. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are differences that we need to think about as a broad community that about the implications of the things we're doing. The second thing is that, well, I guess I just sort of preview this. This professionalization is likely to have real impacts on participation and impact or effectiveness of new initiatives that we take as a community. And finally, third, I want to say that we all need to be thinking about the impact of incentives and complexity. Too often, of late in our community, we've said, oh, incentives, complexity, those are someone else's problems. And we all, at all different levels, and I'll close with some called actions around this, need to be thinking about our role in creating increased complexity, our role in demanding and expecting increased professionalization, and what that means about the incentives that people need to participate in the open source as it exists in the 2020s. To go to walk you through how we're going to structure this in the talk. First, when I say professionalism, what do I mean by professionalism? Second, what are the downsides? What are the weaknesses or stresses of this new professionalism? Part three, when let's walk specifically through the example of security, because of time limits, I will really only focus on security today. But I think it's really critical to say that this new professionalism also applies to other things like licensing, codes of conduct, et cetera, but we'll focus today primarily on security. And then part four, why does security feel so different? What has changed over the past three, five years, maybe even the past 18 months to make this feel different in a way that is really impactful for our projects? And finally, part five are to do, what are the called actions that we all need to take away in order to make this really work? So first, the new open professionalism. So why do I use this term professionalism? You know, I think there are a few reasons. This, these are some definitions off the interwebs conduct behavior attitude of someone in a work or business environment. And I called this one out specifically because we so many of us are now employed to do open source in a worker business environment, but many, many, many more of us are not yet, right. We wrote a tidelift of one post called the boss factor. It turns out for many open source developers, what really channels their commitment to open source has a lot to do with their work. But not necessarily in a, it's a full time job sense. It may be in a sense of the boss looks the other way while I do 10% here. Or my boss has me work on Java, but suddenly we've switched to become a Python shop. My Java projects are now abandoned. So things are not when open source is done that way in that sort of informal sort of on the clock but sort of off the clock way. The expectations have historically been very different. Are those, are those expectations changing because so many of us are employed, and perhaps sometimes forgetting about the constraints and factors that drive the people who are not employed to do this in a full time sense. I, when I go to an open source conference as a professional, I'm expected to wear a collar, not everybody is and it's important to realize that there is that distinction. Similarly, another great definition of professionalism, this sense of being reliable setting your own high standards showing that you care about every aspect of your job. All of these things are really good and important. And in some sense we should all strive to be doing more of this kind of thing in open source, yet at the same time. Again, for some of us this is very possible it is literally our day job, our nine to five or let's be honest, usually much more than our nine to five. And that gives us the time energy focus to be reliable to set those high standards to show that you care about every aspect. And as we'll get to there are a lot of aspects these days. But not everybody has that luxury not everybody has that privilege. And so what does that mean, as the boundaries of professionalism and the expectations again the title what to expect when you're expecting professionalism. These are often increasingly expecting this level of commitment, and it's not possible for everybody to have it. And so, hopefully what we'll explore today some is where that tension comes into play. Do want to contrast in particular two terms, one maturity. I think of maturity when we talk about maturity in the open source space as being a sort of gradual layering of skills, wisdom. This is very related to but distinct from professionalism, right, you can be a mature open source maintainer, but your maturity may come with the wisdom of saying, you know what, I don't have to respond to everything in a timely manner. These things are going to be water under the bridge. That's a very distinct from a professional attitude, which may be, Oh my goodness, I have to respond to all these things right maturity often in software means knowing what not to do. And that's in some tension with professionalism. Similarly, amateurism. I think this is probably something most of us in open source have heard at some point or another. But amateurism comes from the Greek root, ama to love right, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing it badly. But it does mean you're doing it out of a different set of motivations it means you're doing it because of a love of what it is that you're doing. And let's be honest, some of the things that we're asking open source maintainers to do these days are not things people do for the love of it. They are very often essentially paperwork. They're important paperwork. And I again want to stress this is not an attack on some of the new security standards licensing standards, etc. It's really to think about how those new standards that new very well intentioned paperwork might interplay with people whose motivations are a little more a little more personal. So why now look professionalism has been increasingly with us in open source since the late 1990s, the first time red hat handed out IPO checks, professionalism was a real thing. But my thesis here is that increased security demands and other causes that we won't get into today are driving a new wave of expectations of professionalism of timeliness of thoroughness and completeness. And that that is really going to impact how we do open source in both the near and long term futures. I'll give you a little bit more detail on what I mean when I say for when I say professionalization in this sense, one critical thing about professionalization professions are hyper specialized, and they are formalized. One thing that we used to not have and I'll get into this a little bit more in the next section is a little bit sense of informality right if you let something slide it was okay. I'm expecting extreme formalization. Everything has to be properly formatted metadata.  