[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:15.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}34c3 preroll{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:00:15.09,0:00:19.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Welcome everybody to our next\Ntalk: Financial surveillance, Exposing the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:19.29,0:00:24.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,global banking watch lists. I think\Neverybody in this room would agree that
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.29,0:00:29.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mass surveillance is a very bad idea, and\Nthat of course also goes for financial
Dialogue: 0,0:00:29.04,0:00:34.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,surveillance. And our next two speakers,\NJasmin Klofta and Tom Wills, are two
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.28,0:00:39.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,investigative journalists, who have\Nuncovered, how the system of financial
Dialogue: 0,0:00:39.18,0:00:43.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,surveillance works. And I'm pretty sure\Nthat you are just as excited as me to find
Dialogue: 0,0:00:43.50,0:00:47.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,out what they have found out. So, please\Ngive them a warm round of applause!
Dialogue: 0,0:00:47.94,0:00:58.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.74,0:01:04.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin Klofta: So hello, nice to see you\Nall. Microphone's not on I think? Be cool.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.76,0:01:14.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think the headset doesn't work.\NHerald: Audio? Well you know there's
Dialogue: 0,0:01:14.19,0:01:18.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,always a litttle thing that doesn't work,\Nwhatever this is. For the talk we just had before,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.74,0:01:23.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there was a live demo, it was very well\Nplanned - still something went wrong. I think
Dialogue: 0,0:01:23.27,0:01:26.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,everybody in the audience had a lot of\Nempathy, because nobody wants to be in
Dialogue: 0,0:01:26.65,0:01:30.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that position. But I think we just fixed\Nthe problem. Is it fixed? Is it about to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.77,0:01:33.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be fixed?\NJasmin: I will try a little bit, yes!
Dialogue: 0,0:01:33.51,0:01:35.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: There we go! Round of applause,\Nnow we go!
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.94,0:01:40.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: We can start!\N{\i1}applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:01:40.51,0:01:45.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: So, it's nice to see you all, so\Nhappy that so many people came. I want to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.90,0:01:50.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,introduce to you: this is Tom - he's the\Ndata journalist working on investigations
Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.68,0:01:56.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at the Times of London and he specializes\Nin a set of techniques such as data
Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.52,0:02:02.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mining, which can reveal wrongdoing and\Nlead to stories that benefit the public.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:02.03,0:02:05.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom Wills: And this is Jasmin, she's an\Ninvestigative journalist working in
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.37,0:02:11.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Hamburg for Panorama at the broadcaster\NNDR, which is part of the ARD network, and
Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.00,0:02:15.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,she focuses on politics, the digital\Neconomy, and surveillance. And we're going
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.37,0:02:20.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to tell you tonight about findings of an\Ninvestigation we conducted this year as
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.27,0:02:26.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,part of an international collaboration,\Nand our colleagues were Eveline, Stefania,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.55,0:02:34.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Lars, and Cora. And Jasmin.\NJasmin: Yeah, and together we investigated
Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.31,0:02:39.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the leaked database and published in June\Nthis year our stories in the UK, in
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.50,0:02:45.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Germany, in the US, Netherlands, Belgium,\Nand Italy. So what was our story? We
Dialogue: 0,0:02:45.49,0:02:50.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,investigated, that innocent people around\Nthe world have been wrongly added to a
Dialogue: 0,0:02:50.25,0:02:56.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,watch list of terrorists and criminals.\NThis watch list of high risk people and
Dialogue: 0,0:02:56.64,0:03:01.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,organization is compiled by Thomson\NReuters, a British firm, and sold to
Dialogue: 0,0:03:01.20,0:03:06.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,almost all the world's major banks, as\Nwell as police forces, intelligence
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.04,0:03:13.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,agencies, and non-government organization.\NIt's called World-Check and the leak gave
Dialogue: 0,0:03:13.15,0:03:19.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,us the opportunity to review the entire\Ndatabase for the first time.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.86,0:03:25.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: So, what exactly is World-Check? Well,\Nif you want to open a bank account, we
Dialogue: 0,0:03:25.02,0:03:29.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know that the bank might your credit\Nrating to see if you are a reliable
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.31,0:03:34.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,borrower. But how does the bank know, if\Nyou're a criminal, or a terrorist, or a
Dialogue: 0,0:03:34.00,0:03:38.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,potential money launderer? One of the\Nchecks that most banks will do, is run your
Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.38,0:03:43.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,name against the World-Check watchlist,\Nand they might look in here. If your bank
Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.26,0:03:47.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,finds your name on the list, they might\Nrefuse your application, or they might
Dialogue: 0,0:03:47.57,0:03:52.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,subject your financial transactions to\Nextra scrutiny, or if you're an existing
Dialogue: 0,0:03:52.10,0:03:56.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,customer, they might even\Nclose your account.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:56.92,0:04:02.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: So, Thomson Reuters says about\Ntheir list that it is to find hidden risk.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:02.76,0:04:08.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The list is of heightened risk people and\Norganizations, such as terrorists,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:08.73,0:04:13.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fraudsters, or senior public officials,\Nwho might try to use the account to handle
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.10,0:04:21.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,corrupt funds. So they want to be kind of\Nan early warning system for hidden risk.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.86,0:04:27.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And banks are even forced to use these kinds\Nof lists by regulation, they have to take
Dialogue: 0,0:04:27.60,0:04:32.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,steps to comply with sanctions and\Ninternational and domestic law against
Dialogue: 0,0:04:32.70,0:04:38.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,money laundering and terror financing. And\Nof course we all want less terrorism, and of
Dialogue: 0,0:04:38.23,0:04:42.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course we want less money laundering,\Nthat's clear. And to put it in a World-Check
Dialogue: 0,0:04:42.90,0:04:48.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words, it's to help identify\Nrelationships or risk by providing highly
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.31,0:04:52.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structured intelligence profiles and\Nheightening risk individuals and entities
Dialogue: 0,0:04:52.99,0:05:00.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,globally. But since 9/11, governments have\Nto put more and more pressure on banks to
Dialogue: 0,0:05:00.70,0:05:06.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,identify terrorists and money launderers\Namong their customers. So, Thomson Reuters
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.99,0:05:12.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,advertises even World-Check with warnings\Nabout recent fines and settlements against
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.86,0:05:19.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,banks for violating sanctions. Maybe you\Nknow the.. this one story: HSBC had a
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.79,0:05:26.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,historic 1.9 billion dollar payment to US\Nauthorities to settle money-laundering
Dialogue: 0,0:05:26.53,0:05:31.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allegation in 2012, and that's one of the\Nmost famous example that the banks, of
Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.80,0:05:38.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course, fear very much. So if you look for\Ninformation how the information is
Dialogue: 0,0:05:38.80,0:05:44.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,collected, Thomson Reuters says it\Ncompiles a list using hundreds of
Dialogue: 0,0:05:44.12,0:05:51.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thousands of reputable sources in the\Npublic domain. You got to remember that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:51.05,0:05:55.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,slide, and especially the word "reputable\Nsources", because we will come back to
Dialogue: 0,0:05:55.99,0:06:00.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that a little bit later.\NTom: So how do they collect this
Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.77,0:06:05.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information? Well, Thomson Reuters\Nresearchers look into public sources,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.73,0:06:11.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ranging from EU sanction lists, to local\Nnewspapers in order to find names to add
Dialogue: 0,0:06:11.39,0:06:17.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the database. In total, Thomson Reuters\Nsays that World-Check contains profiles on
Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.26,0:06:22.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,over two million entities, and that it's\Nadding 20.000 profiles a month, and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:22.37,0:06:29.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,updating 40.000. So the list is growing all\Nthe time. Now, this is a job advert for a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:29.58,0:06:35.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,position as a World-Check researcher in\NWashington DC and it states, that among the
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.39,0:06:41.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,many responsibilities you need to write\Nmore than 220 highly structured and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:41.09,0:06:45.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sourced biographical intelligence profiles\Nevery month. I think it's really nice of
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.51,0:06:50.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them to be so upfront about the workload.\NAnd that's about 1 hour per profile,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:50.74,0:06:55.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you're working full time. So it must be\Nquite a challenge if you are the assistant
Dialogue: 0,0:06:55.31,0:07:02.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research associate to maintain accuracy\Nand quality under that kind of workload.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.50,0:07:07.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: So not many people had heard of\Nthis list until recently but it's one of
Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.28,0:07:12.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the biggest of its kind. According to a\NWorld-Check datasheet the service is used
Dialogue: 0,0:07:12.52,0:07:19.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by over 300 intelligence and government\Nagencies, 9 out of the world's top 10 law
Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.00,0:07:26.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,firms and 49 of the world's 50 largest\Nbanks. Overall more than 6000 customers
Dialogue: 0,0:07:26.44,0:07:34.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from 170 countries are reportedly on their\Ncustomer list. The content of the list is
Dialogue: 0,0:07:34.59,0:07:39.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,secret because Thomson Reuters doesn't\Ntell people when it adds them to the list
Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.47,0:07:45.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and banks are forbidden from passing on\Nthe information. Access is only granted
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.94,0:07:51.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,after a vetting process, so the user has\Nto sign a nondisclosure agreement and also
Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.23,0:07:56.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,using the database is quite expensive. A\Nyear's access can cost up to 1 million
Dialogue: 0,0:07:56.98,0:08:02.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,euro.\NTom: In recent years there have been some
Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.39,0:08:06.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,excellent investigations by other\Njournalists, who've highlighted some
Dialogue: 0,0:08:06.11,0:08:12.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possible issues with World-Check. The BBC\Nhas been investigating why HSBC closed the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.68,0:08:18.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,account of Finsbury Park Mosque in London\Nwithout any explanation. The BBC
Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.61,0:08:22.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers found that the mosque had been\Nlisted in World-Check in the terrorism
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.58,0:08:28.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,category. So that may have been part of\Nthe bank's decision. VICE news was also
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.27,0:08:32.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,able to view some of the entries in World-\NCheck through a client of Thomson Reuters
Dialogue: 0,0:08:32.76,0:08:37.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and they discovered more examples of\Nquestionable entries. So we knew that
Dialogue: 0,0:08:37.54,0:08:42.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there was something potentially going on\Nwith this database, but it mostly remained
Dialogue: 0,0:08:42.28,0:08:46.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,confidential and nobody had been able to\Nview the entire database in order to find
Dialogue: 0,0:08:46.69,0:08:51.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,out, whether there were wider\Nissues with the system.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:51.44,0:08:59.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: But then there was a leak: In\Nsummer 2016 this security researcher Chris
Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.19,0:09:03.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Vickery was doing what he very much likes\Nto do. He was scanning the internet for
Dialogue: 0,0:09:03.29,0:09:10.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,CouchDB instances exposed to the world\Nwithout any username or password. Well,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:10.14,0:09:18.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can imagine what comes next.\N{\i1}applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:09:18.75,0:09:23.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: He would contact the owners to\Nencourage them to secure the data but he
Dialogue: 0,0:09:23.23,0:09:27.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,found something really interesting, and\Nthat was the copy of the World-Check
Dialogue: 0,0:09:27.18,0:09:35.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,database from 2014. With him finding it\Nthe question came up in his head: He
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.01,0:09:41.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,asked: "I have a terrorism blacklist. I\Nhave a copy, should it be shared?" Chris
Dialogue: 0,0:09:41.49,0:09:47.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,posted on Reddit to say that he was facing\Na dilemma about, whether to release the
Dialogue: 0,0:09:47.14,0:09:52.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,entire database or not. Because on the one\Nhand the database was apparently compiled
Dialogue: 0,0:09:52.26,0:09:59.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from public sources, so: what's the\Nproblem with publishing public sources?
