<i>RC3 preroll music</i>

Herald: Welcome back on the channel, of
Chaos zone TV. Now we have an English

speaking contribution. And for that, I
welcome pandemonium, who is a historian

and documentary film maker, and therefore
we will also not have a normal talk, but

we will see the documentary information.
What are they looking at? A documentary on

privacy. And afterwards, we can all talk
about the film, so feel free to post your

questions and we can discuss them. Let's
enjoy the film.

<i>film started</i>
[Filler please remove in amara]

---Because the great promise of the
internet is freedom. Freedom of

expression, freedom of organization,
freedom of assembly. These are really seen

as underpinning rights of what we see as
democratic values.

---Just because you have safety does not
mean that you cannot have freedom. Just

because you have freedom does not mean you
cannot have safety.

---Why is the reaction to doubt it rather
than to assume that it's true and act

accordingly?
---We need to be able to break those laws

that are unjust.
---Privacy is an essence, becoming a de

facto crime. That is somehow you are
hiding something.

---So just to be sure let's have no
privacy.

"Information, what are they looking at? A
film by Theresia Reinhold.

"The Internet is [...] everywhere, but we
only see it in the glimpses. The internet

is like the wholy ghost: it makes itself
knowable to us by taking possession of the

pixels on our screens to manifest sites
and apps and email, but its essence is

always elsewhere.
---Before the Internet came about,

communication was generally one editor to
many, many readers. But now it's peer to

peer. So, you know, at a touch of a button
people have an opportunity to reach

millions of people. That's revolutionizing
the way we communicate.

---One of the things that Facebook and to
a lesser degree Twitter allowed people to

do is be able to see that they weren't
alone. And it was able to create a

critical mass. And I think that's a very
important role that social media took on.

It was able to show people a very easy way
in people's Facebook feeds: "Oh, wow. Look

at Tahrir Square, there's people out there
in Bahrain, in Pearl Square." What people

could feel before walking out their door
into real life action, that they could see

that they are not isolated in their desire
for some sort of change.

---The great promise of the internet is
freedom where the minds without fear and

the head is held high. And the knowledge
is free. Because the promise was: This

will be the great equalizer.
---Before the social web, before the Web

2.0, anything you were doing was kind of
anonymous. By the very concept of

anonymity you were able to discuss things
that would probably be not according to

dominance themes or the dominant trends of
values of your own society.

---I don't find this discussion about how
to deal with the assertion "I have nothing

to hide" boring, even after many years.
Because this sentence is very short, but

very perfidious. The speaker, who hurls
the sentence "I have nothing to hide" at

me, not only says something about
themselves, but also something about me.

Because this sentence "I have nothing to
hide" also has the unspoken component of

"You don't either, do you?" In this
respect, I think this sentence lacks

solidarity, because at the same time one
does not want to work to ensure that the

other, who perhaps has something to hide,
is able to do so.

---One of the things about privacy is that
it's not always about you. It's about the

people in our networks. And so, for
example, I have a lot of friends who are

from Syria. People that I have met in
other places in the world, not necessary

refugees. People who lived abroad for a
while, but those people are at risk all

the time. Both in their home country and
often in their host countries as well. And

so, I might say that I have nothing to
hide. I might say that there's no reason

that I need to keep myself safe. But if
you've got any more like that in a

network, any activists, any people from
countries like that, it's thinking about

privacy and thinking about security means
thinking about keeping those people safe,

too.
Privacy is important, because if think of

the alternative, if everything is public,
if the norm is public, then anything that

you want to keep to yourself has an
association or guild attached. And that

should not be the world that we create.
That's a chilling effect. It's a chilling

effect on our freedoms. It's a chilling
effect on democracy.

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with this privacy, family,

home or correspondence, for the attacks
upon his honor and reputation. Everyone

has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

---To me, human rights are something which
has been put to place to guarantee the

freedoms of every single person in the
world. They're supposed to be universal,

indivisible. Having in the eyes of this
systems.

---They're collecting data and metadata
about hundreds of thousands, millions of

people. And some of that data will never
be looked at. That's a fact. We know that.

But at the same time, assuming that just
because you're not involved in activism or

you're not well known that you're not
going to be a target at some point, I

think, that is what can be really harmful
to us. Right now you may not be under any

threat at all, but your friends might be,
your family might be or you might be in

the future. And so that's why we need to
think about it this way, not because we're

going to be snatched out of our homes in
the middle of the night now. But because

this data and this metadata lasts for a
long time.