You need to use specific standards tools, or you're not a professional. And that's a big change from it's a gradual change but it's an important change in what we expect out of open source. There's an increased expectation of response time again professionals. I'm a lawyer. There is very much an expectation in my profession that you pick up the phone at all days and at all hours of the night. And that's something that we're increasingly seeing and is increasingly wearing on open source maintainers. Finally and critically, unlike most professions. When we professionalized open source so far there's no directly correlated increase in compensation. There are a lot of ways to turn professionalism, or maybe maturity. into compensation, but it's not a one to one thing. If you're a lawyer you're only expected to be professional when you're on the clock. That is not necessarily the case in modern open source and that's a really critical problem. So what are the limits of professionalism. First, you know I want to talk about the upsides of professionalism. There are informal. There are a lot of things about informal amateur practices. They're inconsistent. They're hard to review, right, because you sort of have to have a lot of tacit knowledge. And it's especially hard to do at the scale that we all operate at now of thousands or tens of thousands of packages on the flip side formal structured professional practices tend to be more consistent tend to be more reviewable. Even as we're increasingly seeing in the security space certifiable you can literally have a certifying body that says these people did it the right way. On the flip side, downsides of professionalism, the informal amateur practice practices have a low barrier to entry, they're flexible in time and manner that means you can do them on weekends you can take a week off when you want. You can do them on your own servers you can do them with your own scripts your own tools. And we know for a fact that these amateur practices scale across the long tail. We all, of course, here at this conference we're often talking about things like Kubernetes and the Linux kernel. We're all using thousands of long tail packages to build our products and services, and we know that these informal amateur practices scale in some sense, certainly not all across that long tail. On the flip side, formal professional bear practices, high barrier to entry, inflexible about how we implement them, and we don't necessarily know that they're going to scale across the entire long tail open source. You know, I think it's really important to say here by the way that the impact of the new professionalism varies across project types, depending a lot on funding access to training and upskilling, etc. Right, so Nadia eggballs typology of toys clubs stadiums and federations federations, the biggest projects that Kubernetes the Linux kernel, they're, they're having and are often driving this new professionalism right things like SLSA the new security stuff out of Google. That's going to be stuff that Kubernetes, I would guess, very likely to not just tolerate but to actively embrace because as a federation they have access to a lot of resources on the flip side toys may be literally almost by definition excluded from SLSA, because often those are one person shops, and at least the highest levels of SLSA, you literally need two people where the median number as we know on GitHub is one. Similarly the Mozilla open tech strategies, typology of open source, be to be multi vendor infrastructures, these things are going to do well in a new professionalized world. These multi libraries often maintained by only one person upstream dependencies often maintained by only a small number of people. They are going to face a lot more challenges from this new professionalism. So let's get into the nuts and bolts of security, and is it professional. Is it now professional. Currently security is often informal CVs have no metadata structure you literally have to parse them by hand. They are consistently reported so upstream may not even know about them. CVs are not integrated into package manager so if you've got a project with a CV still going to be available on the package manager still going to be you're still going to be able to upload it. Because I would say currently don't really fall into the rubric of professionalism for most of open source. This is in some sense a very good thing it allows security non experts to participate in open source. Also, obviously it allows for a lot of security problems. Yeah, in other words it's possible to be an open source maintainer today without being a security expert, because these loose edges of CVS bomb signature processes allow you to participate even if you aren't a guru. I think it's an open question how much that's going to be possible in the future. The trend obviously is going in a very clear direction here in response to lots of security problems we're getting a lot of pushes for new formal structured obligations. The US government is pushing S bombs everywhere. SLSA level for as I mentioned is requiring two plus sign offs where the medium project literally only has one contributor. What's that going to mean for that long tail. There's a lot of automated scanning now, which is good. But on the flip side means a lot of maintainers seeing an avalanche of you have a problem you have a problem you have a problem. You know, many of these, I think it's critical to note here again getting back to that point about different types of projects being impacted to different ways. Many of these new specifications do not acknowledge the existence of multiple projects types or the varying developer motivations. If this is your day job, you can tell your boss, you know what, there's new requirements. I need to take some time to learn these new requirements, build some tooling. If