Dialogue: 0,0:09:59.83,0:10:04.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The World-Check is a system that is used\Nto make decisions about people's lives and
Dialogue: 0,0:10:04.03,0:10:09.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,secrets, so maybe transparency would be in\Ntheir interest. But on the other hand it
Dialogue: 0,0:10:09.42,0:10:14.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contained personal data relating to\Nmillions of people, who might suffer harm
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.69,0:10:20.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if the information was disclosed. Since it\Nis not so easy to ask the 2 million
Dialogue: 0,0:10:20.85,0:10:28.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people, if he's allowed to publish it, he\Nwas asking himself so what now to do.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:28.76,0:10:33.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thanks to the previous work of the BBC\Nadvice we as journalists had reason to
Dialogue: 0,0:10:33.36,0:10:39.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,believe, it would be in the public\Ninterest to review this data. So we made
Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.16,0:10:44.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,contact with Chris and before viewing the\Nleaked data we considered of course the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:44.54,0:10:51.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ethical, legal and security implications.\NTom: We had a chance to fully reveal how
Dialogue: 0,0:10:51.89,0:10:55.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the system works for the first time. And\Nthis is what the file looked like:
Dialogue: 0,0:10:55.89,0:11:01.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}\NJasmin: Isn't it beautiful?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.73,0:11:05.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: We agreed with Chris that we would\Nuse the data to do responsible journalism,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.83,0:11:09.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but not to publish the data itself, so we\Ncan't show you the full database in this
Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.52,0:11:16.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,presentation. When we received the data it\Nwas a 4 GB JSON line delimited file with
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.52,0:11:23.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,no documentation. The first thing I had to\Ndo was write a parser in Python. I started
Dialogue: 0,0:11:23.30,0:11:30.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to flatten this JSON file into a CSV file.\NThen we had a 4 GB CSV file and I loaded
Dialogue: 0,0:11:30.27,0:11:35.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that into Postgres in order that we could\Ndo some analysis of the contents of this
Dialogue: 0,0:11:35.07,0:11:42.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,database. So this is an abridged version\Nof the field list showing you the really
Dialogue: 0,0:11:42.03,0:11:46.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,key pieces of data on each of these\Nprofiles. We've got an ID, we've got an
Dialogue: 0,0:11:46.36,0:11:52.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,entity type, that is, if this is a person\Nor an organization, for people there were
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.61,0:11:57.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,first names, surnames, aliases. Position\Nwould be: if you're a politician, this
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.74,0:12:02.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would say what your position is in the\Ngovernment. The categories were really
Dialogue: 0,0:12:02.27,0:12:07.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interesting, because these might be that\Nyou're a politician as mentioned or might
Dialogue: 0,0:12:07.61,0:12:12.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be that you're in the terrorism category\Nor the financial crime category. We've got
Dialogue: 0,0:12:12.02,0:12:15.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,dates of birth and countries and\Nnationalities, obviously those are really
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.51,0:12:23.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,important so that banks can identify the\Ncustomers correctly. Information text was
Dialogue: 0,0:12:23.45,0:12:27.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possibly the most interesting part of the\Ndata. And then we had various links to
Dialogue: 0,0:12:27.44,0:12:32.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other profiles, the source URLs which\Nturned out to be really crucial and the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:32.92,0:12:39.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,dates on which the records have been\Ncreated and updated. You know, some of
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.75,0:12:45.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these fields were self-explanatory, but we\Nreally needed to see what this database
Dialogue: 0,0:12:45.66,0:12:51.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,looked like to the end-user to understand\Nhow this information would be interpreted.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:51.15,0:12:56.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Like any good investigative journalists ..\Nwe of course turned to Google. After a
Dialogue: 0,0:12:56.26,0:13:00.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bit of experimentation we discovered the\Nmagic words: searching for "you are
Dialogue: 0,0:13:00.85,0:13:06.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,strictly prohibited from disclosing or\Ncopying the content of this service".
Dialogue: 0,0:13:06.99,0:13:11.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:13:11.51,0:13:17.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: And sure enough we find some examples\Nof profiles from World-Check, which people
Dialogue: 0,0:13:17.22,0:13:21.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,may or may not realize are on the internet\Nand accessible through Google. Some of
Dialogue: 0,0:13:21.23,0:13:24.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these are from the Panama papers, so\Nobviously the person who put that one
Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.25,0:13:28.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there knew what they were doing. The first\Nexample in this result is interesting
Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.57,0:13:32.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,though because we have the word "intranet"\Nin the URL and we should perhaps tell this
Dialogue: 0,0:13:32.80,0:13:36.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,company that their intranet is not an\Nintranet.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:36.22,0:13:38.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:13:38.67,0:13:40.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: Maybe they found out by\Nthemselves.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:40.30,0:13:48.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: They know now, hopefully. This\Nexample is actually from a magazine in
Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.21,0:13:52.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Brazil which published World-Check\Nprofiles that they obtained as part of an
Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.80,0:13:57.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,investigation. This was really useful\Nbecause we could see exactly what the data
Dialogue: 0,0:13:57.08,0:14:03.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,looks like to the end-user. This profile\Nbelongs to Eduardo da Cunha, who was the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:03.26,0:14:07.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,former leader of the Brazilian Chamber of\NDeputies and as I said it was published by
Dialogue: 0,0:14:07.81,0:14:12.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the magazine. We can see here the\Ncategories that he's been assigned: in
Dialogue: 0,0:14:12.88,0:14:17.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this case he's a political individual and\Nhe's a PEP. PEP stands for politically
Dialogue: 0,0:14:17.83,0:14:23.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,exposed person. This is a term in anti-\Nmoney-laundering legislation that means
Dialogue: 0,0:14:23.61,0:14:28.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this person is in senior public office and\Nthey are potentially in a position to take
Dialogue: 0,0:14:28.95,0:14:32.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bribes and launder corrupt funds. It\Ndoesn't mean necessarily that they've done
Dialogue: 0,0:14:32.60,0:14:36.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,anything wrong, but the money laundering\Nrules say that banks have to scrutinize
Dialogue: 0,0:14:36.100,0:14:41.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these people very carefully. So if you are\Na politician you might be called up by
Dialogue: 0,0:14:41.87,0:14:46.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your bank and they would say we need to\Ninterview you about your sources of income
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.57,0:14:50.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in order to establish what the legitimate\Nlevel of income is and if you exceed that
Dialogue: 0,0:14:50.93,0:14:55.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,level you'll be reported to the\Nauthorities. The definition of PEP also
Dialogue: 0,0:14:55.80,0:15:00.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,includes the immediate family of the\Npublic officials and we'll see that on the
Dialogue: 0,0:15:00.90,0:15:07.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,next slide. When we scroll down after the\Nage and date of birth we've got these
Dialogue: 0,0:15:07.62,0:15:13.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,links to other profiles: These are the\NBrazilian politician's immediate family
Dialogue: 0,0:15:13.55,0:15:21.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,members, who have their own profiles. Then\Nfurther down we've got the reports, so in
Dialogue: 0,0:15:21.12,0:15:25.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this case this politician was actually\Naccused of doing something wrong, it
Dialogue: 0,0:15:25.24,0:15:29.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wasn't just that they're a politically\Nexposed person. There's a report of an
Dialogue: 0,0:15:29.24,0:15:34.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allegation of corruption there and since\Nthis profile was published it turned out
Dialogue: 0,0:15:34.78,0:15:38.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that he was convicted of corruption. So\Nthis is an example of a profile of
Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.94,0:15:45.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody who turned out to be guilty. Now\Nthat we understood what a profile looked
Dialogue: 0,0:15:45.54,0:15:52.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like we started to analyze the scope of\Nthe database.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:52.20,0:15:56.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This table shows for each country how many\Npeople were profiled in World-Check as it