---My observation is what we are
experiencing right now is that the private

space that should be and remain private in
the digital world is slowly beginning to

erode. It is becoming permeable, and not
just factual. Factually, of course, but

not only factually, but also in
perception. I imagine the digital world as

a panoptical. This is the ring-shaped
building designed by Jeremy Benthem. In

the ring the prisoners are accommodated in
the individual cell, and in the middle

there is a watchtower. And there is a
guard sitting there. And this guard, who

can observe and supervise the prisoners in
the cells around him all the time. The

trick is that the prisoners cannot know if
they are being watched. They only see the

tower, but they don't see the warden. But
they know very well that they could be

watched permanently at any time. And this
fact exerts a changing decisive effect.

---I think surveillance is a technology of
governmentality. It's a bio political

technology. It's there to control and
manage populations. It's really propelled

by state power and the power of entities
that are glued in that cohere around the

state, right? So it is there as a form of
population management and control. So you

have to convince people that it's in their
interest and its like: Every man for

himself and everyone is out to get
everyone.

<i>relaying music is plays</i>
[Filler please remove in amara]

---I take my cue from a former general
counsel of the NSA, Suart Baker, who said

on this question: Meta-Data absolutely
tells you everything about somebodies

life. If you have enough Meta-Data you
don't really need content. It is sort of

embarrassing, how predictable we are as
human beings.

---So let's say that you make a phone one
night, you call up a suicide hotline, for

example, you're feeling down, you call
that hotline and then a few hours later

maybe you call a friend. A few hours later
you call a doctor, you send an email and

so on so forth. Now, the contents of that
of those calls and those e-mails are not

necessarily collected. What's being
collected is the time of the call and the

place that you called. And so sometimes in
events like that, those different pieces

of metadata can be linked together to
profile someone.

---David's description of what you can do
with metadata, and quoting a mutual friend

Stewart Baker, is absolutely correct. We
kill people based on Meta-Data. But that

is not what we do with this Meta-Data.
Mayor Denett: Thankfully. Wow, I was

working up a sweat there <i>Mayor laughs</i>
for a second.

---You know, the impetus for governments
for conducting this kind of surveillance

is often at least in rhetoric go to after
terrorists. And obviously, we don't want

terrorism. And so that justification
resonates with most of the public. But I

think that there's a couple problems with
it. The first is that they haven't

demonstrated to us that surveillance
actually works in stopping terrorist

attacks. We haven't seen it work yet. It
didn't work in Paris. It didn't work in

Boston. t didn't work elsewhere. So that's
one part of it. But then I think the other

part of it is that we spend billions of
dollars on surveillance and on war, but

spend very little money on addressing the
root causes of terrorism.

---I consider this debate security versus
freedom to be a bugaboo. Because these

values are not mutually exclusive. I'm not
buying into this propaganda anymore. Many

of the measures we have endured in the
last ten years have not led to more

security, in terms of state-imposed
surveillance. And this is one reason why I

don't want to continue this debate about
whether we should sacrifice freedom for

more security.
---I think power is concealed in the whole

discourse around surveillance, and the way
its concealed is through this

legitimization that it's in your interest
that it keeps you safe. But there have

been many instances where citizens groups
have actually fought against that kind of

surveillance. And I think there is also
sort of a mystique around <i>music starts</i>

the technology of surveillance. There is
the whole sort of like this notion that,

ah, because it's a technology and it's
designed to do this. It's actually

working. But all of this is a concealment
of power relations because who can surveil

who? Is the issue, right?
---But it isn't the majority of the

English population here to get stopped and
searched. It's non-white people. It is not

the majority of non-white people who get
approached to inform on the community.

It's Muslim communities.
---The surveillance that one does on the

other. So as airport, it's the other
passengers that say, oh, so-and-so is

speaking in Arabic. And therefore, that
person becomes the subject, the target

that hyper-surveillance. So it's the kind
of surveillances that are being exercised

by each of us on the other. Because of
this culture of fear that has been

nourished on a way and that's mushrooming
all around us. And these are fears, I

think, go anywhere from the most concrete
to the most vague.