this is something you do on weekends and it's competing with spending time with your kids for your puppies. That's a real problem. And the reality is, even though we all think about the brand names, Kubernetes Linux kernel, etc. that have a lot of those paid folks. All of our stack depends on those unpaid folks as well. Another little detail in this question of is security now professional. I think it we cannot have a frank discussion about this without saying anything. There's a lot of money in this ecosystem now. Google has pledged $10 billion companies like sneak are, you know, multiple levels of unicorn. I saw just in my friends network on Twitter, two new startups in the space just this week. We professionalism is not directly tied to money, but on the flip side, as I said earlier, it's also a somewhat unusual situation in our culture where the high expectations of professionalism are not necessarily tied to high expectations of remuneration. So why is security somewhat different again from what's gone before in open source? I think there are two key things that make security very different that we have to think about in a very serious way. One, there is a weakest link problem. If we don't get professional or what somebody on Twitter yesterday called industrial coverage, in other words, complete coverage of our entire stacks, our weakest links are still going to be real problems for us. Previously in open source, we for for things like this, we would say, for example, spdx. Well, the Linux kernel, if we get the Linux kernel all XP DX, that's really going to reduce a lot of our risk and yeah, there will be a lot of licensing risk down in the long tail, but we can learn to live with that risk down in the long tail. With security, we may not be able to learn to live with that risk down in the long tail. All it takes is one package being adopted by a blockchain miner or an advanced state actor to really torpedo the whole enterprise. And so that's a difference. We used to be able to say, eh, good enough. In security, we may not be able to do that anymore because of this weakest link problem. Similarly, there's an end to end problem. We have often relied in our space of on the top packages will be taken care of by systems integrators or by big players like red hat. In other words, maybe the licensing wasn't perfect upstream, but somebody would clean it up package it and give it to us as enterprises. It's especially in the security context, but I think increasingly in licensing as well. It's going to be hard to create and maintain data accurately without participation at all levels of the chain, including maintainers. A great example of this is the move to signatures insecurity signatures in the build process are not something you can add after the facts. It's something that the that the upstream maintainer has to participate in for them to have their full value. And again, this is an assumption that we've had in this industry for a long time that may no longer be holding true. And I think we need to think about what the implications are of that for what does it mean for us to be going truly and and including the maintainers. That's something that we've sometimes sort of skipped over. And I don't think we're going to be able to do that for that much longer. And I think we're actually pretty much going to end on time since we started a little late. What are my calls to action here. You know, because I think I really want to stress again that this is not. This is not a call to stop doing what we're doing in security, only an idiot would deny that we have deep security issues in open source and that some of this new structure is really going to be critical for how we deal with it. At the same time, I do think we need to think about professionalization. What does it mean for all of us motivation incentives. How are we going to address some of these. And that's how what I want to talk about in this final section about the call to action. If you're a spec writer. There's a lot of us out there right now Eva. You may some of you may have seen put a document in the CNCF slack that was simply pretty much just a listing and overview of all the various security specifications and proposals out there. And it was multiple pages when I last looked at it a month and some ago, and I'm sure it's much longer now. So if you are one of the many folks thinking about about security specifications or other types of specifications as well for example if you're in the S bomb space. I would strongly urge you to explicitly consider how is your specification going to work across all project types, because remember, we have a weakest link problem. If your specification is only going to make sense for the Kubernetes and Linux kernels of the world. Then you need to go back to the drawing board. This may mean that you need to partner with platforms like GitHub. It may mean that you need to think about things like developer incentives. How are we going to pay maintainers to do this stuff that feels like paperwork. And that's going to vary across project type and if you only tackle one type of project. It's not going to succeed. Similarly related, I want you to explicitly consider developer motivation. If you write a specification that doesn't talk about why developers are going to do this work. Then you've missed the boat, you do not have a 1.0 until you've explicitly considered this. Remember, and this is I think a really critical point, you need to put yourself in other open source maintainer shoes. If you are writing a security spec you are highly likely to work for a centibillion dollar company, or a trillion dollar company. You are not a typical open source developer. It's true that you can come here to an event like this and have drinks. Lovely drinks. Thank you Microsoft for those on Monday night before I got sick. You are not that you can you can attend an event like this and only talk to other employees of 70 billion dollar companies. But that does not mean that this is representative of all of open source that long tail means that you are very atypical Kubernetes Linux etc are not typical of open source projects. So ask yourself and answer in your specification process. Why are the projects and developers you target going to implement your spec. I explicitly call out the proposal for project alpha slash Omega that's been going around CNCF via some folks at