Dialogue: 0,0:15:56.88,0:16:03.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stood in 2014, which was the date of the\Ncopy of the database that Chris Vickery
Dialogue: 0,0:16:03.24,0:16:09.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,found online. We're showing here for each\Ncountry with at least 5000 entries the
Dialogue: 0,0:16:09.09,0:16:13.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,number of non-PEPs, so that could be\Npeople in the terrorism or the crime
Dialogue: 0,0:16:13.20,0:16:17.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,category or it could be various other\Nthings. The number of PEPs: we would
Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.98,0:16:22.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,expect them to be senior public officials\Nbut it's interesting that there are a lot
Dialogue: 0,0:16:22.37,0:16:27.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of countries where there are tens of\Nthousands of PEPs and so that suggests
Dialogue: 0,0:16:27.69,0:16:32.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that perhaps they've cast the net quite\Nwide there. We're also giving numbers of
Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.46,0:16:39.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,relatives of PEPs. We spent a lot of time\Nbrowsing the data for our countries and
Dialogue: 0,0:16:39.24,0:16:43.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,querying the database to understand the\Ntypes of the different types of people
Dialogue: 0,0:16:43.13,0:16:48.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who've been included. And then everyone in\Nour collaboration started finding people
Dialogue: 0,0:16:48.60,0:16:52.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who really didn't belong on the list. And\Nwe started to ask: How did these innocent
Dialogue: 0,0:16:52.60,0:16:58.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people end up on this watchlist?\NJasmin: We were for example really
Dialogue: 0,0:16:58.58,0:17:03.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,surprised to find Greenpeace, 16\NGreenpeace activists, on the list, who
Dialogue: 0,0:17:03.51,0:17:08.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,were arrested for peacefully protesting\Nthis "Star Wars" missile defense program
Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.05,0:17:18.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in 2001. They were listed under the\Ngeneral category "crime". That was a bit
Dialogue: 0,0:17:18.53,0:17:24.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,weird, because they did plead guilty to\Ncriminal trespass, but never served time
Dialogue: 0,0:17:24.23,0:17:32.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for this minor charge. But 12 years later,\Nthey would still be on that list.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:32.86,0:17:37.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: This is another example, this time\Nfrom the UK, from a town called Chelmsford
Dialogue: 0,0:17:37.54,0:17:43.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the South of England. This woman is\NJackie Arnott and she was listed in the
Dialogue: 0,0:17:43.21,0:17:49.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,politically exposed persons category along\Nwith a record of all her civic activities.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:49.21,0:17:53.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So here she is at work, volunteering for\Nan organization called "Harvest for the
Dialogue: 0,0:17:53.82,0:17:58.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Homeless". This is a local campaign in\NChelmsford that was collecting food for
Dialogue: 0,0:17:58.33,0:18:05.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people in need. Jackie Arnott is not a\Nsenior public official as you might expect
Dialogue: 0,0:18:05.66,0:18:10.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a politically exposed person to be. In\Nfact her only connection to power seemed
Dialogue: 0,0:18:10.81,0:18:16.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be that her husband Allen had been the\Nmayor of Chelmsford, which is a ceremonial
Dialogue: 0,0:18:16.15,0:18:24.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,position. Now to a different town in the\NSouth of England: this is leafy Kingston
Dialogue: 0,0:18:24.69,0:18:33.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,upon Thames. This is a view of the town\Nhall: it's all very genteel and this is
Dialogue: 0,0:18:33.22,0:18:38.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,one of Kingston's local politicians: Yogan\NYoganathan. You can see the letters MBE,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.66,0:18:42.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,member of the British Empire, after his\Nname. He was given an honour by the Queen
Dialogue: 0,0:18:42.63,0:18:47.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for his services to local government and\Ncommunity relations in Kingston upon
Dialogue: 0,0:18:47.27,0:18:52.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thames. Among his activities he was a\Npeace campaigner. He campaigned for peace
Dialogue: 0,0:18:52.97,0:19:01.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in Sri Lanka and that led to him being\Nlisted in World-Check and being linked to
Dialogue: 0,0:19:01.48,0:19:05.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allegedly the Tamil Tiger terrorist\Norganization, which is an extremely
Dialogue: 0,0:19:05.77,0:19:10.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,serious and very upsetting claim to have\Nmade about you, not least if you're a
Dialogue: 0,0:19:10.74,0:19:17.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,peace campaigner. The World-Check database\Ngave the source for this allegation as a
Dialogue: 0,0:19:17.16,0:19:23.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sri Lankan government website which in\N2007, at the height of the civil war in
Dialogue: 0,0:19:23.49,0:19:28.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sri Lanka, has said: These guys in London\Norganising peace protests about Sri Lanka,
Dialogue: 0,0:19:28.96,0:19:34.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they're all Tamil Tiger terrorists. And\Nthat allegation had made its way into the
Dialogue: 0,0:19:34.02,0:19:39.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,World Check database and Mr. Yoganathan\Nsaid he was very hurt by this allegation
Dialogue: 0,0:19:39.45,0:19:44.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this was completely untrue and\Ncompletely without any other basis in
Dialogue: 0,0:19:44.98,0:19:50.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fact.\NJasmin: So remember when we said, you
Dialogue: 0,0:19:50.07,0:19:56.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should remember this slide because of the\Nbeautiful words "reputable sources". If
Dialogue: 0,0:19:56.24,0:20:00.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you read a little bit further Thomson\NReuters says: "researchers are bound to
Dialogue: 0,0:20:00.44,0:20:07.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,comply with strict research criteria and\Nmust remain objective at all time". Well
Dialogue: 0,0:20:07.67,0:20:13.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it seems that the research team was a\Nlittle bit flexible on these rules. The
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.56,0:20:18.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reasons why innocent people showed up on\Nthe list were very often the problem of
Dialogue: 0,0:20:18.10,0:20:25.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these "reputable" sources and handling\Nthem. Now we would like to show you some
Dialogue: 0,0:20:25.02,0:20:29.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the sources and we put together a\Nlittle ranking for you.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:29.67,0:20:35.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughter{\i0}\NJasmin: You might all know that one. Yeah,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:35.95,0:20:42.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Wikipedia. We thought we give number 5 to\NWikipedia. In thousands of profiles World-
Dialogue: 0,0:20:42.55,0:20:49.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Check used Wikipedia as a source. Well\Nhere you still might think: okay it's only
Dialogue: 0,0:20:49.65,0:20:55.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for general information, so maybe it's\Nfine. What about the next one?
Dialogue: 0,0:20:55.02,0:21:00.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: Well at number 4 we have conspiracy\Nsites: this one is called cyberclass.net
Dialogue: 0,0:21:00.67,0:21:05.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it has all the educational resources\Nyou might need on alternative accounts of
Dialogue: 0,0:21:05.26,0:21:11.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the 9/11 attacks. World-Check research has\Nalso cited it in a profile of a British
Dialogue: 0,0:21:11.13,0:21:15.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,businessman, which of course was\Nused by the banks.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:15.94,0:21:21.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: Number 3, also really interesting:\NWe found state-run sites or state-run
Dialogue: 0,0:21:21.32,0:21:27.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,propaganda you must say, also used as\Nsources, for example China Daily. It's the
Dialogue: 0,0:21:27.23,0:21:32.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,biggest newspaper in China and state-owned\Nand even though it's not an official organ
Dialogue: 0,0:21:32.72,0:21:40.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the Chinese Communist Party, it's\Nconsidered to be a quasi-party newspaper.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:40.98,0:21:46.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because of this commentary that you see on\Nthe right side, it's saying that there's a
Dialogue: 0,0:21:46.51,0:21:51.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,terrorist group, the Tibetan Youth\NCongress, the prominent diaspora
Dialogue: 0,0:21:51.52,0:21:58.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,organization, is listed as a terrorist\Ngroup on World-Check. What we found
Dialogue: 0,0:21:58.95,0:22:04.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pretty, I don't know how to say it.. the\Nresearch team used this article as the
Dialogue: 0,0:22:04.45,0:22:12.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,only source for this profile recording the\NChinese government's accusations.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:12.29,0:22:17.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: At number 2 we have a website that\Nunfortunately you might have heard of:
Dialogue: 0,0:22:17.36,0:22:23.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Hundreds of listings referenced reports on\NBreitbart. At the time, Breitbart was
Dialogue: 0,0:22:23.54,0:22:27.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,selectively reporting on what it called\N"black crime" and there was a whole tag
Dialogue: 0,0:22:27.73,0:22:32.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,page for what they called "black crime".\NThere were hundreds of listings that
Dialogue: 0,0:22:32.55,0:22:38.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,referred to reports that have been carried\Non Breitbart. But number 1 ...