---In this way, I think this is another
way of creating a semblance of control

where this identity is very easily
visible. It's very easily targeted and

it's very easily defined.
---For me, this political discussion is

purely based on fear in which the fear of
people, which is justified, are exploited.

And where racist stereotypes are being
repeated. I think it extremely dangerous

to give in to this more and more, also
because I believe that it reinforces

negative instincts in people. Exclusion,
but also racial profiling.

Kurz: It's inherently disentranchising,
it's disempowering and it's isolating.

When you feel you're being treated as a
different person to the rest of the

population, that's when measures like
surveillance, things that are enabled by

technology really hit home. And cause you
to sort of change that way you feel as a

subject. Because at the end of the day,
you are subjective of a government.

---How is it that these mass surveillance
programs have been kept secret for years

when they are supposed to be so meaningful
and effective? Why didn't anyone publicly

justify it? Then why was it all secretly
justified by secret courts with secret

court rulings? Why, after the Snowden
publications began, did the Commission of

intelligent Agents, which specifically
appointed Obama com to the conclusion that

not a single --zero --- of this cases of
terror or attempted terrorist attacks has

been partially resolved by these giant
telecommunications metadata? In trying to

stop something from happening before it
happens, they can put in a measure and

that thing might not happen. But they
don't know it that measure stopped that

thing from happening, because that thing
never happened. It's hard to measure. You

can't measure it. And you can't say with
certainty thst because of this measure

that that didn't happen. But after 9/11,
after the catastrophic level of attack, it

put decision makers into this impossible
position where citizens where scared. They

needed to do something. One part of that
is trying to screen everybody objectively

and have that sort of panoptical
surveillance. Saying that: "No, no. We can

see everything. Don't worry. We have the
haystack. We just need to find the needle.

But then obviously, they need ways to
target that. You can see it most clearly

over here. You got leaflets through your
door a few years ago, basically saying

that if you've seen anything suspicious,
call this hotline. It listed things like

the neighbor who goes away on holiday many
times a year or, another neighbor whose

curtains are always drawn. It just changes
the way you look at society and you look

at yourself. And it shifts the presumption
of Innocence to a presumption of guilt

already.
---When is someone a potential suicide

bomber? This is where the problem begins.
When they wear an explosive belt and holds

the tiger in their hands? Or when they
order the building blocks for an explosive

belt online? Or when they informed
themselves about how to build an explosive

vest? When can the state legally
intervene? For me it is about the central

very problematic question whether someone
who very problematic question whether

someone who has been identified as a
potential danger or a potential terrorist,

without being a terrorist, if someone like
that can then be legally surveilled or

even arrested? That means if certain
people by potentially posing a concrete

danger ot society can be stripped of,
their fundamental human rights?

---We face am unprecedented threat which
will last

Two days after the attacks in Brüssel on
the 22.03.2016 Jean Claude Juncker and the

french prime minister held a join pres
conference. But we also believe that we

need to be a union of security. In it
Juncker called to the ministers to accept

a proposal by the commision for the
propection of the EU.

---For over 15 years now we have observed
a big populist push to adopt even more

surveillance measures. With the attacks of
the past years, there was the opportunity

to pass even more. We have this proposal
for a new directive whose contents a

purely based on ideology.
The Text of the law passed in summary

proceedings was adopteed as an anti-
terrorism directive. Green Member of

Parlament Jan Phillipp Albrecht wrote in
an Statement to Netzpolitik.org: "What the

Directive defines as Terrorism could be
used by governments to criminalize

political action or political protest".
---These type of laws actually are neutral

in principle. In praxis, they are very
discrimantory. If you talk to any

politician right now of the EU level or at
the national or local level they will tell

you that most likely this people are
Muslims.

---Historically and Philosophically this
problem is well known to us. We always

tend to put everithing which is unpleasant
or eene to us, to the horizon. "This is

strange ti us. It is done by others, not
by us." And when one of us does it thent

they have to be distributed.
---And this is Edward Said's point of view

that the western seit comes to define
itself in relation to this eastern other.

So everything that the West was, the East
was'nt and everything that the East was,

the West wasn't. Ans so the East became
this province of emotionality,

irrationality. And the West became the
source of reason, everything controlled

and contained and so forth. And it is this
dichotomy that continues to play itself

out.
---Terrorism emerged as a term for the

first time in context of the French
Revolution. The Jacobins who under

Rebesprierre were the reign of terror,
those where the first Terrorists, that's

what they called. The first terrorism was
the terrorism of the state and of course

this also included the systematic
monitoring of Conterrevoliners.