Microsoft, they considered this stuff from day one. And I really think that that's something admirable and important and more of a should model. They called out both different types of projects and developer motivations. I think that's really critical and really honorable. On the flip side, I really want to say part of why I'm giving this talk now is because too many times I've been told, Oh yeah, we'll figure it out. I feel honestly like an asshole at this point because I'm the one who sits in the back of these rooms and says, Okay, but why are developers going to do this in the late 90s early 2000s. We, you know, the early open source folks academics would be like, Oh, so if we just put it under an open source license, magical things where it happened and we'll be like, No, that's not. I mean, yes, but no. And now I feel like often we are the one saying, Oh yeah, if we just put this specification out there. If it's going to happen developers will adopt it if it's a good enough spec. And developers are overloaded developers are stressed. We can't just take that for granted anymore we have to think proactively about it. And frankly, I, I'm just sick of the one of the being the only one who stands up and ask these questions at conferences. So that's enough about specs enterprise consumers. When you are considering whether your company should adopt or implement an enterprise security spec of some sort, or an S bomb spec or something like that, consider whether the spec advocates have a theory of change that is more than our spec is good. That isn't enough for overloaded maintainers. You need to not just considering your own adoption but you need to tell specification authors. Hey, we don't see how this is going to work in practice. Yes, it's a very nice XML specification. Yes, it's a very nice Jason specification. That's a great database you've developed and I like your blockchain. But why are people going to do it. And if they don't have an answer for that you need to tell them that's not acceptable. And I need you to consider how to support people who are doing the work, not just the people advocating for doing the work. Again, it's lovely that we have all these 501 C sixes who are pushing a lot of these things. But if we're not helping the developers actually get it done. It's not going to be effective it's not going to solve the problems this is not just a moral thing of like, Oh, we should really pay the maintainers. It's a practical thing, which is that if we do not help the overloaded maintainers, either through paying them, paving the way with extremely good work work on our platforms, or some other magical thing, it's just not going to work.  Finally, if you're a maintainer and you're listening to this talk, consider how to be cooperative with other maintainers while not burning yourself out. How can you, you know, how can you build tools how can you build scripts. You shouldn't have to take this all on yourself. There must be ways for other people to help for people to band together and help each other do this. You should consider how to coordinate with others. Frankly, I think we'd be a lot better off if a lot more maintainers often stopped and said no, not just out of a selfish. Okay, we want our slice of the pie. In fact, I hesitate to even call that selfish. But because often feedback from maintainers, especially small maintainers will really help improve these things and make them more practical make us all more secure and better licensed and better COC over time. Finally, I want to stress again, this is not a call to despair. This is not a call to lower our standards. It is a call to rethink how we raise our standards and on whose backs whose labor, are we building those standards. With that, thank you very much for your time this morning. If you want to find me, I'm Lewis at tidalip.com or I'm Lewis and be on Twitter.


Be it known that I, Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California on this 17th day of December, 2017, by the power delegated to me by the Regents of the University of California, do hereby install Carol Christ as the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley and invest in her all the authority and rights of the office. Chancellor Christ, as tangible evidence of your new office, I will now present you with the Chancellor's Medal. Thank you. President Napolitano, Chairman Kiefer, Regents, Trustees, Mayor Errigan, distinguished guests, faculty, staff, alumni, students, parents, and most important graduates of the class of 2017, welcome and thank you for coming. Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that we're sharing this ceremony, my formal investiture as Chancellor and your graduation. First, congratulations. You've worked hard, you've excelled in what you've done.  There's a fitness, I think, in the coincidence of our ceremonies. The University of California was founded to serve you, to provide broad access to a university education for those who aspire to it, and I've been entrusted with leading this extraordinary institution towards this important goal. Because we're approaching the new year, I've been thinking a lot about January. The month is named after Janus, the God of beginnings, gates, transitions, doorways, and passages. He's often portrayed with two faces, looking backward and forward, as we do at this moment. You're completing your college education, and beginning that period, I always imagine, in capital letters, life after college, and I too am beginning a momentous task. We share this university, a university that I hope will remain important to you in the decades ahead, for universities are communities in both space and time. We share a place, what the poet Wordsworth called a local habitation and a name. The geography of the campus is vivid in our experience, Sather Gate, Sproul Plaza, the Campanile, the laboratory and classroom buildings in which you spent much of your time, the stone barriers that are posed around the campus, the paths through the redwoods along Strawberry Creek. But the university is also a community and time connected by this shared experience of place. It exists in your mind as you construct and carry with you the narrative of your life. It exists in the community of hundreds of thousands of alumni over the decades and across the globe. And it exists in the history of the university that we at once inherit and change. Next year in 2018, the