(Cory Doctorow) Thank you very much

So I'd like to start with something of a
benediction or permission.

I am one of nature's fast talkers

and many of you are not 
native English speakers, or

maybe not accustomed 
to my harsh Canadian accent

in addition I've just come in 
from Australia

and so like many of you I am horribly
jetlagged and have drunkenough coffee

this morning to kill a rhino.

When I used to be at the United Nations

I was known as the scourge of the
simultaneous translation core

I would stand up and speak 
as slowly as I could

and turn around, and there they
would be in their boots doing this

(laughter)
When I start to speak too fast,

this is the universal symbol --
my wife invented it --

for "Cory, you are talking too fast".
Please, don't be shy.

So, I'm a parent , like many of you 
and I'm like I'm sure all of you

who are parents, parenting takes my ass 
all the time.

And there are many regrets I have
about the mere seven and half years

that I've been a parent 
but none ares so keenly felt

as my regrets over what's happened 
when I've been wandering

around the house and seen my
daughter working on something

that was beyond her abilities, that was 
right at the edge of what she could do

and where she was doing something 
that she didn't have competence in yet

and you know it's that amazing thing 
to see that frowning concentration,

tongue stuck out: as a parent, your
heart swells with pride

and you can't help but go over

and sort of peer over their shoulder
what they are doing

and those of you who are parents know 
what happens when you look too closely

at someone who is working 
beyond the age of their competence.

They go back to doing something
they're already good at.

You interrupt a moment 
of genuine learning

and you replace it with 
a kind of embarrassment

about what you're good at 
and what you're not.

So, it matters a lot that our schools are
increasingly surveilled environments,

environments in which everything that 
our kids do is watched and recorded.

Because when you do that, you interfere
with those moments of real learning.

Our ability to do things that we are not 
good at yet, that we are not proud of yet,

is negatively impacted 
by that kind of scrutiny.

And that scrutiny comes 
from a strange place.

We have decided that there are 
some programmatic means

by which we can find all the web page
children shouldn't look at

and we will filter our networks
to be sure that they don't see them.

Anyone who has ever paid attention
knows that this doesn't work.

There are more web pages 
that kids shouldn't look at

than can ever be cataloged, 
and any attempt to catalog them

will always catch pages that kids
must be looking at.

Any of you who have ever taught 
a unit on reproductive health

know the frustration of trying 
to get round a school network.

Now, this is done in the name of
digital protection

but it flies in the face of digital
literacy and of real learning.

Because the only way to stop kids 
from looking at web pages

they shouldn't be looking at

is to take all of the clicks that they 
make, all of the messages that they send,

all of their online activity 
and offshore it to a firm

that has some nonsensically arrived at
list of the bad pages.

And so, what we are doing is that we're 
exfiltrating all of our students' data

to unknown third parties.

Now, most of these firms, 
their primary business is

in serving the education sector.

Most of them service 
the government sector.

The primarily service governments in
repressive autocratic regimes.

They help them make sure that 
their citizens aren't looking at

Amnesty International web pages.

They repackage those tools 
and sell them to our educators.

So we are offshoring our children's clicks
to war criminals.

And what our kids do, we know,
is they just get around it,

because it's not hard to get around it.

You know, never underestimate the power
of a kid who is time-rich and cash-poor

to get around our 
technological blockades.

But when they do this, they don't acquire
the kind of digital literacy

that we want them to do, they don't 
acquire real digital agency

and moreover, they risk exclusion 
and in extreme cases,

they risk criminal prosecution.

So what if instead, those of us who are
trapped in this system of teaching kids

where we're required to subject them
to this kind of surveillance

that flies in the face 
of their real learning,

what if instead, we invented 
curricular units

that made them real first class
digital citizens,

in charge of trying to influence
real digital problems?

Like what if we said to them: 
"We want you to catalog the web pages

that this vendor lets through 
that you shouldn't be seeing.

We want you to catalog those pages that 
you should be seeing, that are blocked.

We want you to go and interview 
every teacher in the school

about all those lesson plans that were
carefully laid out before lunch

with a video and a web page, 
and over lunch,

the unaccountable distance center
blocked these critical resources

and left them handing out photographed 
worksheets in the afternoon

instead of the unit they prepared.

We want you to learn how to do the Freedom
of Information Act's requests

and find out what your 
school authority is spending

to censor your internet access 
and surveil your activity.

We want you to learn to use the internet 
to research these companies and

we want you to present this 
to your parent-teacher association,

to your school authority,
to your local newspaper."

Because that's the kind 
of digital literacy

that makes kids into first-class
digital citizens,

that prepares them for a future 
in which they can participate fully

in a world that's changing.

Kids are the beta-testers 
of the surveillance state.

The path of surveillance technology
starts with prisoners,

moves to asylum seekers, 
people in mental institutions

and then to its first non-incarcerated 
population: children

and then moves to blue-collar workers,
government workers

and white-collar workers.

And so, what we do to kids today
is what we did to prisoners yesterday

and what we're going to be doing 
to you tomorrow.

And so it matters, what we teach our kids.

If you want to see where this goes, this
is a kid named Blake Robbins

and he attended Lower Merion High School 
in Lower Merion Pennsylvania

outside f Philadelphia.

It's the most affluent school district
in America, so affluent

that all the kids were issued Macbooks
at the start of the year

and they had to do their homework on
their Macbooks,

they had to bring them to school every day
and bring them home every night.