---Where the proposal of the directive
says that it complies with human rights.

It actually does not because they want to
increase surveillance measures in order

for the population to feel safer. However,
we've seen that more repressive measure do

not necessarily mean that you would have
more security.

---The way you sell it to people is to
appease their sense of anxieties around

"Oh, this is an insecure world. Anything
could happen at any time. And so if

anything could happen at any time, what
can we do about it?

---You gut the feeling that the text is
trying to make sure that few enforecment

will be able to get access to
communications by any means that they

wish.
---To be able to stop something from

happening before it happens, you have to
know everything. You have to look at the

past, look at what happened, but also
predict the future by looking at the past

and then getting as much information as
you can on everything all the time. So

it's about zero risk.
Kurz: All developed democraties have a

concept of like proporionality, that's
what the call it in Germany. that

surveillance measures are weighed up
against the repeat for fundamental rights.

This undoubtly includes privacy. Privacy
is very highly viewed in Germany and

directly derived from human dignity. And
human dignity is only negotiable to very

tiny degree.
---When we are afraid to speak either

because of our government coming after us
because of a partner or a boss or

whomever. All sorts of surveillance causes
self censorship. But I think that mass

surveillance. The idea that everything we
are doing is being collected can cause a

lot of people to think twice before they
open their mouths.

---When all your likes can be traced back
to you of course it affects your

behaviour. Of couse it's usually the case
that sometimes you think: If you like this

thing or if you don't, it would have some
social repressions.

---But if you look throughout history, the
Reformation, the gay rights movements all

these movements where illegal in some way.
If not by law, stricktly, then by culture.

And if we'd this kind of mass surveillance
would we have had this movements?

---If all laws were absolutes, then we
would never have progressed to the point

where women had equal rights because women
had to break the laws. That said: "You

can't have equal rights". Black people in
America had to break the laws that said

they could not have equal rights. And
there's common thread here. You know a lot

of our laws historically have had the
harshest effect on the most vulnerable in

society.
Kurz: The components of whomever has

something to hide has to blame only
themselves only emerged in recent years.

In particular, the former CEO of Google
Eric Smith is known for that of course, he

certyinly said that.
"If you have something that you don't want

anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be
dooing it on the first place. " But this

is so hostile to humans that is almost
funny. You could think it is satire. A lot

of people can't help that they have
something to hide in a society, that is

unjust. *wieder Eric Shmid" "But if you
really need that kind of privacy, the

reallity is that search changes including
google to retain that information for some

time. "
---Big corporations that have this

business model of people farming are
interested in you becaurse you are the row

materials. Right. Your Infromation is row
materials. What they do is they process

that to build a profile of you. And that's
where the real value is. Because if I know

enough about you, if I as much information
about you that I can build a very

lifelike, constantly evolving picture of
you, a s simpulation of you. That's very

vulnerable.
---The economy of the net is predicting

human behaviour, so that eyeballls can be
delivered to advertising and that's

targeting advertising.
---The system in ways is set up for them

to make money and sell our lettle bits of
data, our interests, our demographics for

other people and for advertisers to be
able to sell things. These companies know

more about us than we know about
ourselves. Right now we're feeding the

beast. And right now, there's very little
oversight.

---It has to reach one person, the same ad
at particular time, if at 3:00 p.m. you

buy the soda you get your lunch. How about
2:55pm you'll get an ad about a discount

about a pizza place next door or a salad
place. Where had exactly the soda comes.

So that's what targeted advertising is.
---It is true, it is convinient. You know,

I always laugh every time I'm on a site.
I'm looking at, let's say, a sweater I

want to buy. And then I move over to
another site and it advertising for that

same sweater. It pops up and reminds me
how much I want it. It's both convinient

and annoying.
---It's a pity that some of the greatest

minds in our century are only wondering
how to make you look advertising. And

that's where the surveillance economy
beginns, I will say, and not just ends.

---To a lot of people that may seem much
less harmful. Bur the fact that they're

capturing this date means that data exists
and we don't who they might share it with.

---There is whole new business now, you
know, data brokers who drew upon, you

know, thousands of data points and create
client profiles to sell to companies. Now,

you don't really know what happens with
this kind of things. So it is hard to

tell, what the implications are until it
is too late. Until it happens.

---The Stasi compared to Google or
Facebook, where amateurs, the Stasi

actually had to use people to surcail you
to spy on you. That was expensive. It was

time consuming. They had to pick targets.
It was very expensive for them to have all

of these people spying on you. Facebook
and Google don't have to do that. They use

Algorithms, that's the mass in mass
surveillance. The fact that it is so

cheap, so convenient to spy on so many
people. And it's not a conspiracy theory.

You don't need conspiracies when you have
the simplicity of business models.

---When we talk about algorithms, we
actually talk about logic. When you want,

for example, buy a book on Amazon. You
have always seen a few other suggestions.

These suggestions are produced for you
based on the history of your preferences,

the history of your searches.
---They learn by making mistakes. And the

thing is, that's fine if it's like selling
dog feed. But it's about predictive

pollicing and about creating a matrix
where you see which individuals are

threatening, that's not ok for me. You
know, that has to be limits. There has to

be lines. And these are all the dynamics
that are coming from the bottom up. These

are the discussions that need to be had,
but they need to be had with all actors.

It's can't just be a an echo chamber. You
don't talk to the some people who agree

with you.
---So one consequence of this would be

many minorities or many people who have
minority views would be silenced. And we

always know that when a minority view is
silenced, it would empower them in a way

and it would radicalize them in the long
run. This is one aspect. The other is that

you would never be challenged by anyone,
who disagrees with you.

---We have to understand that our data is
not exhaust. Our data is not oil. Data is

people. You maybe not doing anything wrong
today, but maybe three governments from

now when they pass a certain law, what you
have done today might be illegal, for

example, and governments that keep that
data can look back over 10, 20 years and

maybe start prosecuting.
---When everything we buy, everything we

read, even the people we meet and date is
determined by this algorithms, I think the

amount of power that they exert on the
society and individuals in this society is

more than the state to the some degree.
And so there I think representatives

democracy have the duty to push the
government to open up these private

entities, to at least expose to some
degree how much control they exert.

---If you adopt the technological
perspective and realize that technology

will slip into our lives much more than is
already the case: Technically into our

bodies, our clothes, into devices that we
sit in an we're wearing, in all sorts of

areas of our coexistence and working life,
then that's definitely the wrong way to

go. Because it leads to a total
surveillance. And if you think about it

for a few minutes, you will realize that
the dichotomy is between control &amp;

freedom. And a fully controlled society
cannot be free.

<i>post film music</i>
[Filler please remove in amara]

Herald: Hello and welcome back from the
movie and know I welcome also our

producer. And. It was very. Oh, yeah,
showing very good. What information can do

and what could be done with information, I
give some people a bit more time to ask

more questions. And in the meantime, I
could ask, Oh, well, this is moving. Those

of these remote to your home was not shown
today for the first time. So what would

you do different or what you think has
maybe changed in the meanwhile since you

made it?
pandemonium: What I would change is I

would definitely try much harder to secure
funding to just simply make a better movie

and have more time and edited faster
because the editing process, because I had

to work on the side was quite long. And
this film, and the way it stands now, was

essentially only funded by a few very
great people who supported me on Patreon

and helped me with some of their private
money, essentially so that it was

essentially an almost no budget
production. So I would definitely change

that. But documentary seen in Germany
being what it is, it's very hard to secure

money if you're not attached to a TV
station or if you don't have a name yet.

And since I didn't have a name, but I
still want to make the movie, I made the

movie. I am still very happy with the
general direction of it. But of course,

since that was mainly shot in 2015 and
2016, some of the newer developments in

terms of especially biometric mass
surveillance and police. Especially in the

U.S., the way police uses body cams, etc.
is not really reflected. But I still think

that the I would still go with the whole
angle on colonialism and racism that is

deeply entrenched in the discussions
around surveillance and privacy. And we

can see that in discussions about shutting
down Telegram in Germany at the moment

because right wing groups the there we see
it in discussions about how to deal with

hate speech online on Facebook or the
Metaverse. And it's going to be called

Zoom. And all of these things are already
kind of in the movie, but I would have

probably focused a bit more on them if I'd
known. Six years ago what would happen and

if I would make it now? But generally, the
direction I would choose the same.

Herald: Yeah, it's quite fascinating. So
it was nearly no budget was so low, and it

was also an interesting point to entertain
now, because in principle, I understood

the ideas that body cams should create
actually a means of protecting people

against police and not the other way
around as it happens sometimes.

pandemonium: So there are definitely and
the problem with especially body cams or

also other of other means of surveillance
is that a video is always thought to be an

objective recording of the reality. But of
course, it always depends on the angle and

cases of body cams, quite literally the
angle, but also data interpretation. And

since humans are always full of biases and
always full of presumptions about who

might be in the right and who might be in
the wrong, these imagery, images or videos

tend to never, even if they would be
showing the objective truth, they're

barely ever interpret it that way. And
it's exactly the same with any sort of

film or photography that we're doing. I
mean, for this movie, I assembled a ton of

interviews and there were very long there
were several hours long in many cases, and

I could added probably 100 different
versions of this movie going essentially

almost opposite directions, exactly the
same material. It shows very strongly how

important it is, that at the end of the
day we overcome our biosies as judges, as

police people, as people walking on the
street an trying to overcome any sort of

surveillance on this impossible on the
technical level, is always connected with

the way, we understand world.
Herald: Yeah, this is, I also remember a

talk several years ago , it was about one
of "freiheit statt Angst" Demonstrations

in Berlin. And there was also a case,
where the term was established, the guy

with a t-shirt got beaten by police and it
was very hard to assemble different videos

and to tell the whole story, what had
happened. You should be able to find that,

there was a talk , where this was
constructed somehow.

Producer: I will definitely looked that
up.

Herald. But I'm not sure about the year
anymore but you will find it. Now we have

a real question from the audience. The
first is, can I find the movie anywhere

and show it to somebody else?
Producer: Yes. It is on YouTube. <i>laugh</i>

Herald: Ok.
Producer: You can literally find it by

typing my name, which is Theresia
Reinhold. And you can find it.

Herald. ok. So, its very good. So, I hope
they are happy. Is the 21. Century

attention span for non-technical friend
with biggest claim. I don't get the

questions. The Idea is: Is there a way of
explaining the non technical people, what

is the problem with "I do not have nothing
to hide".

Producer: If there is anything in your
life, where you are happy, no one is

watching you doing, whether it is a
Century video, that a lot of people don't

know, that you are watching. Or singing in
the shower or anything, then that is your

absolute right that you are not. No one is
judging you on them, and that's the same

with mass surveillance and surfing online
or walking down the street. We have a very

basic comfort zone, should be protected.
Know we have a human right to privacy and

whether it's in a technical room or in an
analog room, like being in a shopping mall

and picking up, I don't know whatever you
don't want other people to know that

you're buying. You should have the right
to do that in private and not have it be

known to other people. And when we are
surfing the internet, everything we do is

constantly analyzed and watched in real
time and you notice our movements online

are sold to the highest bidder and as a
whole, massive advertising industry behind

it. And that's just immoral because humans
should have always the ability to share

only what they want to share. That's how I
try to explain it to non tech people. And

if they're not tech, people from the
former east, is just here to move to Stasi

and they know exactly what you're talking
about.

Herald: Yes, thanks for this explanation
again. And I think also what is important,

what was also mentioned in the movie is
the thing with that is and speak, since it

can be stored now that it's so that future
can haunt your history. Kind of.

pandemonium. Yeah.
Herald: And actually, the question was

now be more precise. And actually, it was
not what I asked you <i>Laughs</i>. Actually is

the question of whether there is or there
could be a short teaser that people could

send to your friends to two of their
friends to to watch the whole movie?

<i>laughs</i>
Reinhold: Oh yes, there is. And that is

also on YouTube and on Vimeo. OK, sorry.
Yes. <i>Laugh</i>

Herald: Well, I also didn't get it from
the question. So OK, so people will find

it very good. So then I guess we are
through with the questions, and I thank

you again for your nice movie and for
being here. Yeah, and. Then this talk is

over here. Chaos zone a TV comes back to
you at four p.m. with the talk "tales from

the quantum industry" until then? Oh yeah.
Which some other streams go to the world

or. Have some lunch. See you.
[Filler please remove in amara]

<i>post roll music</i>
[Filler please remove in amara]

Subtitles created by many many volunteers and
the c3subtitles.de team. Join us, and help us!