university will celebrate its sesquicentennial, its 150th anniversary. What did the founders of the university imagine in 1868? And what can it tell us about the university in the 21st century? The founders of this university indeed imagined its essential features and aspirations. The University of California came into existence through the merger of two institutions. One resulted from the passage of the Moral Land Grant Act in 1862, the federal legislation that provided federal land to every state in the union to establish a public university. Central to the legislation was the idea of access. Access to a college education for the working classes. Equally central was the requirement that any such university teach agriculture and engineering in addition to the traditional liberal arts. In order to take advantage of the federal legislation, the state of California determined to establish a college of agricultural mining and mechanical arts, essentially a polytechnic institution. Small private institutions that had been established in California were worried. Mind before minds, one higher education leader protested. Reverend Henry Durant, after whom Durant Hall is named, had the vision of joining the College of Agricultural Mining and Mechanical Arts, which existed only on paper, with the financially struggling College of California, a liberal arts institution that aspired to the German model of the research university. With this merger, the University of California was created with its essential features. Broad access, a curriculum encompassing programs in both the liberal arts and the professions and a commitment to research. In 1869, the new university opened its doors to 40 students, some of whom were transfers from the College of California. There were five colleges, agriculture, mechanical arts, mines, civil engineering and letters, and 10 faculty. It was a pretty good student-faculty ratio. The College of California was located in Oakland, but Durant had purchased another site in Strawberry Canyon overlooking the Golden Gate. He saw the place as deeply symbolic. A newspaper editorial predicted many nations a few years hence, as their fleets with the wealth of commerce seek these golden shores will see the university before they see the metropolis. He met San Francisco by the metropolis. The university's founders connected its location to Asia. The very first philanthropic gift that the university received was a professorship of Oriental languages and literature from Edward Tompkins, who imagined greatly expanded Pacific commerce and wanted to extend intellectual hospitality to Asian students currently going to the East Coast for their college educations. In 1872, the university moved it to its new site in Strawberry Canyon, which Durant named Berkeley after the 18th century Irish philosopher, Bishop Markley, who had envisioned a new golden age in America replacing a Europe he felt had become old and decadent. I've taken time to tell the story of Berkeley's founding to suggest how many of its distinctive features were imagined from the beginning. As we celebrate its 150th anniversary, what insight can we take from history that will guide our future path? One of the wisest books ever written about the American university is Clark Kerr's, The Uses of the University. In it, he argues that universities can aim no higher than to be as British as possible in regard to undergraduate education for universities like Oxford and Cambridge offered the model for residential liberal arts colleges, as German as possible in regard to graduate education and research, for Germany had developed the model of the research university, and as American as possible in regard to the public at large. Kerr believed that the distinctive success of America's best universities results from keeping these three in balance. This comes close to Berkeley's founding synthesis and one important to keep in mind as we begin our second 150 years. We stand, I believe, at a moment of transformation as great as any in Berkeley's history. Given the decline in state support, we must reimagine the financial model for the campus, one of my main goals as chancellor. But that begs the question, financial model for what? Here I think Clark Kerr can be our guide. In his witty counsel to be as British as German and as American as possible, he's really talking about our tripartite mission of teaching research and service. What are the challenges in regard to each as we begin our second 150 years? In regard to teaching, we face challenges of both access and opportunity. Berkeley's initial student body of 40 has grown to 40,000. We can serve our 40,000 students even better than we do by more consistently and purposefully providing the opportunities for the life transforming experiences a university of this distinction can provide. Participation in faculty research, study abroad, internships, the chance to realize your idea as an invention, an experiment, a business, a work of art. We talk a great deal at Berkeley about equity and inclusion, usually in regard to demographics and the climate. Both of these are critical, but so is equity of experience, the commitment that all students have access to the distinctive opportunities that Berkeley offers. To provide this equity of access, we need to do more both in terms of the structure of the advising we provide, making sure roadmaps to distinctive opportunities are clear to every student and in financial aid and housing. Insufficiency of student housing is the greatest threat Berkeley faces to the quality of student experience. As chancellor, I intend to double the capacity of our housing system. Too many of our students live in housing that is too expensive, too crowded, too far from campus, leaving you less money for basic needs. Berkeley has grown a significant amount in just the last decade. We haven't fully met the challenge of how best to serve the increased number of students we have. However, the pressures to increase enrollment will continue, both because the population of California and its high school graduation rate are increasing, even as university education becomes more essential for individual and social prosperity. Because I think that it is unlikely that the University of California will be provided with the resources necessary to build new campuses, we must develop imaginative approaches to increasing enrollment capacity. Through