Dialogue: 0,0:22:38.32,0:22:42.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: Our number 1 ...\NTom: We have Stormfront which, if you
Dialogue: 0,0:22:42.95,0:22:48.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,haven't heard of it, it's a forum for\Nwhite supremacists. It was founded in 1995
Dialogue: 0,0:22:48.74,0:22:54.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by a former Ku Klux Klan member and there\Nwere several listings that referred to
Dialogue: 0,0:22:54.53,0:23:00.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Stormfront. Among them listings for two\Nblack British people containing links to a
Dialogue: 0,0:23:00.84,0:23:06.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,discussion thread on the forum.\NJasmin: So the problem really is that
Dialogue: 0,0:23:06.57,0:23:11.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,World-Check uses all the sources that they\Ncan find, which is fine, but it seems that
Dialogue: 0,0:23:11.93,0:23:17.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they don't differ between a news site, a\Npropaganda site, extremist sites, whatever
Dialogue: 0,0:23:17.41,0:23:24.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,site. And all the sources and information\Nthey collect, but they don't weight it or
Dialogue: 0,0:23:24.07,0:23:28.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rate it or assess the information. So for\Nexample, if a state attorney accuses a
Dialogue: 0,0:23:28.66,0:23:33.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,person or if a competitor blackened\Nsomebody in a media report, the
Dialogue: 0,0:23:33.80,0:23:38.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information gets into the World-Check\Ndatabase without any filtering and there
Dialogue: 0,0:23:38.57,0:23:45.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is no final verification of this or any\Naccusation.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:45.01,0:23:49.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: World-Check found an interesting way\Nto deal with this problem of unreliable
Dialogue: 0,0:23:49.94,0:23:55.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sources or potentially unreliable sources:\NIn the profiles they've added this general
Dialogue: 0,0:23:55.73,0:24:02.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,legal notice. Here they mention that\Neveryone who views this database should
Dialogue: 0,0:24:02.66,0:24:08.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,carry out independent checks to verify the\Ninformation. They later added a further
Dialogue: 0,0:24:08.30,0:24:13.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,disclaimer saying: If this profile\Ncontains negative allegations it should be
Dialogue: 0,0:24:13.26,0:24:20.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,assumed that such allegations are denied.\NThis is an interesting legal concept, that
Dialogue: 0,0:24:20.74,0:24:25.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can carry these extremely damaging\Naccusations that people are linked to
Dialogue: 0,0:24:25.05,0:24:29.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,terrorist groups, but of course you can\Ntell your customers to assume that the
Dialogue: 0,0:24:29.87,0:24:35.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allegations are denied and to check the\Ninformation out themselves. We found many
Dialogue: 0,0:24:35.49,0:24:41.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people on the list that had encountered\Ndifficulties with their banks and that
Dialogue: 0,0:24:41.02,0:24:46.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,raises the question of whether some banks\Nand users of the list were able to heed
Dialogue: 0,0:24:46.37,0:24:51.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this warning and launch their own\Ninvestigations after seeing adverse claims
Dialogue: 0,0:24:51.15,0:24:56.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in World-Check. In fact, somebody I spoke\Nto as part of my research who works for a
Dialogue: 0,0:24:56.49,0:25:01.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bank said that they were under such\Npressure that if they found an adverse
Dialogue: 0,0:25:01.88,0:25:07.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,listing in World-Check, it would be\Nextremely difficult for them to disprove
Dialogue: 0,0:25:07.77,0:25:16.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it, you know, given the time that was\Navailable. This is one issue. But besides
Dialogue: 0,0:25:16.65,0:25:21.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the problems with the sources and the lack\Nof verification of the information there
Dialogue: 0,0:25:21.84,0:25:26.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is another reason why innocent people have\Nended up in this watchlist: Our research
Dialogue: 0,0:25:26.72,0:25:31.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,showed that the database carries entries\Nfor people who are merely accused or
Dialogue: 0,0:25:31.29,0:25:36.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,investigated over possible crimes without\Nbeing charged or convicted. Reports of
Dialogue: 0,0:25:36.74,0:25:40.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,minor convictions are kept on file for\Nyears after the event as we saw with
Dialogue: 0,0:25:40.90,0:25:46.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Greenpeace. and sometimes people had been\Ncleared of their charges but their entries
Dialogue: 0,0:25:46.03,0:25:50.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hadn't been updated to reflect that\Ninformation. So innocent people just kept
Dialogue: 0,0:25:50.03,0:25:56.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being guilty in the world of the database.\NJasmin: For example like him, so please
Dialogue: 0,0:25:56.33,0:26:01.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meet the terrorist Andrej Holm, or at\Nleast that's what World-Check suggested
Dialogue: 0,0:26:01.95,0:26:07.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for a couple of years. Holm, maybe some of\Nyou know him, is a very well-known
Dialogue: 0,0:26:07.36,0:26:13.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sociologist and later he was a short time,\Nin German "Baustaatssekretär". Maybe in
Dialogue: 0,0:26:13.95,0:26:18.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,English at something like housing\Nsecretary in the Berlin State Government.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:18.74,0:26:22.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He was targeted by the Federal\Nprosecutor's office ten years ago. The
Dialogue: 0,0:26:22.76,0:26:29.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suspicion was: Membership in a terrorist\Ngroup. He was arrested at the end of July
Dialogue: 0,0:26:29.09,0:26:35.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,2007 and detained for 3 weeks. Holm had\Nobviously been investigated because he had
Dialogue: 0,0:26:35.65,0:26:40.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being critical of the displacement of\Npoorer people and cities and he wrote it
Dialogue: 0,0:26:40.77,0:26:48.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a very similar way or similar words to\Na left-wing extremist group active at that
Dialogue: 0,0:26:48.48,0:26:54.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,time. But in the end the suspicion that he\Ncould be a member himself proved totally
Dialogue: 0,0:26:54.56,0:27:04.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,unfounded and in 2010 all procedures\Nagainst Holm were discontinued. He was
Dialogue: 0,0:27:04.25,0:27:10.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even compensated for his imprisonment. In\Nthe end for the state and justice Holm was
Dialogue: 0,0:27:10.93,0:27:18.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,innocent. But when Holm wanted to become a\Ncustomer at Norisbank two years later in
Dialogue: 0,0:27:18.10,0:27:24.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,2012, the institute refused to open his\Nbank account and that even without any
Dialogue: 0,0:27:24.50,0:27:32.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,explanation. That was when Holm still did\Nnot know that he was on the watchlist of
Dialogue: 0,0:27:32.74,0:27:39.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,World-Check. When we told him and we\Ntalked to him he said: I have a bad
Dialogue: 0,0:27:39.56,0:27:44.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,feeling when my life is recorded there\Nwithout me being aware of it or having any
Dialogue: 0,0:27:44.32,0:27:50.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,influence on it. Even years later such an\Nentry can permanently make life
Dialogue: 0,0:27:50.31,0:27:56.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,significantly more difficult. But\Napparently there are institutions that
Dialogue: 0,0:27:56.30,0:28:02.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rely on World-Check or similar databases.\NWhen we talked to the Norisbank they said
Dialogue: 0,0:28:02.35,0:28:07.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the Name List screening, that's what\Nit's called, was an essential part of
Dialogue: 0,0:28:07.79,0:28:14.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fulfilling the legal requirements for\Ncombating financial criminality. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:28:14.01,0:28:18.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about preventing money laundering, they\Nsaid. And the due diligence check would
Dialogue: 0,0:28:18.83,0:28:25.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,use many different databases as data\Nsources. I found a little bit funny that
Dialogue: 0,0:28:25.93,0:28:31.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they wouldn't talk about at all about the\Ncase from Mr. Holm and they said: They
Dialogue: 0,0:28:31.84,0:28:39.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,cannot give any information because\Nof data protection reasons.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:39.74,0:28:44.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: We saw in the marketing brochure that\NThomson Reuters say that 49 of 50 of the
Dialogue: 0,0:28:44.49,0:28:50.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,world's biggest banks use World-Check. We\Nhad a pretty strong idea that most of the
Dialogue: 0,0:28:50.58,0:28:55.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,big-name banks would be using it. But for\Nmy UK audience I wanted to confirm that
Dialogue: 0,0:28:55.72,0:28:59.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the high street names that my readers\Nwould be familiar with had used this
Dialogue: 0,0:28:59.89,0:29:05.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,database. I had information that the Co-\Noperative Bank among several other big
Dialogue: 0,0:29:05.29,0:29:10.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,names had used World Check and I asked\Nthem to confirm that that was the case.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:10.95,0:29:16.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And this is what they said: "I can confirm\Nthat the Co-operative Bank doesn't use and
Dialogue: 0,0:29:16.56,0:29:22.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has not used World-Check." Well, this was\Nan interesting response. I went back to
Dialogue: 0,0:29:22.16,0:29:29.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Google and I did a site-search on LinkedIn\Nfor World-Check and the Co-operative Bank
Dialogue: 0,0:29:29.65,0:29:36.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this is what I found: This is Michael,\Nhe says he is a high-risk case-analyst at
Dialogue: 0,0:29:36.06,0:29:43.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the Co-operative Bank and his previous\Nposition in 2015: he was an anti-money-
Dialogue: 0,0:29:43.96,0:29:48.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,laundering analyst and this gives the\Ndescription of his responsibilities. At
Dialogue: 0,0:29:48.99,0:29:53.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the bottom there you can see that that\Nincluded exiting customers where necessary
Dialogue: 0,0:29:53.98,0:29:59.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if they were found outside the bank's risk\Nappetite, which is a euphemism for: he can
Dialogue: 0,0:29:59.28,0:30:04.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,close your account if you're too risky. So\Nthis was quite obviously a considerable
Dialogue: 0,0:30:04.43,0:30:09.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,responsibility and then further down in\Nthe job description he says that he used
Dialogue: 0,0:30:09.61,0:30:17.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,systems including World-Check to make\Nthese decisions.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:17.08,0:30:22.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I went back to the Co-operative Bank\Npress spokesperson and sent them an
Dialogue: 0,0:30:22.49,0:30:28.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attachment to see what they had to say\Nabout this. And the reply came: "I can
Dialogue: 0,0:30:28.91,0:30:33.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,confirm that we do not use World-Check and\Nany access to that database the bank had