And the Macbooks had been fitted with
Laptop Theft Recovery Software,

which is fancy word for a rootkit, that
let the school administration

scovertly (check) operate the cameras
and microphones on these computers

and harvest files off 
of their hard drives

view all their clicks, and so on.

Now Blake Robbins found out 
that the software existed

and how it was being used 
because he and the head teacher

had been knocking heads for years, 
since he first got into the school,

and one day, the head teacher 
summoned him to his office

and said: "Blake, I've got you now."

and handed him a print-out of Blake
in his bedroom the night before,

taking what looked like a pill, 
and said: "You're taking drugs."

And Blake Robbins said: "That's a candy,
it's a Mike and Ike candy, I take them --

I eat them when I'm studying.

How did you get a picture 
of me in my bedroom?"

This head teacher had taken 
over 6000 photos of Blake Robbins:

awake and asleep, dressed and undressed,
in the presence of his family.

And in the ensuing lawsuit, the school
settled for a large amount of money

and promised that 
they wouldn't do it again

without informing the students 
that it was going on.

And increasingly, the practice is now

that school administrations hand out 
laptops, because they're getting cheaper,

with exactly the same kind of software,

but they let the students know and t
hey find that that works even better

at curbing the students' behavior,

because the students know that 
they're always on camera.

Now, the surveillance state is moving
from kids to the rest of the world.

It's metastasizing.

Our devices are increasingly designed
to treat us as attackers,

as suspicious parties 
who can't be trusted

because our devices' job is to do things
that we don't want them to do.

Now that's not because the vendors 
who make our technology

want to spy on us necessarily,

but they want to take 
the ink-jet printer business model

and bring it into every other realm
of the world.

So the ink-jet printer business model
is where you sell someone a device

and then you get a continuing 
revenue stream from that device

by making sure that competitors can't make 
consumables or parts

or additional features 
or plugins for that device,

without paying rent 
to the original manufacturer.

And that allows you to maintain 
monopoly margins on your devices.

Now, in 1998, the American government 
passed a law called

the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,

in 2001 the European Union 
introduced its own version,

the European Union Copyright Directive.

And these two laws, along with laws
all around the world,

in Australia, Canada and elsewhere.
These laws prohibit removing digital laws

that are used to restrict 
access to copyrighted works

and they were original envisioned as a way
of making sure that Europeans didn't

bring cheap DVDs in from America,

or making sure that Australians didn't 
mport cheap DVDs from China.

And so you have a digital work, a DVD,
and it has a lock on it and to unlock it,

you have to buy an authorized player

and the player checks to make sure 
you are in region

and making your own player 
that doesn't make that check

is illegal because you'd have 
to remove the digital lock.

And that was the original intent,

it was to allow high rates to be 
maintained on removable media,

DVDs and other entertainment content.

But it very quickly spread 
into new rounds.

So, for example, auto manufacturers now 
lock up all of their cars' telemetry

with digital locks.

If you're a mechanic 
and want to fix a car,

you have to get a reader 
from the manufacturer

to make sure that you can 
see the telemetry

and know what parts to order 
and how to fix it.

And in order to get this reader, 
you have to promise the manufacturer

that you will only buy parts 
from that manufacturer

and not from third parties.

So the manufacturers can keep 
the repair costs high

and get a secondary revenue stream
out of the cars.

This year, the Chrysler corporation filed 
comments with the US Copyright Office,

to say that they believed that 
this was the right way to do it

and that it should be a felony, 
punishable by 5 years in prison

and a $500'000 fine,

to change the locks on a car that you own,
so that you can choose who fixes it.

It turned out that when they advertised

-- well, where is my slide here?
Oh, there we go --

when they advertised that 
it wasn't your father's Oldsmobile,

they weren't speaking metaphorically, 
they really meant

that even though your father 
bought the Oldsmobile,

it remained their property in perpetuity.

And it's not just cars, 
it's every kind of device,

because every kind of device today 
has a computer in it.

The John Deer Company, the world's leading seller of heavy equipment

and agricultural equipment technologies,

they now view their tractors as 
information gathering platforms

and they view the people who use them

as the kind of inconvenient gut flora
of their ecosystem.

So if you are a farmer 
and you own a John Deer tractor,

when you drive it around your fields, 
the torque centers on the wheels

conduct a centimeter-accurate soil 
density survey of your agricultural land.

That would be extremely useful to you
when you're planting your seeds

but that data is not available to you

unless unless you remove the digital lock 
from your John Deer tractor

which again, is against the law 
everywhere in the world.

Instead, in order to get that data

you have to buy a bundle with seeds 
from Monsanto,

who are John Deer's seed partners.

John Deer then takes this data that they 
aggregate across whole regions

and they use it to gain insight 
into regional crop yields

That they use to play the futures market.

John Deer's tractors are really just 
a way of gathering information

and the farmers are secondary to it.

Just because you own it 
doesn't mean it's yours.

And it's not just the computers 
that we put our bodies into

that have this business model.

It's the computers that we put 
inside of our bodies.

If you're someone who is diabetic

and you're fitted with a continuous 
glucose-measuring insulin pump,

that insulin pump is designed 
with a digital log

that makes sure that your doctor 
can only use the manufacturer's software

to read the data coming off of it

and that software is resold 
on a rolling annual license

and it can't be just bought outright.

And the digital locks are also 
used to make sure

that you only buy the insulin 
that vendors approved

and not generic insulin 
that might be cheaper.

We've literally turned human beings 
into ink-jet printers. 12:21