university extension, for example, partnering with institutions here and abroad, ensuring efficient progress to degree and considering new and imaginative methods of delivering the curriculum. Access and opportunity are critical ways in which the university serves the state, educating thousands of outstanding graduates like you who will make important contributions to our world. We also serve the state, indeed the planet, through our research. Berkeley has always set itself the goal of comprehensive excellence, a distinction that means we can take on very big and complex problems whose solution require multiple lenses and tools. As we begin our second 150 years, we should identify the grand challenges we're particularly suited to meet. Here are some examples, climate change, income inequality, artificial intelligence, what it means to be human in a digital world, mind and brain, gene editing, data science. All of these problems require multiple disciplines from STEM to the humanities to make progress and understanding and solving them. We serve the public best, the American part of our mission, when we excel at teaching and research, providing extraordinary graduates for society who will, like you, change the world, making progress on its most intractable problems. To do this well, we must answer a set of strategic questions. What disciplines must grow? Which new types of research and teaching environments must be created for Berkeley to invent the future? What size should Berkeley be to best serve the growing population and changing needs of California? What investments and changes would have the most impact on the quality of student experience, both undergraduate and graduate? How can we foster a sustainable financial model with an evolving diversity of revenue sources while remaining true to our public mission and identity? How can Berkeley best expand its reach? These questions will be the focus of the strategic planning process we are now beginning. As part of this process, I recently asked campus leaders to tell me in one sentence their vision for the Berkeley of the future. Here are some of the responses I received. Berkeley reimagines the world. It is the discovery campus. It is a powerful pathway to upward mobility. It continually raises the bar of the possible for individuals and for humankind. It is through such self-examination and contemplation of the future that Berkeley will evolve, adapt, and improve. And that is as true for you as it is for this university. It's a process that brings to mind the four defining principles of the Haas Business School. Question, the status quo. Confidence without attitude. Students always beyond yourself. As you begin to contemplate your own future, continue to question the status quo, continue to learn and explore, and determine how you can contribute to the greater good. I believe that Berkeley instills in its students a great capacity to reevaluate and reorient themselves. You will need to exercise this skill in order to live the rich and fulfilling life that I hope lies ahead for each of you. Graduates of the class of 2017, as you prepare to go out into the world, take with you our campus' aspirations as well as your own.   When we say go Bears, we're often thinking of our sports teams, but go Bears means so much more than that. It means go faculty in all the ways your research is enlarging our understanding of the world. It means go staff in all the ways you help us educate our students and support our research. It means go alumni in the myriad ways you are making the world a better place. And it means go graduates, on to the life you dream of for yourself.  Fiat looks and go Bears.


Hi everybody, this is Dave Vellante of theCUBE. This is day two of Falcon 2022 CrowdStrike's big customer event. Over 2,000 people here, 100 sessions, a lot of deep security talk. Amal Khulkarni is here. He's the Chief Product and Engineering Officer at CrowdStrike, and we're going to get into it Amal. Thanks for coming to theCUBE. It's great to be here. Enjoyed your keynote today. It was very informative. First of all, how's the show going for you? It's going fantastic. First and foremost, to be having everyone here in person after three years, that's just out of the world, right? So great to meet and a lot of great conversations across the board with customers, partners. It's been fantastic. Yeah, so I want to start with cloud native. It's kind of your dogma this whole. The new acronym is CNAP, Cloud Native Application Protection Platform. There's a mouthful. What is that? How does it relate to what you guys are doing? Yeah, so CNAP is what Gartner has coined as the term for covering entire cloud security, and they have identified various components in it. The first and foremost is the runtime protection, cloud workload protection, as we call it. Second is posture management, that's CSPM, cloud security posture management. Third is CIEM, which we announced today. And then the fourth is shift left kind of DevSecOps part of cloud security. And all together, Gartner coined that as a solution or a suite, if you will, to cover various aspects of cloud security. Okay, so shift left, and then shield right. You still get a shield right, right? So that's where network security comes in, right? Which is not your main focus, but okay. So now I'll explain it. Now that Gartner's acronym, now I get it. But the CIEM announcement, cloud infrastructure entitlement management. So you're managing identities, is that right? Let's explain that in more detail. So yeah, I mean, as in the on-premise world, but even more exacerbated in the crowd world, you have lots and lots of identities, both human identities and service accounts that are accessing cloud services. And a lot of the time, the rigor is not there in terms of what permissions those identities are provisioned with. So are they over-provisioned? Do they have lots of rights that it should not have? Are services able to connect to resources that they should not be able to connect to? All of that is falls under the entitlement management, identity entitlement management part. And that's where CIEM comes in. So what we said is we have a great identity security story for on-premise, right? And now we are applying that to understand identities, the entitlements they have, secrets that are lying around, maybe leaked or just available for adversaries to exploit in the cloud