Dialogue: 0,0:30:33.95,0:30:39.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was in excess of 5 years ago." So they\Nadmitted that they had used the database,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:39.94,0:30:45.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but they're now saying that they don't use\Nit anymore. I think this is an indication
Dialogue: 0,0:30:45.93,0:30:51.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of exactly how much secrecy there is on\Nthe part of the banks and resistance to
Dialogue: 0,0:30:51.64,0:30:55.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,any kind of accountability. You know,\Nthey're questioned by a journalist from a
Dialogue: 0,0:30:55.55,0:31:00.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,national newspaper, they give completely\Ninaccurate information about whether they
Dialogue: 0,0:31:00.20,0:31:05.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,had used this system and only admitted it\Nwhen they were confronted with evidence to
Dialogue: 0,0:31:05.10,0:31:09.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the contrary. You know, if you're a Co-\Noperative Bank customer, you really ought
Dialogue: 0,0:31:09.80,0:31:15.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to have a right to know what is being done\Nwith your data and how decisions about you
Dialogue: 0,0:31:15.12,0:31:20.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are being made. This is all enshrined in\Ndata-protection law and this seems to be
Dialogue: 0,0:31:20.03,0:31:27.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at odds with all of those principles.\NSo we put all of the findings from the
Dialogue: 0,0:31:27.47,0:31:33.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different countries to Thomson Reuters and\Nthey didn't really come back to us on any
Dialogue: 0,0:31:33.31,0:31:37.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of their specific cases, but they gave us\Na statement. One of the things they said
Dialogue: 0,0:31:37.82,0:31:42.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was that "Individuals can contact us, if\Nthey believe any of the information held
Dialogue: 0,0:31:42.48,0:31:49.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is inaccurate and we would urge them to do\Nso." This is quite tricky, if your bank is
Dialogue: 0,0:31:49.93,0:31:55.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not allowed to tell you, why your account\Nhas been closed. The bank is certainly not
Dialogue: 0,0:31:55.26,0:32:00.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allowed to show you your listing on World-\NCheck. We have to admit that you can
Dialogue: 0,0:32:00.98,0:32:05.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,submit a subject access request to Thomson\NReuters, if you have a hunch that you
Dialogue: 0,0:32:05.02,0:32:09.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might be on the list, and then you can\Nfind out and obviously you could challenge
Dialogue: 0,0:32:09.34,0:32:15.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your information. But whether that would\Nbe acted upon is another question. Thomson
Dialogue: 0,0:32:15.01,0:32:20.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Reuters said they provide identifying\Ninformation such as dates of birth and
Dialogue: 0,0:32:20.64,0:32:26.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this will be verified with reputable and\Nofficial sources. On some of the
Dialogue: 0,0:32:26.36,0:32:31.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,unreliable sources they said: "If blog\Ncontent appears it is only as a supporting
Dialogue: 0,0:32:31.46,0:32:37.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,source for that secondary information and\Nis clearly identified as such". We don't
Dialogue: 0,0:32:37.04,0:32:41.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know if they've made improvements to the\Ndatabase since 2014, so it may be that
Dialogue: 0,0:32:41.71,0:32:46.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things are different from the snapshot we\Nsaw, but that's what they said.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:46.43,0:32:51.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And then they said: "In conclusion, it's\Nimportant to point out that the inclusion
Dialogue: 0,0:32:51.12,0:32:55.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in World-Check does not imply guilt of any\Ncrime and every record states, if this
Dialogue: 0,0:32:55.95,0:33:00.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,profile contains negative allegations it\Nshould be assumed that such allegations
Dialogue: 0,0:33:00.27,0:33:04.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are denied. The accuracy of the\Ninformation found in the underlying media
Dialogue: 0,0:33:04.68,0:33:08.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sources should be verified with the\Nprofile subject before any action is
Dialogue: 0,0:33:08.51,0:33:13.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,taken." One final point they made is that\Nthere are competing databases to World-
Dialogue: 0,0:33:13.74,0:33:19.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Check. So LexisNexis and Dow Jones also\Nproduce watchlists and we don't know if
Dialogue: 0,0:33:19.29,0:33:26.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there are similar problems with those\Nlists. Why has this happened? You know, we
Dialogue: 0,0:33:26.81,0:33:31.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mentioned that banks are under huge\Npressure from governments to weed out
Dialogue: 0,0:33:31.54,0:33:36.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,terrorists and money launderers among\Ntheir customer bases and what's the
Dialogue: 0,0:33:36.94,0:33:41.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,environment in which this has come about?\NWe don't have a full answer to this
Dialogue: 0,0:33:41.50,0:33:47.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question, but I want to show you one email\Nthat gives a sense of the atmosphere and
Dialogue: 0,0:33:47.79,0:33:52.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the paranoia that has led\Nto the current regime.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:52.75,0:33:57.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So this email is from a man who says he's\Nthe World Check's General Counsel. It was
Dialogue: 0,0:33:57.87,0:34:06.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sent in 2002 to a US Treasury consultation\Nand so this is a public document. He
Dialogue: 0,0:34:06.51,0:34:10.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,declares his interests, he says he works\Nfor a company that sells a product to help
Dialogue: 0,0:34:10.82,0:34:16.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,financial institutions conduct money\Nlaundering checks. Obviously this is a
Dialogue: 0,0:34:16.27,0:34:20.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,short time after 9/11 and he argues that\Nunder the Patriot Act financial
Dialogue: 0,0:34:20.49,0:34:25.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,institutions must be proactive about\Ntackling money laundering. He exerts the
Dialogue: 0,0:34:25.60,0:34:28.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,considerable moral pressure, even going so\Nfar as to suggest that the banks were
Dialogue: 0,0:34:28.95,0:34:33.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,helping the terrorists by their lack of\Naction. So he writes: "The U.S. is in a
Dialogue: 0,0:34:33.09,0:34:37.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,war on terror and the front lines of the\Nwar are at the doorsteps of every US
Dialogue: 0,0:34:37.73,0:34:43.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,financial institution. US financial\Ninstitutions are inadvertently aiding and
Dialogue: 0,0:34:43.54,0:34:49.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,abetting domestic terror against American\Ncitizens." This is just one company's
Dialogue: 0,0:34:49.81,0:34:53.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,viewpoint, I'm sure the US Treasury took\Nin lots of different viewpoints when they
Dialogue: 0,0:34:53.80,0:34:58.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,were forming this legislation, but I think\Nthis gives a nice sense of the kinds of
Dialogue: 0,0:34:58.80,0:35:04.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments that were being made. If you\Nwant more on the wider context of this
Dialogue: 0,0:35:04.79,0:35:09.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's a really good book called\N"Speculative Security" by Marieke de Goede
Dialogue: 0,0:35:09.35,0:35:17.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which goes into this in more detail.\NSo can the system be improved or repaired?
Dialogue: 0,0:35:17.18,0:35:21.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Again, we don't give an answer to this\Nquestion but some thoughts have occurred
Dialogue: 0,0:35:21.07,0:35:27.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to us: There could be better selection of\Nsources used to compile this kind of list.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:27.51,0:35:33.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Perhaps you would narrow it down a bit\Nmore to the official sanctions lists and
Dialogue: 0,0:35:33.26,0:35:36.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people who are actually convicted of\Ncrimes. Those kinds of categories of
Dialogue: 0,0:35:36.69,0:35:42.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sources, maybe news reports in reputable\Noutlets, perhaps news reports that are
Dialogue: 0,0:35:42.56,0:35:47.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,confirmed by more than one outlet, that\Nkind of thing. You could also indicate the
Dialogue: 0,0:35:47.75,0:35:53.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,quality of the information. So if you're\Ngoing to insist on republishing the fact
Dialogue: 0,0:35:53.76,0:35:57.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the Sri Lankan government has accused\Na person of terrorism, maybe you would
Dialogue: 0,0:35:57.81,0:36:03.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,flag up that the Sri Lankan government\Ncertainly at that time did not have a good
Dialogue: 0,0:36:03.32,0:36:07.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,record for reliability on who it was\Naccusing of being terrorists. You could
Dialogue: 0,0:36:07.52,0:36:12.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,also give rights of reply to people: So on\Nyour credit history you can go to a credit
Dialogue: 0,0:36:12.55,0:36:18.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reference agency, see what is said about\Nyou and reply to the criticisms of you
Dialogue: 0,0:36:18.54,0:36:22.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are made there. They could think\Nabout doing that. There is an initiative
Dialogue: 0,0:36:22.61,0:36:28.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to make an open-source sanctions watchlist\Nat opensanctions.org, which of course
Dialogue: 0,0:36:28.48,0:36:33.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,brings lots of advantages and everyone can\Nsee what is said about them on the list.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:33.04,0:36:36.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And I think there's also the wider\Nquestion of whether we actually want banks
Dialogue: 0,0:36:36.43,0:36:42.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to have this responsibility of predicting\Nand foreseeing crime among their
Dialogue: 0,0:36:42.12,0:36:46.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,customers. Do we want the private sector\Nto do that job or do we want that
Dialogue: 0,0:36:46.39,0:36:50.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,responsibility to be squarely on the\Njudicial system or on the criminal justice
Dialogue: 0,0:36:50.54,0:36:56.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,system? So with that ...\NJasmin: So...
Dialogue: 0,0:36:56.14,0:36:58.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: Go on.\NJasmin: No, go on.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:58.14,0:37:00.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: We'll be very happy to take your\Nquestions and these are all contact
Dialogue: 0,0:37:00.43,0:37:03.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,details, so thank you very\Nmuch for your attention.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:03.73,0:37:14.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}applause{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:37:14.82,0:37:16.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Thank you very much for this
Dialogue: 0,0:37:16.12,0:37:20.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,super-interesting talk. I have good news\Nfor all of you: we have about 20 minutes
Dialogue: 0,0:37:20.25,0:37:25.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,time for Q&A, so please pile up at the\Nmicrophones, if you have any questions, of
Dialogue: 0,0:37:25.06,0:37:30.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which I am sure there are many. We are\Ngoing to start with one question from the
Dialogue: 0,0:37:30.55,0:37:33.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Internet.\NInternet-Question: Considering the
Dialogue: 0,0:37:33.12,0:37:40.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,database is still online has it undergone\Nchanges to conform to GDPR?
Dialogue: 0,0:37:40.41,0:37:46.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: I don't think we have any information\Non that, sorry.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:46.39,0:37:50.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Alright, thanks, let's start with\Nanother question from microphone number 1.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:50.64,0:37:55.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic1: Thank you. If he was the general\Ncouncil for the World Check company, at
Dialogue: 0,0:37:55.77,0:38:01.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what point was it acquired by Thomson\NReuters? Or was it already part of Thomson
Dialogue: 0,0:38:01.17,0:38:04.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Reuters?\NTom: It wasn't at that point, it was some
Dialogue: 0,0:38:04.97,0:38:09.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,years later. An interesting point actually\Nabout his job title is that, if you go on
Dialogue: 0,0:38:09.07,0:38:15.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,his LinkedIn page, he does have a law\Ndegree, this guy, but his job title at
Dialogue: 0,0:38:15.11,0:38:18.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,world check in 2002 was not General\NCouncil, but a Head of Business
Dialogue: 0,0:38:18.50,0:38:21.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Development. I don't know, if that's just\Na mistake on his LinkedIn.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:21.59,0:38:25.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Maybe another question from\Nmicrophone number 3.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:25.67,0:38:32.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic3: So I want to know, if I make a\Nrequest to access my data will that put me
Dialogue: 0,0:38:32.43,0:38:38.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on the list?\NAnd my actual question is: Where did they
Dialogue: 0,0:38:38.17,0:38:43.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get the names from? Because essentially\Nthe analyst that does 220 profiles a day,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:43.60,0:38:48.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,does he get to pick the names?\NJasmin: Yes. So if you put a request to
Dialogue: 0,0:38:48.18,0:38:53.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,World Check your name will not be on the\Nlist afterwards. So you can do it if you
Dialogue: 0,0:38:53.27,0:38:57.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,want. And this is how it works: The\Nresearch team goes through the internet
Dialogue: 0,0:38:57.98,0:39:02.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and looks for articles and picks out names\Nand puts them in.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:02.11,0:39:08.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic3: Ok, so they should be people, who\Ndon't go on Stormfront essentially to pick
Dialogue: 0,0:39:08.06,0:39:12.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,names. Because is that what's happening?\NLike they hire people and they go on
Dialogue: 0,0:39:12.12,0:39:17.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Stormfront all day and randomly pick\Nnames? No, but seriously?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:17.47,0:39:21.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: I don't know, if they do it like\Nthat, but somehow they came up with the
Dialogue: 0,0:39:21.42,0:39:23.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,source, yes.\NMic3: Okay, thanks!
Dialogue: 0,0:39:23.74,0:39:29.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Microphone number 4.\NMic4: Hey, thanks for the talk. You've
Dialogue: 0,0:39:29.53,0:39:33.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mentioned a few people that were on there\Nwrongfully, but what percentage are
Dialogue: 0,0:39:33.06,0:39:36.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually wrong on there of the profiles\Nthat you viewed?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:36.81,0:39:42.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: We don't have a percentage, we think\Nit's a minority, there are lots of people,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:42.68,0:39:47.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who did do bad things and get onto the\Nlist. But of course it undermines the
Dialogue: 0,0:39:47.19,0:39:52.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,credibility of the entire database, when\Nthere are you know many many examples that
Dialogue: 0,0:39:52.45,0:39:58.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we were able to find without even it's not\Nlike we read all 2 million profiles, so
Dialogue: 0,0:39:58.72,0:40:01.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who knows. But obviously it's a very good\Nquestion.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:01.16,0:40:03.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: I think it's an excellent\Nquestion, but I have to admit that we
Dialogue: 0,0:40:03.91,0:40:07.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,didn't review all the 2.2 million\Nprofiles.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:07.89,0:40:14.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Alright, mic number 2, please.\NMic2: Thank you for your work on this
Dialogue: 0,0:40:14.70,0:40:20.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really important subject. I myself ended\Nup on that list and lost my bank for two
Dialogue: 0,0:40:20.58,0:40:26.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,years because of it. With how essential\Nbanking is in the modern world to get
Dialogue: 0,0:40:26.91,0:40:33.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,paid, to pay your bills, to do anything,\Nwhat options to people who have had their
Dialogue: 0,0:40:33.58,0:40:37.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,banks or organizations like Finsbury Park\Nthat have had their banks closed and on
Dialogue: 0,0:40:37.57,0:40:42.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these lists have? Especially with their\Nlists being so ubiquitous amongst all of
Dialogue: 0,0:40:42.23,0:40:46.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the major banks?\NTom: Well, Finsbury Park Mosque went to
Dialogue: 0,0:40:46.88,0:40:52.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,court, and they sued Thomson Reuters\Nsuccessfully and after that Thomson
Dialogue: 0,0:40:52.30,0:40:56.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Reuters changed the listing and admitted\Nthat they had been wrong to list them in
Dialogue: 0,0:40:56.83,0:41:00.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the terrorism category. Obviously that's\Nnot an option that's available to
Dialogue: 0,0:41:00.79,0:41:05.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,everybody, I think the first step is to\Nrequest your data from Thomson Reuters to
Dialogue: 0,0:41:05.87,0:41:10.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,see exactly what was being said about you\Nand then go from there. But it's very
Dialogue: 0,0:41:10.99,0:41:14.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,difficult.\NJasmin: But for example Mr. Holm, he
Dialogue: 0,0:41:14.51,0:41:19.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,didn't get a account at Norisbank, but he\Nended up in another bank that didn't use
Dialogue: 0,0:41:19.82,0:41:23.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,World Check and that was the Berliner\NSparkasse.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:23.84,0:41:29.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Alright, I think it's the\Ninternet's turn again to ask a question.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:29.78,0:41:34.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Internet-Q: Would you agree that the\Npurpose of such a list is to protect not
Dialogue: 0,0:41:34.37,0:41:39.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,only the banks from rotten customers, but\Nalso the public from terrorism or the bad
Dialogue: 0,0:41:39.65,0:41:45.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,businesses that could harm us? And if yes,\Nisn't that sacrificing a few for the
Dialogue: 0,0:41:45.80,0:41:51.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,benefit of many?\NJasmin: I think, you shouldn't sacrifice a
Dialogue: 0,0:41:51.36,0:41:56.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,few for the many, because it would be so\Neasy to make it better. We saw that these
Dialogue: 0,0:41:56.55,0:42:04.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sources were so obviously weird and wrong\Nand so, I think it wouldn't be necessary,
Dialogue: 0,0:42:04.74,0:42:09.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if they were to check the list a lot\Nbetter.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:09.19,0:42:17.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Mic number 1, please.\NMic1: Hi, great presentation. Did you find
Dialogue: 0,0:42:17.56,0:42:22.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,any evidence of banks and such\Norganizations on disclosing information
Dialogue: 0,0:42:22.65,0:42:27.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about their customers towards Thomson\NReuters?
Dialogue: 0,0:42:27.16,0:42:32.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: I don't think we saw any sign of\Nthat. It does look like they stick to the
Dialogue: 0,0:42:32.64,0:42:37.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,public sources. There were various entries\Nthat had three-letter acronyms next to
Dialogue: 0,0:42:37.76,0:42:42.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them like CIA and various things. But I\Nthink in all of those cases it turned out
Dialogue: 0,0:42:42.37,0:42:47.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the CIA, or whoever, had said\Nsomething publicly about that person. So
Dialogue: 0,0:42:47.76,0:42:53.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it didn't seem that there was any covert\Ncooperation in either direction.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:53.01,0:42:58.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Mic number 3, please.\NMic3: Thank you for your work. Obviously,
Dialogue: 0,0:42:58.40,0:43:03.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's disheartening to see such sites as\NStormfront and Breitbart being, well,
Dialogue: 0,0:43:03.08,0:43:10.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,cited as sources. In your work did you\Nfind how much of the of the data was
Dialogue: 0,0:43:10.08,0:43:15.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,supported by these so-called "reputable\Nsources", these extremist sites as the
Dialogue: 0,0:43:15.66,0:43:19.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,category.\NJasmin: How many?
Dialogue: 0,0:43:19.54,0:43:26.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: It depended on the site. I think\NBreitbart was hundreds of entries. They
Dialogue: 0,0:43:26.98,0:43:30.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,were focused around a particular country,\Nwhich wasn't the US, it was another
Dialogue: 0,0:43:30.85,0:43:35.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,country. Which suggested to us that\Npotentially it had been a researcher, who
Dialogue: 0,0:43:35.81,0:43:40.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,had a particular fondness for Breitbart,\Nwho had decided to use that as a source.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:40.46,0:43:45.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So there seem to be a lot of variation\Nbetween different countries in the mix of
Dialogue: 0,0:43:45.82,0:43:51.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sources that have been used.\NHerald: Mic number 4, please.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:51.13,0:43:55.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic4: Hi, thanks. I work on cryptocurrency\Nstuff, so obviously have a long-standing
Dialogue: 0,0:43:55.72,0:44:01.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interest in financial privacy and\Nopenness. There was a really interesting,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:01.56,0:44:06.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,although terribly written book, I would\Nnot recommend it, but was written by
Dialogue: 0,0:44:06.06,0:44:11.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,someone, who was at US Treasury and\Ncrafted kind of post 9/11 policy around
Dialogue: 0,0:44:11.97,0:44:16.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sanctions. One of the things he said in\Nthe book was immediately after 9/11 they
Dialogue: 0,0:44:16.00,0:44:20.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,were willing to put people on the\Nsanctions list and block you from the
Dialogue: 0,0:44:20.89,0:44:26.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,entire international financial system at\N80% certainty level. So if they're about
Dialogue: 0,0:44:26.15,0:44:31.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,80% confident that you are somehow related\Nto terrorism, they would just kick you
Dialogue: 0,0:44:31.63,0:44:37.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,out. So I was wondering, if.. because I\Nknow a lot of the interest in preventing
Dialogue: 0,0:44:37.45,0:44:41.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mass surveillance is all about making it\Nmore expensive, so as to force people to
Dialogue: 0,0:44:41.36,0:44:45.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,target it more specifically. I was\Nwondering, if you had any thoughts on what
Dialogue: 0,0:44:45.99,0:44:51.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,kind of direction people should be\Nthinking about going in terms of forcing
Dialogue: 0,0:44:51.35,0:44:57.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more targeting of preventing people from\Ninternational financial access. Instead of
Dialogue: 0,0:44:57.51,0:45:02.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allowing it to be so broad and you know\Ncontrolled by so few.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:02.22,0:45:12.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: Use cash.\NJasmin: These were already some good
Dialogue: 0,0:45:12.35,0:45:19.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thoughts.\NTom: I mean, I think we should ask our
Dialogue: 0,0:45:19.94,0:45:23.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,government for accountability on this kind\Nof surveillance, as we would with a
Dialogue: 0,0:45:23.61,0:45:29.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,communication surveillance or any other\Nkind of surveillance. But we've only just
Dialogue: 0,0:45:29.23,0:45:33.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,looked at one part of this system, we've\Nlooked at this one watchlist, but this is
Dialogue: 0,0:45:33.72,0:45:39.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,part of a whole range of stuff that's\Ngoing on. So I think we should continue to
Dialogue: 0,0:45:39.32,0:45:42.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look at financial surveillance alongside\Nother forms of surveillance.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:42.44,0:45:48.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Alright, Mic number 2, please.\NMic2: I have a question concerning the
Dialogue: 0,0:45:48.88,0:45:53.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Financial Action Task Force, which is an\Nintergovernmental organization
Dialogue: 0,0:45:53.26,0:45:58.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,compromising both European Union countries\Nand GCC. Have you confronted them with the
Dialogue: 0,0:45:58.95,0:46:04.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,work that thousand in the banks are doing?\NJasmin: I didn't.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:04.76,0:46:09.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: We haven't been to them directly, but\None of the really useful things that we
Dialogue: 0,0:46:09.01,0:46:14.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pick it up from the Financial Action Task\NForce is that their definition of politically
Dialogue: 0,0:46:14.10,0:46:20.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,exposed person talks about senior public\Nofficials and this database seemed to go
Dialogue: 0,0:46:20.55,0:46:26.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way further than that. So there seems to\Nbe an interesting discussion going on
Dialogue: 0,0:46:26.17,0:46:32.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about where the limits of this kind of\Nsurveillance should be drawn. You might
Dialogue: 0,0:46:32.11,0:46:36.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,take the view that heads of state, there's\Nnot really any problem with surveilling
Dialogue: 0,0:46:36.25,0:46:41.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,their financial activity, but when you\Nstart to cast the net wider then this kind
Dialogue: 0,0:46:41.41,0:46:43.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of thing seems to have more worrying\Nimplications.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:43.91,0:46:48.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Internet, if you got a question,\Nfire away.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:48.14,0:46:52.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Internet-Q: It looks like Thomson Reuters\Nbasically says you can't disclose the
Dialogue: 0,0:46:52.79,0:46:58.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information you find in our system,\Nbecause we have the copyright on it. So
Dialogue: 0,0:46:58.68,0:47:02.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are there any jurisdictions that have a\Nlaw that would require banks to report
Dialogue: 0,0:47:02.54,0:47:06.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what information was used to determine\Nthat someone was considered a risk?
Dialogue: 0,0:47:06.83,0:47:12.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: No, there's no law that the banks\Nhas to say it, but as Tom mentioned before
Dialogue: 0,0:47:12.08,0:47:18.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the people that think that they're on a\Nlist they can confront will check with
Dialogue: 0,0:47:18.14,0:47:21.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this.\NTom: And I think in some jurisdictions
Dialogue: 0,0:47:21.15,0:47:28.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there are exemptions from subject access\Nrequest rights for anti money laundering
Dialogue: 0,0:47:28.92,0:47:34.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,purposes. I'm not sure exactly how big a\Npart that plays but that may be part of
Dialogue: 0,0:47:34.11,0:47:38.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the reason why banks think that they can\Njust deny people any answers to why these
Dialogue: 0,0:47:38.82,0:47:42.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,decisions have been made.\NHerald: Mic number 1, please.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:42.79,0:47:47.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic1: Thank you for the excellent talk.\NYou mentioned that legal regulations
Dialogue: 0,0:47:47.51,0:47:52.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,require that banks use some kind of\Nblacklist. Do you know what criteria these
Dialogue: 0,0:47:52.90,0:47:58.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,regulations cite? So quality control\Ndoesn't seem to be among them. Could you
Dialogue: 0,0:47:58.80,0:48:02.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,start your own list and send it to banks?\NJasmin: You're right, quality control
Dialogue: 0,0:48:02.52,0:48:08.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seems not to be part of it. But the\Nregulation is, for example, the, I don't
Dialogue: 0,0:48:08.21,0:48:10.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know the English word, "Sorgfaltspflicht"\N(due diligence obligations) for the
Dialogue: 0,0:48:10.46,0:48:17.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,customer. You have to make sure that the\Ncustomer is not a criminal or a terrorist.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:17.52,0:48:24.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And there are many regulations asking for\Nit. For example, the EG money laundering
Dialogue: 0,0:48:24.10,0:48:34.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,law from starting 1991 and then it got newer in\N2001, 2005. So that's mainly the part that
Dialogue: 0,0:48:34.49,0:48:38.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we focused on because it's the part\Nthat's important for the World Check
Dialogue: 0,0:48:38.68,0:48:42.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,database.\NHerald: Alright, Mic number 3, please.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:42.93,0:48:47.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic3: Thanks for the talk. You did find a\Nlot of people who are on the list
Dialogue: 0,0:48:47.84,0:48:54.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wrongfully and I'm curious if you informed\Nthem that they are on the list or if you
Dialogue: 0,0:48:54.09,0:48:58.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,informed the company that they had these\Npeople on the list that shouldn't be
Dialogue: 0,0:48:58.21,0:49:03.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there. Especially I'm interested what\Nhappened to the Greenpeace activists you
Dialogue: 0,0:49:03.99,0:49:08.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mentioned. Do you have any information if\Nthey are still on the list or not?
Dialogue: 0,0:49:08.59,0:49:15.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: All the cases that we showed to\Nyou, all the ones we talked to, we
Dialogue: 0,0:49:15.08,0:49:20.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,confronted them and we asked them, if we\Ncan publish their case and all of them
Dialogue: 0,0:49:20.45,0:49:31.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,went to World Check and asked if they are\Non the list, and asked also to delete them
Dialogue: 0,0:49:31.14,0:49:37.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on the list and I think in almost all the\Ncases the people actually were deleted.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:37.42,0:49:46.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: I think in some of them at least.\NAnd as Jasmin said, we were very careful
Dialogue: 0,0:49:46.09,0:49:51.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,only to publish people's names, if they\Nhad given their consent for us to do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:51.25,0:49:57.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The response I got from Jackie Arnott, who\Nwas the woman in pink, who you saw in the
Dialogue: 0,0:49:57.00,0:50:00.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,presentation, was that the last time she\Nhad any adverse attention from the
Dialogue: 0,0:50:00.57,0:50:05.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,authorities was when she went on holiday\Nin the 1980s to the Eastern Block and she
Dialogue: 0,0:50:05.50,0:50:12.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,got a phone call from the British Foreign\NOffice to say: "What are you doing? Going
Dialogue: 0,0:50:12.79,0:50:16.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,over there?" And this was what came to her\Nmind, when we told her about her listing
Dialogue: 0,0:50:16.64,0:50:21.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in World Check.\NHerald: Thanks. Mic number 4, please.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:21.13,0:50:25.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic4: Thanks, in the LinkedIn profile you\Nshowed there were a few other systems, I
Dialogue: 0,0:50:25.94,0:50:30.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,think Dow Jones and one other, do they\Nsuck as badly as World Check?
Dialogue: 0,0:50:30.81,0:50:36.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: Well we did check them and there\Nwas no leak yet. But if there will be,
Dialogue: 0,0:50:36.16,0:50:41.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,maybe we can tell you next year. {\i1}Applause{\i0}\NHerald: Alright, Mic number 2.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:41.09,0:50:48.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic2: Hi, thank you. Can you go one slide\Nback? Thank you. I was wondering, because
Dialogue: 0,0:50:48.95,0:50:54.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you said that their sources were like\Nterribly wrong and weird and I was
Dialogue: 0,0:50:54.53,0:50:57.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wondering, if we assume that they are not\Nwrong and weird, but they're there that
Dialogue: 0,0:50:57.68,0:51:02.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they are working perfectly well and that\Nall of these questions like the answer to
Dialogue: 0,0:51:02.30,0:51:07.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all these questions was: It's working\Nperfectly well. Who would be the
Dialogue: 0,0:51:07.23,0:51:15.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people, who it's working perfectly well\Nfor? And who especially is targeted here?
Dialogue: 0,0:51:15.31,0:51:21.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And is there any possibility of action in\Nthat scenario, in this possible world, in
Dialogue: 0,0:51:21.20,0:51:25.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which this was working perfectly well as\Nit is?
Dialogue: 0,0:51:25.98,0:51:31.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: I think maybe there are two different\Nanswers for the politically exposed
Dialogue: 0,0:51:31.87,0:51:37.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,persons and for the people accused of\Nterrorism. I think for politically exposed
Dialogue: 0,0:51:37.19,0:51:42.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,persons, to me, you can make quite a strong \Ncase that senior public officials should be
Dialogue: 0,0:51:42.70,0:51:46.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,subject to the financial surveillance. You\Nknow, if you are a prime minister and
Dialogue: 0,0:51:46.76,0:51:50.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suddenly you have millions of pounds\Nflowing through your bank account, maybe
Dialogue: 0,0:51:50.27,0:51:56.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's a legitimate..\NMic2: No, sorry. I was not asking, what
Dialogue: 0,0:51:56.10,0:52:00.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are the perfect normative conditions under\Nwhich this would function. I was asking,
Dialogue: 0,0:52:00.97,0:52:08.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,given the state of things as it is now was\Nthe perfect way of working, who would it
Dialogue: 0,0:52:08.18,0:52:15.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be perfect for? Who is the real\Nbeneficiary of this wrong and weird way of
Dialogue: 0,0:52:15.01,0:52:20.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,working? That's my question.\NTom: Well, I don't think it benefits the
Dialogue: 0,0:52:20.73,0:52:26.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,public. Because I don't think this is a\Nreal serious way of stopping terrorism and
Dialogue: 0,0:52:26.56,0:52:31.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm not even sure that it's a real serious\Nway of stopping political corruption.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:31.27,0:52:35.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because actually we looked into some of\Nthe cases that came out through the Panama
Dialogue: 0,0:52:35.89,0:52:41.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,papers and similar things, which showed\Nsometimes that banks had looked at a
Dialogue: 0,0:52:41.10,0:52:46.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,person's World Check listing, seen that\Nthey were in the watch list, but said:
Dialogue: 0,0:52:46.02,0:52:51.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is actually a very lucrative client.\NSo we're going to keep banking them. So
Dialogue: 0,0:52:51.82,0:52:54.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there are two sides to it and I think\Nthat's a very important question.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:54.97,0:52:59.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Internet, it's your turn again.\NInternet-Q: Tom, considering the
Dialogue: 0,0:52:59.28,0:53:04.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,proprietor of your newspaper, Rupert\NMurdoch, was there any kind of pressure as
Dialogue: 0,0:53:04.03,0:53:09.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to what you published about them?\NTom: About World Check, well, that's a
Dialogue: 0,0:53:09.78,0:53:15.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question for the internet, isn't it? No.\NHerald: Microphone number 1, please.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:15.31,0:53:19.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic1: Yeah, two questions. The first is\Nabout deletion: Did I get it right that
Dialogue: 0,0:53:19.79,0:53:26.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's no established mechanism or\Nprocess, as well as it is known, for
Dialogue: 0,0:53:26.82,0:53:32.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,deletion of datasets in that database?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:32.06,0:53:38.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So they claim how many thousands\Nsounds of records they add and they
Dialogue: 0,0:53:38.27,0:53:45.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,update. So there is some procedure for\Nreading but none for deletion. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:53:45.06,0:53:52.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,obviously weird. The second is about \Nasking them what they have in the records,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:52.88,0:53:59.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if they have a record about me, for example,\Ncould I just ask them? And they should
Dialogue: 0,0:53:59.46,0:54:08.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,answer me? Are there some conditions, are\Nthere costs for it? And maybe guessing:
Dialogue: 0,0:54:08.68,0:54:16.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How would they react if, say, 15000 people\Nwould ask the question?
Dialogue: 0,0:54:16.04,0:54:22.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: About the deletion of data, you're\Ntotally right. There seems to be no
Dialogue: 0,0:54:22.48,0:54:31.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,process in reviewing the data that all the\Ndata that shouldn't be in there is not in
Dialogue: 0,0:54:31.23,0:54:37.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there anymore. That's a problem, because\Nas we know everybody has the right to
Dialogue: 0,0:54:37.17,0:54:44.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be forgotten in the internet. And to the\Nsecond question, you can ask them, you can
Dialogue: 0,0:54:44.10,0:54:50.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,go there and write them an email and ask\Nthem, if you're included in the database.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:50.19,0:54:56.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But what they say if 15000 people would\Nask them, I don't know. Maybe you can ask
Dialogue: 0,0:54:56.32,0:54:58.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,them that.\NTom: And remember they're very productive,
Dialogue: 0,0:54:58.32,0:55:02.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they could do 220 profiles in a month, I\Nwas writing them, so truly they can handle
Dialogue: 0,0:55:02.84,0:55:07.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,15,000 requests, I think.\NHerald: Mic number 3, please.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:07.78,0:55:15.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic3: Have you found any evidence that the\Ncustomers were pushing sources on World
Dialogue: 0,0:55:15.27,0:55:19.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Check, that some of the customers might\Nhave used them just as a filtering
Dialogue: 0,0:55:19.44,0:55:26.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mechanism and push sources that wouldn't\Nbe normally checked?
Dialogue: 0,0:55:26.34,0:55:35.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: We don't have any evidence of that.\NBut you do raise an important point, that
Dialogue: 0,0:55:35.01,0:55:38.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some of the banks said: Well, we use lots\Nof sources. And some of the banks said: Of
Dialogue: 0,0:55:38.83,0:55:42.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,course, we wouldn't just go on a World\NCheck listing. But again, it's very
Dialogue: 0,0:55:42.95,0:55:48.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,difficult to know exactly what was the\Ninformation that HSBC considered, when
Dialogue: 0,0:55:48.43,0:55:51.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they closed the mosque's account, because\Nthat is all subject to secrecy.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:51.80,0:55:58.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Mic number 4, please.\NMic4: Can I please also ask you to go to
Dialogue: 0,0:55:58.52,0:56:00.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the previous slide?\NJasmin: Of course.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:00.67,0:56:07.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Mic4: I think the problem is we are\Nfocusing too much on the list itself. I
Dialogue: 0,0:56:07.53,0:56:13.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have difficulties imagining that we can\Ncontrol all these lists, which are
Dialogue: 0,0:56:13.42,0:56:17.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,circulating, which are being created by\Ndifferent companies. I think the problem
Dialogue: 0,0:56:17.59,0:56:22.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arises, when they are used. So I don't\Nknow if we can really achieve through
Dialogue: 0,0:56:22.86,0:56:28.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,legislation or through some kind of\Ncontrol better sources, better information
Dialogue: 0,0:56:28.17,0:56:36.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,quality, or whatever. Maybe it should be \Nat the point where they are used I in
Dialogue: 0,0:56:36.13,0:56:44.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,banks, there should be really the\Nlegislative mechanism, the kind of legal
Dialogue: 0,0:56:44.33,0:56:50.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,mechanism to solve this. I am imagining,\Nfor instance, if the bank uses sources
Dialogue: 0,0:56:50.18,0:56:58.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like these and denies the person to open\Nan account. Or the same case with all
Dialogue: 0,0:56:58.09,0:57:03.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these lists which exist for phone\Ncompanies and lots of lists like that in
Dialogue: 0,0:57:03.83,0:57:09.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,different sectors, if that person is\Ndenied the account opening, there could be
Dialogue: 0,0:57:09.62,0:57:14.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a mechanism by which the person would\Nforce the bank or the institution to
Dialogue: 0,0:57:14.91,0:57:20.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,disclose the sources and to initiate some\Nkind of legal procedure. This would mean..
Dialogue: 0,0:57:20.77,0:57:26.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Would you be so kind as to develop\Na question? Because a lot of other people
Dialogue: 0,0:57:26.90,0:57:30.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,still have questions and we have only a\Nfew minutes left, thank you very much.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:30.17,0:57:33.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}applause{\i0}\NMic4: The question is: Do you think it
Dialogue: 0,0:57:33.35,0:57:37.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,should be rather that we focus on the\Nbanks or the points, where this
Dialogue: 0,0:57:37.35,0:57:41.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information is used, rather than talk\Nabout the companies which make these lists?
Dialogue: 0,0:57:41.93,0:57:45.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jasmin: I think that's a really good\Nquestion, because it's actually a question
Dialogue: 0,0:57:45.49,0:57:49.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of who takes the responsibility for a\Ndecision? And the funny thing is that
Dialogue: 0,0:57:49.83,0:57:54.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,World-Check puts all the weird sources in\Nit, but still says: "Oh general legal
Dialogue: 0,0:57:54.18,0:58:00.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sentences, you have to check by\Nyourself.." and then the bank says: "No,
Dialogue: 0,0:58:00.26,0:58:04.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in World Check, there was a list and this\Nname was on the list." So right now we
Dialogue: 0,0:58:04.48,0:58:10.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have the scenario that people don't feel\Nresponsibility and I think that's the
Dialogue: 0,0:58:10.19,0:58:13.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problem.\NHerald: Alright, we have time for exactly
Dialogue: 0,0:58:13.05,0:58:16.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,one last question and I hope you don't\Nmind, if I give it to the internet,
Dialogue: 0,0:58:16.54,0:58:20.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because everybody else has the chance to\Ncatch the speakers later. So if there's
Dialogue: 0,0:58:20.44,0:58:23.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,one, please fire away.\NInternet-Q: Are there any high-profile
Dialogue: 0,0:58:23.52,0:58:28.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,politicians on the list?\NTom: Yes, I mean the politicians that you
Dialogue: 0,0:58:28.79,0:58:32.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would expect to be on the list, heads of\Nstate, were on the list, so I guess at
Dialogue: 0,0:58:32.95,0:58:38.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,least that part of the system is working.\NHerald: Please give another huge round of
Dialogue: 0,0:58:38.27,0:58:42.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,applause to our speakers but this super\Ninformative talk. Thank you so much.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:42.91,0:58:44.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Tom: Thank you!
Dialogue: 0,0:58:44.76,0:58:50.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}34c3 postroll{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:58:50.92,0:59:08.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,subtitles created by c3subtitles.de\Nin the year 2019. Join, and help us!