security world. So taking all of that into account and giving customers a snapshot view, a one single view to say these are the identities, these are their permissions, this is where you can trim them down because these are the dependencies that are present across services. And you see something that's not right from a dependency perspective. You can say, okay, this connection doesn't make sense. There's something malicious going on here. So there's a lot that you can do by having that scope of identities be very narrowed down. It's a first step in the zero trust journey for the cloud infrastructure. So I have to ask you, when you now extend this conversation to the edge and operations technology, traditionally the infrastructure has been air-gapped by brute force, air-gapped, don't worry about it. And maybe hasn't had to worry so much about the hygiene. So now as you, as the business drives and forces essentially digital transformation and connectivity, I mean, wow, that's a playground for the hackers. You absolutely nailed it. So most of these infrastructure was not designed with security in mind, unfortunately, right? As you said, most of it was air-gapped, disconnected and now everything is getting to be connected because the updates are being pushed rapidly, changes are happening. And that really, in some sense, has changed the environment in which these devices are operating, the operational technology, industrial control. We had the colonial pipeline breach last year and that really opened people's eyes, like, hey, nation-state adversaries are going to come after critical infrastructure and that is going to cause impact directly to the end users, to the citizens. So we have to protect this infrastructure and that's why we announced Discover for IoT as a new module that looks at and understands all the IoT and industrial control systems assets. So that didn't require an architectural change, though, right? That was a capability that you introduced with partners, right? Am I right about that? They don't have to re-architect anything. It's just your architecture fits perfectly into those scenarios, right? Yeah, yeah, actually, while the pace of change is there, architectural change is almost very difficult because these are very large systems, they are built up over time. You take an industrial control system, the iteration speed is very different from a laptop. So yeah, you can't impose any architectural change. It has to be seamless from what the customers have. You were talking, I want to go back to CNAP. You were talking about protecting the runtime. You could really do that with an agent.  Yeah. Can you double click on that and just elaborate? Yeah, absolutely. So what the agentless solutions today are doing, they are essentially tapping into APIs from AWS or Azure, CloudTrail, for example, and looking at misconfigurations. So that is indeed a challenge. So that is one part of the story, but that only gives you a partial view. Let's say that an attacker attacks and uses an existing credential, a legitimate credential to access one of the cloud services. And from there, they escalate the privileges and then now start branching off. The CSPM, the agentless only solutions will not catch that. So what you need is, you need this agentless part, but you have to couple that with seeing the activity that's actually happening. The living of the land attacks that cannot be caught by the CSPM piece. So you need a combination of agentless and agent runtime to give that overall protection. What's the indicator of attack for a hacker that's living off the land, meaning using your own tools against you? That's right. So the indicators of attack are saying, accessing services, for example, that are not normally accessed, or escalating privileges. So you come in as a normal user, but then suddenly you have admin privileges because you have escalated those privileges. Or you are moving laterally very rapidly from one place to another, or spraying across a lot of services in order to do reconnaissance and understand what is out there. So it's almost like looking for what is an abnormal attack path, abnormal behavior compared to what is normal. And the good part is, cloud there is a lot that is normal. It's fairly constrained.  Cloud services are fairly constrained. So you can profile and you can figure out where there is a drift from the normal. And that's really the indicator of attack in some sense from cloud services. In a previous life, I saw the change subjects on you. In a previous life I spent a lot of time with CIOs, helping them look at their application portfolio, understanding what to rationalize, what to get rid of, what to invest in, bringing in new projects. Because you never throw stuff away in IT. But so. Right, so. There is no obsolescence. It's so right. But they wanted to, anytime you go through these rationalization exercises, change management is everything. And one of the hardest things to do was to map and understand the business impact of all the dependencies. Absolutely. Across the portfolio. Because application A needs this data set. That's right. If you retire it, it has ripple effects. And you talked about that in a security context today when you were talking about the asset graph and the threat graphs giving you the ability to understand those dependencies. Can you add some color to that? Absolutely, absolutely. So what we've done with the asset graph, it's a fundamental piece of technology that we've been building now for some time that complements the threat graph. And the asset graph looks at assets, identities, applications and configuration. All of those aspects. And the interconnections between them. So if a user is accessing an application on a server, all those, and in what role, all of that relationship is tied together in the asset graph. So what that does now is it gives you an ability to say this application connects to this application. And that's the dependency on that port, for example. So you can now build up a dependency map. And then the threat graph, what it does is it looks at the continuous activity that's happening. So if you now take the events that are coming into the threat graph and the graphical representation of those, combine it with the asset graph, you get that full dependency map. And now you can start doing that impact analysis that you talked about. It's an unsolved problem, right? And that's why security, as I said in my keynote, is most people do not have their security tools enabled to their highest level or they don't have full coverage. Just because the pace of change is so rapid, they cannot keep up with it. So we want to enable change management at a rapid pace where businesses and customers can say we are confident about the change management, about the change we are going to implement because we know what the potential impact would be. We can validate, test it in a smaller subset and then roll it out quickly. And that's the journey we are on. Sort of, the theme of my talk was to make IT and security friends again. Right, you talked about that gap and bringing those two together. You all said a great quote on there, the pace of change and security is insane. Yes, yes. And so this assets graph capability dependencies and the threat graph help you manage that accelerating pace of change. Absolutely. Before I forget, I want to ask you about your interview with Girls Who Code. What was that like? Who did you interview? I unfortunately couldn't see it, I apologize. Yeah, fantastic. So Reshma Sawjani, she heads Girls Who Code and she first off had a very, very powerful talk just from her own experiences. And essentially like what do we need to do to get more women into computer science first but then within that into cyber security and what all have they done with Girls Who Code? So very, very, I mean, we were very touched. The audience was like super, super into her talk. And then I had a chance to chat with her for a few minutes, ask her a few questions. Just my view was more like, okay, what can we do together? What can CrowdStrike do in our position in to attract more women? We've done a lot in terms of tailoring our job descriptions to make sure it's more, it removed the biases. Tuning the interview processes to be more welcoming and Reshma gave an example saying, hey, many of these interviews, they start with a baseball discussion. And I mean, some women may be interested in it but not all maybe. And so is that the right, is it a gender kind of affirming or gender neutral kind of discussion or do you want to have other topics? So a lot of that is about training the interviewers because most of the interviewers are men, unfortunately. That's the mix we have. And it was a great discussion. I mean, just like very practical. She's very much focused on increasing the number of people and increasing the pipeline, which is honestly the biggest problem. Because if we have a lot of candidates, we would definitely hire them and essentially improve the diversity. And we've done a great job with our intern program, for example, which has helped significantly improve the diversity on our workforce. But the gap keeps getting bigger in terms of unfulfilled jobs. That leads me to developers as a constituency because you guys are building the security cloud. You're on a mission to do that. And to me, if you have a security cloud, it's got to be programmable. You're going to have developers there. You don't, from what I can tell, you have a specific developer platform but it's organic. It's sort of happening out there. What's the strategy around, I mean, the developer today is so critical in terms of implementing a lot of security strategy and putting it into action. They've got to secure the runtime. They got to worry about the APIs. They got to secure the paths. They got to secure the containers. And so what's your developer strategy? Yeah, yeah. So within cloud security, enabling developers to implement DevSecOps as a philosophy, as a strategy is critical. And so we have a lot of offerings there on the shift left side. For example, you talked about securing containers. So we have container image assessment where we plug in into the container repositories to check for vulnerabilities and bad configuration in the container images. We then complement that with the runtime side where our agent can protect the container from runtime violations, from breakouts, for example. So it's a combination. It's a full spectrum, right, from the developer building an application all the way to the end. Second, I'll say is we are very much an API first company. So all of the things that you can do from a user interface perspective, you can do from APIs, what has enabled that is a bunch of partners, a rich partner ecosystem, that is building, using those APIs. So the developers within our partners are leveraging those APIs to build very cool applications. And the manifestation of that is CrowdStrike Store where essentially we have, as Josh mentioned in his keynote, we have agent cloud architecture that is very rich. And we said, okay, why can't we open that up for partners to enable them to leverage that architecture for their scenarios. So we have a lot of applications that are built on the CrowdStrike Store leveraging our platform, right? Areas that we are not in, for example. And here, describe it, is there a PAS layer that's purpose built for CrowdStrike so that developers can build applications? That's a great question. So I'll say that we have beginnings of a PAS layer. We definitely talked about CrowdStrike Store as being PAS for cybersecurity, but there's a lot more to do. And we are in the process of building up an application platform so that customers can build the applications for their SOC workflow or IT workflow. And Falcon Fusion is a key part of that. So Falcon Fusion is our automation platform built right into the security cloud. And what that enables customers to do is to define, encode their business process, the way they want, and leverage the platform that they way they want. It seems like a logical next step because you're going to enable a consistent experience across the board, and fulfill your promise, your brand promise, and the capabilities that you bring. And this ecosystem will explode once you announce that. And that's the notion we talk about of being the Salesforce of security. Right, right, yeah. That's the next step. Amal, thank you so much. I got to run and wrap. We really appreciate you coming on theCUBE. And congratulations on your keynote and all the success and great event. I appreciate it. Thank you very much for the time and great chatting with you. You're very welcome. All right, keep it right there. We'll be back very shortly to wrap up from Falcon, Falcon 2022. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE.