< Return to Video

When Wikileaks bumped into the CIA: Operation Kudo exposed

  • 0:00 - 0:08
    rc3 preroll music
  • 0:08 - 0:13
    Herald: Welcome back on the Chaos-Sound
    stage. I hope you had a great day so far.
  • 0:13 - 0:23
    And after the Algorave talk, we are happy
    to we're happy to host a talk by Andy
  • 0:23 - 0:31
    Mueller-Maguhn. He is a long-time member
    of the CCC. Now he is at Wau Holland
  • 0:31 - 0:38
    Stiftung, and he's also a data journalist.
    And today he will tell us a bit about
  • 0:38 - 0:47
    things between WikiLeaks and the CIA. And
    this talk is some kind of successor for
  • 0:48 - 0:58
    talks he gave previously. And but for all
    the details, he will tell them by himself.
  • 0:58 - 1:09
    And yes, welcome Andy. And we're happy to
    see what you can tell us. And all the
  • 1:10 - 1:13
    interesting details that are in your talk.
  • 1:13 - 1:20
    Andy: Thank you. OK. Good evening. So, I
    named this talk "When WikiLeaks bumped
  • 1:20 - 1:28
    into the CIA operation Kudo exposed". So,
    explain a bit later what that is. Just as
  • 1:28 - 1:36
    a reminder, the hacker community and the
    CCC, even in its bylaws, one of the core
  • 1:36 - 1:41
    things has always been information wants
    to be free. First sentence up the hacker
  • 1:41 - 1:48
    ethics brought a small snippet from Wau
    himself where you will not hear the sound
  • 1:48 - 1:55
    at this moment due to technical reasons,
    but where he talked about the hacking of
  • 1:55 - 2:04
    society through Freedom of Information. My
    talk will have two parts, what happened so
  • 2:04 - 2:11
    far and what should be done now. In the
    first part. I just want to refer a little
  • 2:11 - 2:17
    bit on the context of what I'm talking
    about. So, this is about what happened
  • 2:17 - 2:24
    surrounding WikiLeaks in the context of
    the CIA and the United States government.
  • 2:24 - 2:32
    Yeah, getting on them. I had two talks
    about similar topics already in 2018 and
  • 2:32 - 2:37
    2019 at the ..., you know, unfortunately
    also. No, that was still the last real
  • 2:37 - 2:42
    Congress. I talked about the technical
    aspects of the surveillance. And you will
  • 2:42 - 2:48
    see one image that I needed to copy from
    that again. Then last year, I talked a
  • 2:48 - 2:53
    little bit about the CIA versus WikiLeaks
    to intimidation tactics. That was more
  • 2:53 - 2:59
    what happened to me and other surrounding
    WikiLeaks. Now, in the meantime, this
  • 2:59 - 3:04
    year, end of September, came a very
    important article in this context on Yahoo
  • 3:04 - 3:10
    News, that seems to have been doing that.
    Some guys have been hired there, who
  • 3:10 - 3:17
    previously worked for Newsweek and others.
    The article, from 26 of September, is
  • 3:17 - 3:23
    called Kidnapping, Assassination at the
    London Shootout, inside the Secret CIA
  • 3:23 - 3:30
    Secret War Plans against WikiLeaks, and it
    did reveal quite some things. It finally
  • 3:30 - 3:36
    referred to my talk. It links even to the
    video of my talk. It takes some quotes
  • 3:36 - 3:43
    from it. It confirms a lot of it and adds
    a lot. But it also frames and was framing.
  • 3:43 - 3:51
    I mean, there is some disinformation
    that's poisoning that otherwise very
  • 3:51 - 3:56
    helpful article to understand what the
    fuck was going on. So, what I'm trying to
  • 3:56 - 4:03
    do today is to reconstruct the whole thing
    a little bit to reframe it and help
  • 4:03 - 4:08
    everybody to understand a little bit what
    happened here. The Yahoo article
  • 4:08 - 4:15
    rightfully distinguishes the timeframe of
    the interaction, so to say, between the
  • 4:15 - 4:22
    United States government and WikiLeaks
    into four to five timeframes. One of them
  • 4:22 - 4:28
    at the beginning of the WikiLeaks project.
    Or, let's say, before Snowden, so before
  • 4:28 - 4:36
    mid-2013, the Obama administration
    authored the diplomatic cables had been
  • 4:36 - 4:43
    published by WikiLeaks, Afghan / Iraq War
    Logs and so on were out. They had the view
  • 4:43 - 4:48
    that as long as some entity or some people
    are publishing, are engaging and
  • 4:48 - 4:54
    publishing it in journalistic activity,
    there's nothing they can do because First
  • 4:54 - 4:58
    Amendment of the United States
    Constitution talks about the freedom of
  • 4:59 - 5:06
    publishing the freedom of speech, and a
    freedom that does include journalistic
  • 5:06 - 5:18
    activity of all kinds. After the Snowden,
    not revelations, but the fact that Edward
  • 5:19 - 5:26
    Snowden was getting from Hong Kong on the
    way to somewhere else, but he got to
  • 5:26 - 5:34
    Moscow with the help of a WikiLeaks
    editorial member, therefore in acting in
  • 5:34 - 5:40
    what you could call journalistic source
    protection. However, that brought the U.S.
  • 5:40 - 5:45
    government to a slightly different view of
    WikiLeaks. It didn't really like it, so
  • 5:45 - 5:50
    Obama allowed the intelligence community
    to prioritize collection WikiLeaks, search
  • 5:50 - 5:55
    warrants, subpeonas, US National Security
    Letters. So here we're not talking about,
  • 5:56 - 6:01
    as far as the article mentions, about the
    legal investigation yet. This intelligence
  • 6:01 - 6:07
    work to, like they allowed them to get on
    them? They also, in the context of the
  • 6:07 - 6:12
    Snowden revelations, now, where it wasn't
    WikiLeaks, it was Glenn Greenwald and
  • 6:12 - 6:18
    Laura Poitras who had been given by Edward
    Snowden the material, and they published
  • 6:18 - 6:24
    the material together with Guardian, Der
    Spiegel, the others. I was also involved
  • 6:24 - 6:31
    with the Spiegel I should disclose.
    However, they tried to relabel, not only
  • 6:31 - 6:37
    WikiLeaks, but also Glenn, Laura and
    others from journalists away to like
  • 6:37 - 6:44
    information brokers. They tried all kinds
    of definitions to circumvent the
  • 6:44 - 6:51
    protection of the United States
    Constitution, you could say. That went not
  • 6:51 - 6:57
    that far. At least I have no actively
    knowledge of a criminal prosecution
  • 6:58 - 7:02
    running against Laura and Glenn. However,
    there were for sure intelligence
  • 7:02 - 7:07
    activities that they also reported on that
    everybody who was involved in the
  • 7:07 - 7:13
    publications, as you might know from
    history, the Guardian was later forced to
  • 7:13 - 7:18
    even destroy the computers where they had
    put this Snowden material and so on. So,
  • 7:18 - 7:27
    that was quite some things going on. In
    2016, the next, yeah, like milestone in
  • 7:27 - 7:31
    the change of the relations between the
    United States government, WikiLeaks, to
  • 7:31 - 7:39
    say it nicely, was the publication of the
    DNC emails that by the definition of the
  • 7:39 - 7:49
    National Security Agency, like they said,
    this was Guccifer 2.0 was the Russian
  • 7:49 - 7:56
    military intelligence at GRU and that the
    whole publication was with the intention
  • 7:56 - 8:03
    to hurt the interests of the United
    States. This now is a first point where we
  • 8:03 - 8:07
    could sit back from our European
    perspective for a little bit and say, wait
  • 8:07 - 8:13
    a moment. This was about leaking. I mean,
    this was leaked emails. Or, however, let's
  • 8:13 - 8:19
    say it was emails that somehow got leaked,
    obtained or otherwise, but in any way,
  • 8:19 - 8:26
    WikiLeaks published them. What the
    discussion was about was how Hillary
  • 8:26 - 8:33
    Clinton had treated Bernie Sanders as the
    other candidate of the Democratic Party,
  • 8:33 - 8:40
    and here obviously did not make it. She
    made it. So, this we could call this
  • 8:40 - 8:46
    exposing the facts in the public interest.
    But as I said, the United States, at least
  • 8:46 - 8:52
    National Security Agency and others seem
    to have agreed that this was not intended
  • 8:52 - 8:56
    to harm the United States, not what
    Hillary Clinton did, but what WikiLeaks
  • 8:56 - 9:03
    did in this publication. I think it's
    important that we distinguish between how
  • 9:03 - 9:09
    we evaluate these things and how the US
    government puts this into different
  • 9:09 - 9:17
    baskets or categories. However, then it
    got much more wild, when WikiLeaks started
  • 9:17 - 9:24
    at the beginning of 2017 to publish, with
    the so-called full seven series, documents
  • 9:24 - 9:30
    from the Central Intelligence Agency from
    the CIA. Mike Pompeo was in charge of it.
  • 9:30 - 9:34
    I did talk about this at length, and I
    want to repeat this last year, so he got
  • 9:34 - 9:41
    very upset personally because he was also
    potentially personal responsible for it.
  • 9:41 - 9:48
    So, It was under his watch, so to say.
    However, the framing aspect of the article
  • 9:49 - 9:57
    are worth having a brief look. The what
    happened this year was so sad that the key
  • 9:57 - 10:04
    witness of the prosecution Icelandic guy
    called Sigurdor Thordarson made it public
  • 10:04 - 10:10
    that actually he lied to the FBI and that
    they fabricated part of the evidence based
  • 10:10 - 10:15
    on his lies. Also, they could have
    verified things. He later even was
  • 10:15 - 10:22
    imprisoned for his multiple illegal acts,
    and the Icelandic government saw it as
  • 10:22 - 10:28
    reason enough to declare him a danger to
    society and therefore lock him up. And
  • 10:28 - 10:33
    that's not happening that easily in a
    country like Iceland who normally people
  • 10:33 - 10:40
    are very calm and down to earth. However,
    the article came just after, a few weeks
  • 10:40 - 10:48
    after, the publications on this fabricated
    evidence. And it's fair to say that the
  • 10:48 - 10:55
    gravity of the Yahoo article was a lot
    higher and a lot more was discussed than
  • 10:55 - 11:03
    about the fake evidence of the key witness
    and so on. However, one other aspect that
  • 11:03 - 11:11
    was in the Yahoo article was a thing that
    is, from my reading, and I've talked to
  • 11:11 - 11:17
    many people, there was no evidence for
    this whatsoever. The Yahoo article claimed
  • 11:17 - 11:22
    that there was the Russian government also
    having like kind of officers in front of
  • 11:22 - 11:30
    the Ecuadorian embassy or in the immediate
    surrounding, preparing to help Julian to
  • 11:30 - 11:34
    evacuate him, so to say, from England to
    sneak him out, as the article says.,
  • 11:34 - 11:40
    Russian intel preparing to sneak Assange
    out of the UK. And this is a little bit
  • 11:40 - 11:48
    wild and it's double wild when you or when
    one looks at how the involvement of the
  • 11:48 - 11:52
    Russian government, how that upsets
    American people, the American media and so
  • 11:52 - 11:58
    on. This is such a polarized environment
    where the moment the Russian government is
  • 11:58 - 12:03
    declared to be involved, it changes
    everything. What's happened really here
  • 12:03 - 12:09
    with something different and that is that
    Julian had, in cooperation and in
  • 12:09 - 12:14
    coordination with the Ecuadorian
    government, found a way to legally leave
  • 12:14 - 12:21
    the embassy and the United Kingdom by
    becoming first an Ecuadorian citizen, then
  • 12:21 - 12:27
    an Ecuadorian diplomat, and then in theory
    he would have been able to leave the UK
  • 12:27 - 12:32
    because a diplomat on the way to a
    different working place has, under Vienna,
  • 12:32 - 12:40
    diplomatic assurances, is immune from any
    kind of interference. However, the article
  • 12:41 - 12:48
    does reveal some aspects of what happened.
    For example, the kidnapping plans, the
  • 12:48 - 12:54
    assassination plans that the US government
    considered the CIA played through ways to
  • 12:54 - 13:00
    kill him in the embassy, to poison him, to
    kidnap him from there. This kind of
  • 13:00 - 13:05
    extreme acts did not happen, and the
    article claims that, you know, justice
  • 13:05 - 13:11
    prevailed. White House lawyers had doubts.
    The National Security Council and the
  • 13:11 - 13:20
    heads of the Senate and House Intelligence
    Committees ensured that this wild ideas
  • 13:20 - 13:24
    because they were not compatible with the
    legal framework, not even with that of the
  • 13:24 - 13:31
    United States, that that did not happen.
    So, the article gives you kind of this
  • 13:32 - 13:37
    American song melody of, yeah, we had some
    wild things at the CIA going on, but you
  • 13:37 - 13:42
    know, we are a democracy and we stopped
    it. However, there were some actions that
  • 13:42 - 13:47
    where, according to the article and the
    witnesses and lawyers I talked to, well
  • 13:47 - 13:51
    caught out, extensive spying on WikiLeaks
    associates dealing with electronic
  • 13:51 - 13:58
    devices. Then there were things there we
    could talk about, like the article claims
  • 13:58 - 14:06
    that, to what was also carried out, sowing
    discord among the group's members. So now,
  • 14:06 - 14:12
    if anyone of you is longer than a few
    weeks in a CCC- like hacker club or
  • 14:12 - 14:17
    working for a journalist organization or
    working in any other group. I mean,
  • 14:17 - 14:22
    according to my little experience, there's
    quite a fight-club atmosphere out there
  • 14:22 - 14:27
    for a while, and I'm personally, I
    wouldn't always be able to distinguish
  • 14:27 - 14:32
    between is this now a CIA operated, you
    know, group fight? Or It's just normal
  • 14:32 - 14:37
    group dynamics. People don't like each
    other, people having disputes, people
  • 14:37 - 14:43
    having different ideas how to do things
    and so on. So, I would suggest you take
  • 14:43 - 14:49
    this kind of claim with a grain of salt.
    Not every dispute among a group has been
  • 14:49 - 14:56
    created by the CIA. Also, I'm very
    generous on bashing them. However, they
  • 14:56 - 15:05
    also talked at some point they changed the
    whole context of Julian and WikiLeaks from
  • 15:05 - 15:10
    a target of collection to target of
    destruction. Well, for sure, some things
  • 15:10 - 15:18
    happened there, but this is not what I can
    go into detail. So far, no detailed report
  • 15:18 - 15:26
    on it. However, the project I talked about
    that Julian would get legally out of the
  • 15:26 - 15:33
    embassy as a member of Ecuadorian
    diplomatic staff is coming together in a
  • 15:33 - 15:40
    very it's like the most critical time
    frame also, according to the article, and
  • 15:40 - 15:46
    that we were able, that we were going
    through with the lawyers to log files of
  • 15:46 - 15:51
    the embassy security service, the videos
    and so on. So, we have been able to
  • 15:51 - 15:58
    identify the timeframe and the timeframe
    is the 16th of December 2017 until the
  • 15:58 - 16:04
    26th. This is the most critical timeframe,
    because, around the 16th, he was
  • 16:04 - 16:09
    officially not only declared a diplomat,
    there was a publication in the Ecuadorean
  • 16:09 - 16:16
    like a legal "judge set" or what it's
    called. So like the legal publication in
  • 16:16 - 16:22
    Ecuador to have him declared. He had,
    around the 21st, the head of the
  • 16:22 - 16:28
    Ecuadorian intelligence visiting him. So,
    that means he also had the diplomatic
  • 16:28 - 16:33
    passport. It was fully, formally done.
    There was a discussion of the process and
  • 16:33 - 16:40
    this meeting on the 21st I had mentioned
    it in my talk last year was the most high
  • 16:40 - 16:46
    priority conversation that ever happened
    in the embassy, at least as far as we know
  • 16:46 - 16:52
    from the witnesses of the security service
    who later revealed to the court that they
  • 16:52 - 16:57
    had been, yeah, instructed on behalf of
    the CIA to do other things than to protect
  • 16:57 - 17:02
    the embassy, but to spy on Julian. So this
    meeting on the 21st was extremely
  • 17:02 - 17:09
    important to the Americans, and we do know
    roughly that the whole story ended through
  • 17:09 - 17:17
    various means, but mainly to pressure on
    the on the Ecuadorian government in Quito,
  • 17:17 - 17:24
    in Ecuador, around the 26th when they
    actually called the plan off because the
  • 17:24 - 17:29
    Americans knew about every detail,
    including how he would get out of the
  • 17:29 - 17:35
    embassy, in what type of car and so on.
    And they also then at some point denounced
  • 17:35 - 17:43
    his diplomatic status after pressure from
    the United States government. And in this
  • 17:43 - 17:51
    time frame, I make here a little bit of an
    event matrix, which is completely
  • 17:51 - 17:57
    incomplete. I have to say this many things
    missing for legal, for other reasons. You
  • 17:57 - 18:01
    know, some things are just too wild. The
    U.S. government, for example, would never
  • 18:01 - 18:06
    break into a European law office, right?
    We can. That's bullshit. That's conspiracy
  • 18:06 - 18:12
    stuff. They don't do these things. They,
    of course, comply with the law. However,
  • 18:12 - 18:19
    we have some events that are funny and fit
    well into our picture, for example, that
  • 18:19 - 18:25
    after on the Saturday, the lawyers from
    Spain and England were sitting together
  • 18:25 - 18:30
    with Julian that two days later, in
    preparation of that meeting on the 21st
  • 18:30 - 18:35
    came the fire protection service into the
    embassy. And those who seen my talk last
  • 18:35 - 18:40
    year know that one of the fire
    extinguishers placed in the meeting room
  • 18:40 - 18:47
    had the main role for holding a bug.
    However, I'm coming to that than we have
  • 18:47 - 18:55
    this observation that every day in this
    time frame, there was a silver gray Ford
  • 18:55 - 19:03
    car with sometimes two, sometimes three,
    sometimes more people sitting outside the
  • 19:03 - 19:09
    embassy, seeming obviously to wait for
    instructions. Something to happen. I'm
  • 19:09 - 19:16
    coming to that and we have other things
    going on at that timeframe, that kind of
  • 19:16 - 19:23
    fit into the frame. So on the, ... I
    selected three events to talk about them a
  • 19:23 - 19:28
    few minutes. The first is this fire
    extinguisher. 19:26 Here you see it and in
  • 19:28 - 19:33
    on the right picture, you're seeing the
    black bottom of the fire extinguisher.
  • 19:33 - 19:38
    That's where they had a magnetic little
    box with an audio microphone, I mean,
  • 19:38 - 19:44
    audio bug in it, that seemed to have not
    only recorded, but also transmits the
  • 19:44 - 19:53
    conversations, in life, to the American
    intelligence outside. Funnily, this, ...
  • 19:53 - 20:01
    on the 18th comes a company, not even from
    London, the Iceland Fire Protection
  • 20:01 - 20:07
    Limited, a guy and goes into all the rooms
    in the embassy to check the fire
  • 20:07 - 20:13
    extinguishers. Now, according to the
    lawyers, there had been intensive
  • 20:13 - 20:20
    discussions with the employees, and David
    Morales, the owner of U.C. Global, the
  • 20:20 - 20:25
    company that was originally hired to
    protect the embassy, is known to have
  • 20:25 - 20:30
    talked to his people and emailed them,
    mentioning that the Americans want also
  • 20:30 - 20:36
    that all the other rooms at some point to
    be bugged and want access to the fire
  • 20:36 - 20:42
    extinguishers. We don't know exactly what
    happened in that discussion to the last
  • 20:42 - 20:49
    detail, but we know that on the 18th came
    this British company. And this is a little
  • 20:49 - 20:55
    bit crass, and I think there will be many
    other embassies of other countries who
  • 20:55 - 21:00
    will be interested to check if they don't
    are maybe serviced by the same company.
  • 21:02 - 21:10
    Now, the other nice event that I selected
    is the night from the 23rd to the 24th.
  • 21:10 - 21:17
    So, the very morning, early morning hours
    on the 24th of December morning, Christmas
  • 21:17 - 21:24
    morning, so to say, where you have the
    three guys sitting in the car and on the
  • 21:24 - 21:29
    back seat on the right side, someone reads
    the briefing notes, I will show you the,
  • 21:30 - 21:36
    oops. Don't tell me this. Hopefully it
    works. OK, great. The video doesn't work.
  • 21:38 - 21:45
    I'm sorry. I can't show you the video
    today. Maybe courtesy of the CIA, however.
  • 21:46 - 21:50
    So, the guy in the back seat browses
    through the briefing notes, and we have
  • 21:50 - 21:58
    been able to at least read part of what
    they have been, ... what this briefing
  • 21:58 - 22:05
    notes say. It says this page that we have
    been able to read mostly was in the event
  • 22:05 - 22:10
    of loss of camera coverage. So, there was
    a process to be established when the
  • 22:10 - 22:15
    surveillance cameras in the embassy
    wouldn't deliver pictures anymore and the
  • 22:15 - 22:20
    guys outside a sitting partly, according
    to the article, the British police guys
  • 22:20 - 22:27
    with guns, eight people, maybe without
    guns, would be ready to jump into the
  • 22:27 - 22:34
    scene. Crash diplomatic cars, shoot into
    tires of cars that would try to bring
  • 22:34 - 22:40
    Julian away, and so on, indicates which
    way he would walk out. And so there's a
  • 22:40 - 22:46
    few key words here that I just want to
    emphasize in the event of lots of camera
  • 22:46 - 22:51
    coverage standards, then there is talking
    about something called GS7 that might be
  • 22:51 - 22:56
    code-word for CIA or something different.
    MET is clearly the Metropolitan Police.
  • 22:57 - 23:03
    That's a normal acronym in England, and
    they talk about the context of the
  • 23:03 - 23:10
    operation Kudo. So we looked up the word
    Kudo. Kudo is something saying roughly
  • 23:10 - 23:18
    like friendship. So, we have to assume
    this was a joint British American
  • 23:18 - 23:23
    operation, and that's exactly what the
    Yahoo article describes. However, what it
  • 23:23 - 23:30
    does not describe is the legal
    implication, because this could well be
  • 23:31 - 23:36
    one of the most or best well documented
    breaches of the Vienna Convention,
  • 23:37 - 23:43
    basically saying that the premises of the
    mission shall be inviolable, which is,
  • 23:45 - 23:49
    normally means that you shall not bug, you
    shall not, you know, put surveillance
  • 23:49 - 23:53
    devices, cameras, hidden cameras or
    whatever. You shall not hack into the
  • 23:53 - 24:00
    camera surveillance system, of an embassy,
    asked to host state and so on and so that
  • 24:00 - 24:05
    intelligence do it and that the CIA was
    doing it. In the case of the Ecuadorian
  • 24:05 - 24:10
    embassy, it's already part of a Spanish
    lawsuit. However, the dimension is a
  • 24:10 - 24:15
    little bit different, as the British
    police seems to have access have had
  • 24:15 - 24:20
    access to that video surveillance, and
    that is potentially legally different
  • 24:20 - 24:27
    thing. That will be subject to some legal
    steps going on in the next weeks and
  • 24:27 - 24:37
    months. The third event I selected for
    relaxation issues is on the last day. You
  • 24:37 - 24:42
    see here two police officers carrying an
    astonishing amount of eight cups of coffee
  • 24:44 - 24:52
    for a relatively small police car. That
    gives you an idea what was going on there.
  • 24:52 - 25:00
    The British police being prepared to set
    aside the conference room is about in the
  • 25:00 - 25:07
    area where there was a trash bag on the
    left side is so giving you an idea of how
  • 25:07 - 25:14
    intense the British police was also on the
    scene outside. So, what is currently
  • 25:14 - 25:20
    happening with this and a lot of other
    material? Is, well, checking the violation
  • 25:20 - 25:28
    of the Vienna Convention then parsing
    together many of the events and observing
  • 25:28 - 25:34
    patterns and trying to see those patterns
    at other places. As we, of course, still
  • 25:34 - 25:38
    do not know the full scope of the
    operations of the CIA and other
  • 25:38 - 25:43
    intelligence agencies against WikiLeaks.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg, what
  • 25:43 - 25:50
    happened in London, but also to see where
    other journalists were other citizens,
  • 25:50 - 25:55
    where other governments, organizations,
    whatever were may be targeted with same or
  • 25:55 - 26:02
    similar ways and methods. So this brings
    me to the second part of my little talk.
  • 26:03 - 26:10
    The question what needs to be done? So,
    and I tried to first invite you to a
  • 26:10 - 26:18
    little reflection because, as some of you
    might know, Julian Assange presented the
  • 26:18 - 26:25
    WikiLeaks project in the CCC Congress, end
    of 2009. If I recall correctly, he made
  • 26:25 - 26:32
    another talk in 2010. This was very much a
    project of the hacker community and it was
  • 26:32 - 26:37
    highly welcomed at the time because it was
    like combining the idea of Freedom of
  • 26:37 - 26:42
    Information, which had always been and
    sharing information which had always been
  • 26:42 - 26:49
    the spirit of the hacker scene with those
    of journalists and democratic, yeah, think
  • 26:49 - 26:55
    tanks to ensure that we would have
    actually an informed society, not just
  • 26:55 - 27:00
    this very weird concept of an information
    society which does not really say anything
  • 27:00 - 27:05
    between the relationship between
    information and society. But an informed
  • 27:05 - 27:10
    society is a clear picture, I think. And
    therefore, the better wording. So, the
  • 27:10 - 27:14
    other question is, of course, is what?
    What does this whole thing? This what we
  • 27:14 - 27:21
    have been reading in the article and what
    we're now a step by step here revealing
  • 27:21 - 27:26
    and starting to understand. What does it
    tell us about the United States
  • 27:26 - 27:34
    government's prosecution, of DOJ, Pompeo,
    the CIA, all these people? How (competent)
  • 27:34 - 27:42
    are they really to decide to society that
    is based on an informed electorate, like
  • 27:42 - 27:48
    the people making decisions based on
    knowledge and voting based on knowing
  • 27:48 - 27:54
    what's going on? And that's slightly
    disturbing, I think what we what this
  • 27:54 - 28:02
    thought brings us to. So, here's my little
    ideas, and then I will just come with some
  • 28:02 - 28:09
    questions to the audience. So, yeah, what
    can we do and what maybe should we do?
  • 28:09 - 28:14
    This is, here, just some ideas of mine.
    While we could, of course, hope that the
  • 28:14 - 28:20
    United States, the people of the United
    States, the government of the United
  • 28:20 - 28:26
    States would understand that core
    democratic value was attacked here when
  • 28:26 - 28:34
    going against Assange, WikiLeaks and so
    on. So in theory, we should, we could hope
  • 28:34 - 28:42
    that the self-healing or the self
    understanding and mechanisms of the United
  • 28:42 - 28:47
    States society will stop this madness
    because they will see, Hey, wait a moment,
  • 28:47 - 28:54
    this is our constitutional First Amendment
    that we are attacking here indirectly. And
  • 28:54 - 29:00
    if we don't have like the publishers,
    right, journalists and publishers right to
  • 29:00 - 29:07
    inform the public, then we have nothing.
    Well, the second, obviously, level would
  • 29:07 - 29:16
    be to dissolve the CIA. Yeah, I mean,
    Kennedy had this idea before, shatter it
  • 29:16 - 29:23
    and the wind and so on. But I don't know
    how at least this shall continue with that
  • 29:23 - 29:31
    budget, with the information operations,
    with the influence operations, where
  • 29:31 - 29:37
    actually "wag the dog" is just a tiny
    little aspect of it. Because the question
  • 29:37 - 29:43
    is how shall a democratic government work
    as long as there's an intelligence agency
  • 29:43 - 29:48
    that has all the knowledge about every
    person involved in all the little
  • 29:48 - 29:54
    compromat boxes and the aspect of how to
    nudge and how to influence and how to
  • 29:54 - 30:00
    manipulate and so on? Well, and then the
    third aspect outside the United States,
  • 30:00 - 30:06
    here in Europe, is of course, the question
    of how can we immunize those people,
  • 30:06 - 30:11
    entities governmental organization and so
    on where it still seems possible to
  • 30:11 - 30:17
    understand that this is core, that
    journalism and the right to inform the
  • 30:17 - 30:23
    public by making also information and
    material public that governments,
  • 30:23 - 30:29
    corporations or whoever would like to keep
    secret? But if that documents are playing
  • 30:29 - 30:35
    a role in informing the public in the
    public interest and it must be allowed to
  • 30:35 - 30:42
    make it public, and that was what's called
    the Fourth Estate or the right of the
  • 30:42 - 30:49
    press to inform the public. Yeah, how can
    we do that? That of course, more a
  • 30:49 - 30:55
    question. And and here's my list of
    questions that I will want to address to
  • 30:55 - 31:02
    the audience. We should have 20 minutes
    and maybe a few seconds for a discussion
  • 31:02 - 31:10
    of this. So guys, how do we get Assange
    out of jail? Ladies and gentlemen, how do
  • 31:10 - 31:15
    we do it? How do we stop the
    criminalization of journalism and those
  • 31:15 - 31:20
    who ensure access to information in the
    public? Is this in order to achieve an
  • 31:20 - 31:27
    informed society? That's our duty I fear.
    How do we ensure a value driven community?
  • 31:27 - 31:34
    So, as everybody knows, the CCC had always
    different factions. The political and the
  • 31:34 - 31:40
    technical factions then came at some point
    a party, the event and hedonism aspects
  • 31:40 - 31:46
    all together. And we had a great fun time.
    But I'm not sure that we also took care of
  • 31:46 - 31:53
    ensuring that we are value driven
    community all the way. I mean, when we
  • 31:53 - 32:00
    look at this year and the NSA methods
    that's obviously some kind of atmosphere
  • 32:00 - 32:05
    between those who work in the I.T.
    security industry and those who maybe then
  • 32:05 - 32:10
    take offers from the intelligence
    community. And that's not the spirit of
  • 32:10 - 32:17
    the hacker ethics, and that's not just the
    spirit of the CCC, and that's not the
  • 32:17 - 32:24
    spirit of an informed society that people
    with money who instrumentalized technology
  • 32:24 - 32:30
    people and. You don't have to like look at
    the CIA as the most crass, may be entity.
  • 32:30 - 32:37
    It starts with the so-called Open
    Technology Fund. I mean, we had various
  • 32:37 - 32:44
    years the ability to observe how the Tor
    project had its issues between the two
  • 32:44 - 32:49
    worlds of the US government having this
    and that ideas and our community having
  • 32:49 - 32:55
    other ideas of how anonymization works.
    And I'm not sure we can say that our
  • 32:55 - 33:03
    values have been preserved and we have
    ensured that OTF finance projects do not
  • 33:03 - 33:09
    serve just some funny governmental
    interest. And when it was relabeled partly
  • 33:09 - 33:17
    from internet freedom to circumvention
    measures that I think gave already some
  • 33:17 - 33:25
    ideas on what could go wrong if, yeah,
    governments start to fund projects of the
  • 33:25 - 33:32
    so-called hacker scene. Yeah, so, this is
    my questions to you guys. How do we get
  • 33:32 - 33:39
    him out? How do we ensure our society
    stays intact and democratic? And how do
  • 33:39 - 33:47
    we, as a scene, avoid to be corrupted by
    governmental money and funny interests?
  • 33:47 - 33:55
    And I hope the moderation cannot take over
    and provide some answers from the
  • 33:55 - 33:59
    audience.
  • 33:59 - 34:08
    Herald: All right, thank you very much,
    Andy, for your talk. Let's see how this
  • 34:08 - 34:15
    will work. Thank you, also, for your
    questions to the audience.
  • 34:15 - 34:22
    Andy: I will try, in the meantime, to fix
    this video and make it this one minute, 23
  • 34:22 - 34:24
    seconds video.
    Herald: All right.
  • 34:24 - 34:30
    Andy: I can show it, but maybe you can
    start to take the questions.
  • 34:30 - 34:38
    Herald: Sure, yeah, and yes, so let's say
    to the audience, please put your possible
  • 34:38 - 34:46
    answers to Andy's questions in the chat. I
    will. I will follow them as good as I can.
  • 34:46 - 34:51
    And so that we can have a lively
    discussion. I know it might be a little
  • 34:51 - 34:57
    bit limited because in a presence
    Congress, it would be easier to interact
  • 34:57 - 35:06
    with it with each other. And. But yeah,
    let's see that. And but first of all,
  • 35:06 - 35:18
    maybe Andy, if you have the capacity for a
    question from the interwebs. Then the
  • 35:18 - 35:24
    question would be, how did you obtain the
    pictures and camera footage from the
  • 35:24 - 35:30
    embassy?
    Andy: Well, this has to do with a legal
  • 35:30 - 35:40
    analysis of this material. I'm myself, by
    the way, you could switch on the video if
  • 35:40 - 35:47
    you wanted. Well, I am myself accusing the
    Spanish company to have spied on me and
  • 35:47 - 35:52
    other colleagues, and so I'm part of that
    legal proceedings. As as such, I'm also
  • 35:52 - 35:58
    helping the lawyers to obtain the
    technical evidence. There was a shitload
  • 35:58 - 36:04
    of digital evidence confiscated that
    needed forensic examination and so on. So
  • 36:04 - 36:10
    this is material accessible to those who
    have been affected by the illegal
  • 36:10 - 36:15
    activities performed by U.C. Global and
    others.
  • 36:15 - 36:26
    Herald: All right. Then there's also the
    question of are there pictures of the four
  • 36:26 - 36:32
    or the people inside it, but I think
    that's pretty much a part of the video you
  • 36:32 - 36:34
    have just shown or is there something
    different?
  • 36:34 - 36:39
    Andy: Is it? I'm sorry, I don't see what
    is being broadcasted. Do you have access
  • 36:39 - 36:46
    to my sliding-to-the-streaming-laptop?
    Herald: OK, yeah. I guess that
  • 36:46 - 36:51
    Andy: This is the full video where you can
    see the guys reading the briefing notes on
  • 36:51 - 36:56
    the back seat. We have been able to zoom
    in at (unintelligible) and so on.
  • 36:56 - 37:02
    Herald: And yeah, where the question was,
    where did you get it from? But I think you
  • 37:02 - 37:06
    already answered that in the previous
    question, because ...
  • 37:06 - 37:10
    Andy: That's no answer to my question.
    What should we shall do, guys? laughing
  • 37:10 - 37:17
    Herald: Yeah. So, we have one line of
    feedback, for example, that, uh, how to
  • 37:17 - 37:23
    get Julian Assange out of jail. One
    proposal is "ask our foreign minister,
  • 37:23 - 37:29
    give Julian German citizenship", make it a
    "Chef-Sache". So, part of the part of the
  • 37:29 - 37:34
    chancellor. Uh, that's what it means in
    German, in every German activities.
  • 37:35 - 37:40
    Question mark? Would that work?
    Andy: Mm hmm. It's being worked on. I
  • 37:40 - 37:46
    mean, the new we have a new foreign
    minister who is a woman from the Green
  • 37:46 - 37:55
    Party, and she seems to be very much a fan
    of United States German relationship. I'm
  • 37:55 - 38:03
    not sure how much she sees about a lack of
    values that the U.S. government represents
  • 38:03 - 38:10
    watching the history of the U.S.
    Constitution and so on. But I'm sure there
  • 38:10 - 38:19
    is a lot work to be done there, and the
    Green Party used to be also interested in
  • 38:20 - 38:26
    a society and stand for human rights and
    so on. So I would say, yes, it's
  • 38:26 - 38:34
    definitely it is a path to go.
    Herald: All right. There's also a
  • 38:34 - 38:51
    question, are you so be you personally
    still under surveillance? Do you know?
  • 38:51 - 39:00
    Andy: Well, I've taken some legal and
    technical measures, and the German
  • 39:00 - 39:10
    authorities have some evidence I provided
    to them still in their analytical labs and
  • 39:10 - 39:19
    so on. It's a little bit unrealistic to
    assume that the Americans would not
  • 39:19 - 39:26
    continue watching those who surrounded
    Assange and WikiLeaks it as a member of
  • 39:26 - 39:31
    the Wau Holland foundation, and we finance
    the, ... we financed many of the
  • 39:31 - 39:37
    publications and things or aspects of the
    publication. So, it would be unlikely that
  • 39:37 - 39:43
    the US lost interest. But at least for the
    moment, they seem to behave a little bit
  • 39:43 - 39:50
    more, especially after the Yahoo article.
    I think it became very obvious also to the
  • 39:50 - 39:58
    German authorities what was going on. So
    the article was helpful. It's just that
  • 39:58 - 40:04
    some aspects of the article are just pure
    rubbish and disinformation that try to
  • 40:05 - 40:11
    smoothen it up a little bit.
    Herald: Mm hmm. All right. May I ask you
  • 40:11 - 40:20
    to, maybe, just also bring up again the
    slides with your questions, so we will
  • 40:20 - 40:22
    have to put
    Andy: Just a second.
  • 40:22 - 40:32
    Herald: I think this will help to spark a
    bit of discussion also.
  • 40:32 - 40:49
    Andy: Sure, good point. ...Seem to need to
    browse through. Here are the questions.
  • 40:49 - 40:57
    Herald: All right, thank you. And, uh.
    Another answer to how to get him out of
  • 40:57 - 41:09
    jail is "Keep talking about Julian Assange
    and the public attend vigils". I don't
  • 41:09 - 41:15
    know what that means. Actually, uh, write
    articles, write comments. Call the
  • 41:15 - 41:22
    Department of Justice, talk to
    politicians. Communicate." So this is this
  • 41:22 - 41:25
    is one answer. Like, like keep, keep the
    word out.
  • 41:25 - 41:30
    Andy: Yeah. I mean, let me briefly try to
    interact with whoever gave that
  • 41:31 - 41:39
    suggestion. I think it's well known that
    in Germany, in France and some countries,
  • 41:39 - 41:43
    there was quite some campaigns going on at
    the last months, quite some people on the
  • 41:43 - 41:51
    street acting for Julian and a series of
    events and so on. Also, a little bit in
  • 41:51 - 41:57
    England, but England seems to be a very
    tough under two aspects. The one is that
  • 41:58 - 42:03
    they don't have that of a self
    understanding of a country with a
  • 42:03 - 42:08
    constitution guaranteeing freedom rights,
    You know the United Kingdom does not have
  • 42:08 - 42:13
    a constitution and it doesn't have what's
    called constitutional rights. It does have
  • 42:13 - 42:21
    similar statements, but they are not as
    clearly defined and as a value system of a
  • 42:21 - 42:27
    democratic society. So, most British
    people, if you ask them to do something
  • 42:27 - 42:31
    for freedom of press like the press, these
    assholes, what should I do something for
  • 42:31 - 42:36
    them? It's all very complicated and a bit
    polarized over there. So but then the
  • 42:36 - 42:43
    other aspect is that the UK government, to
    say it bluntly, there's quite some people
  • 42:43 - 42:49
    who say that the UK government does what
    the US government says. And in this case,
  • 42:50 - 42:56
    there is no way, according to that
    interpretation, that you can avoid the UK
  • 42:56 - 43:02
    government handing Julian over to the
    Americans. So, the problem needs to be
  • 43:02 - 43:09
    addressed in the US. And Germany and other
    European countries have a different
  • 43:09 - 43:15
    history, obviously, and I'm at least sure
    that if Julian would be in Germany, I'm
  • 43:15 - 43:19
    not sure he would be not having any
    issues, but there would be a different
  • 43:19 - 43:27
    discussion. However, the question how the
    so-called old Europe or the continental
  • 43:27 - 43:33
    Europe that is now even more ignored,
    after a bitter exit from the Brits, can
  • 43:33 - 43:38
    have any influence here in England, I
    would say forget it on the US. It's more
  • 43:38 - 43:45
    complicated. But for the moment, it seems
    that similar to what happened to Julian
  • 43:45 - 43:51
    and WikiLeaks in our own community, that
    there was quite a time-frame when the
  • 43:51 - 43:57
    reputation to character assassination had
    took on so much that actually he was seen
  • 43:57 - 44:05
    as as a persona non grata more or less.
    The United States political atmosphere is
  • 44:05 - 44:12
    even more complicated and more polarized
    between left, right and nuts, and whatever
  • 44:13 - 44:22
    that, it seems a very tricky task to bring
    some sense into that discussion. As long
  • 44:22 - 44:29
    as you have the military intelligence
    apparatus and Hillary Clinton saying,
  • 44:29 - 44:35
    like, "hang him on the highest trees". So
    there seemed to be quite, and that's also
  • 44:35 - 44:42
    mentioned in the Yahoo article, a revenge
    aspect of the United States legal system
  • 44:42 - 44:52
    here. Not only Pompeo, that want to, yeah,
    basically, to kill Julian as a symbol that
  • 44:52 - 44:58
    no one should ever try to reveal the dirty
    laundry of the United States. So yeah,
  • 44:58 - 45:05
    this is a bit tricky and we will need more
    ideas and how to also initiate a better
  • 45:05 - 45:14
    discussion in the United States, maybe.
    Herald: Mm hmm. Related to that. Another
  • 45:14 - 45:20
    answer we got was, for example, of how to
    how to stop the criminalization of
  • 45:20 - 45:28
    journalism. And maybe also other question
    of these questions is a vote for the right
  • 45:28 - 45:39
    people. And uh, while it probably can help
    for some things, and what comes to my mind
  • 45:39 - 45:52
    is, I mean, indeed, in this and also other
    prosecutions and trials, very often there
  • 45:52 - 46:00
    are some, uh, some ancient laws involved
    on those grounds. People could get
  • 46:00 - 46:08
    prosecuted, right? Isn't it, for Julian?
    There is. There is the Intelligence Act,
  • 46:08 - 46:12
    or what's the name of...?
    Andy: It is called the "Espionage Act". So
  • 46:13 - 46:19
    basically what the U.S. prosecution does
    is there's a so-called secret grand-jury
  • 46:20 - 46:25
    that might have even more investigations
    running against Julian, and WikiLeaks than
  • 46:26 - 46:31
    that what has been put into the
    extradition inquiry to the U.K. at this
  • 46:31 - 46:39
    point. However, that one already accuses
    him to violating the Espionage Act, not
  • 46:39 - 46:45
    declaring him having spied for another
    country, but funnily having revealed
  • 46:45 - 46:51
    secrets to the American public and to the,
    of course, public of other countries.
  • 46:51 - 46:57
    That's what they call espionage. That's a
    little bit ridiculous. And it is, however,
  • 46:57 - 47:05
    even more of a concern watching the fact
    that a U.S. journalist would be able to
  • 47:05 - 47:10
    claim the protection of the First
    Amendment, the right of freedom of speech
  • 47:10 - 47:15
    and the right of publishers and
    journalists and so on. However, they deny
  • 47:15 - 47:21
    that because he's not a U.S. citizen. So
    the US partially exports their laws and
  • 47:21 - 47:28
    says, Well, you violate that against this
    American law called the Espionage Act, but
  • 47:28 - 47:34
    they do not grant him the protection of
    the U.S. legal system. And that is, to
  • 47:34 - 47:43
    call it hypocrisy is, I'm sorry, is too
    nice. This is just really fucked up.
  • 47:43 - 47:58
    Herald: Mm-Hmm. OK. Shouldn't, try to get
    rid of, maybe like, the Espionage Act or
  • 47:58 - 48:02
    or at least...
    Andy: I am all for it. Dissolve the CIA,
  • 48:02 - 48:08
    get rid of the Espionage Act. I'm all for
    it. I just fear that at least part of our
  • 48:08 - 48:14
    community will have to become, I don't
    know, lawyers, lobbyists. Maybe we need to
  • 48:14 - 48:21
    look for better communications with the US
    hacker scene and see if they can kindly
  • 48:21 - 48:27
    get into political consciousness mode and
    get for a moment distracted from
  • 48:27 - 48:35
    technology developments into society
    development and see what can be done to
  • 48:35 - 48:41
    ensure that in the future, we have the
    right as a citizen to know what's
  • 48:41 - 48:44
    happening in our name by government and so
    on.
  • 48:44 - 48:54
    Herald: Mm hmm. All right. Yeah, because
    for example, I remember a couple of years
  • 48:54 - 49:01
    ago, I don't know whether it was in the
    2013, the year of Snowden or later where
  • 49:01 - 49:11
    we also had a talk at Congress about the
    German post surveillance, for example,
  • 49:11 - 49:24
    where back in the,... I think it was the
    seventies. Uh, where we had the "Nato
  • 49:24 - 49:32
    Truppen-Statut", got into play. But there
    was a verbal note from the from the forum
  • 49:32 - 49:38
    to the German government who told the
    allies, Well, we will be part of the "Nato
  • 49:38 - 49:45
    Truppen-Statut" and all but don't be
    afraid you will be able to have these
  • 49:45 - 49:56
    powers. And as before, under Allies law,
    you could say, and only after this, uh,
  • 49:56 - 50:01
    the information the the investigative
    journalism of I think it was a historian.
  • 50:02 - 50:09
    (...His toleration?...) Exactly. Mr
    (...Fischer-Bot...). But uh, only after
  • 50:09 - 50:17
    that came out, uh, to government had to
    say, OK, well, we want to stop this. And
  • 50:17 - 50:24
    now this at least officially is over.
    Andy: Well, I mean, it's not really over.
  • 50:24 - 50:30
    Germany is still a member of NATO, and
    these regulations are still in place. And
  • 50:30 - 50:35
    just to have it said, I mean it. The vault
    7 revelations. If you look at the
  • 50:35 - 50:44
    publications of WikiLeaks, you will see
    the modules the CIA had developed to make
  • 50:44 - 50:50
    software, a Trojan, a malware, whatever
    kind of manipulations, to look like, it
  • 50:50 - 50:58
    was coming from a specific country
    timezone. So to make a malware or attacks
  • 50:58 - 51:02
    on it systems make them look like they
    come from Russia, China, Iran, you name
  • 51:02 - 51:09
    it. North Korea issued a list as well. And
    this is the scenario we're looking at
  • 51:09 - 51:14
    already. If you if you look at the news,
    what happened the last years, we had all
  • 51:14 - 51:19
    these attacks, it was Russia, it was
    China, it was Iran, It was North Korea
  • 51:19 - 51:27
    must probably have forgotten some other
    people who it was blamed on. But the
  • 51:27 - 51:36
    discussion that the CIA would be having
    the tools to make attribution misleading
  • 51:36 - 51:41
    to a country. So what's called a false
    flag operation in military terms is
  • 51:41 - 51:49
    creating a scenario where exactly we as a
    NATO member are now looking into military-
  • 51:49 - 51:56
    like conflicts again, because the media
    environment has been so poisoned with, "it
  • 51:56 - 52:01
    was those guys and those guys hacking our
    I.T., our parliament, our, you name it".
  • 52:02 - 52:11
    This worries me. It worries me that we as
    a technical community have not spent more
  • 52:11 - 52:16
    attention to avoid the media environment
    was able to like, create again just
  • 52:16 - 52:23
    paintings of enemies and create an
    atmosphere where war between countries
  • 52:23 - 52:29
    seems possible again. And that's something
    that's deeply disturbing to me. And I
  • 52:29 - 52:34
    think this is something we have to work on
    more as a community also to ensure that
  • 52:35 - 52:42
    technical knowledge is not abused for
    like, yeah, political games by withholding
  • 52:42 - 52:47
    information.
    Herald: Mm-Hmm.
  • 52:47 - 52:52
    Andy: And what I should mention is, yes,
    we are only having about two minutes left
  • 52:52 - 53:00
    here, something I didn't agree to be
    available for a little discussion and a
  • 53:00 - 53:07
    whistleblower tent that's somewhere in
    that virtual world. And the audience will
  • 53:07 - 53:11
    hopefully find it.
    Herald: All right.
  • 53:11 - 53:18
    Andy: So then or whatever it's called.
    Herald: Uh, sorry, and once once again,
  • 53:18 - 53:19
    what's the name of the of the whistle
    blowert tent..
  • 53:19 - 53:26
    Andy: Of the dog whistle blower village?
    Herald: Okay, all right. So go out to the
  • 53:26 - 53:35
    whistleblowers tent. And so after after
    this talk. And so maybe one last question.
  • 53:37 - 53:41
    Is it possible to sue the UK government
    for the treatment of Assange before the
  • 53:41 - 53:47
    European Court of Human Rights?
    Andy: And it's a little complicated.
  • 53:49 - 53:56
    What's happening right now is I don't
    think other talks have covering it is that
  • 53:56 - 54:04
    Julian tries to avoid his extradition and
    there is specific aspects of this which he
  • 54:04 - 54:12
    might at some point be able to address at
    the European Court of Human Rights. That,
  • 54:12 - 54:18
    in theory, could stop his extradition, but
    only if specific criteria are met, met and
  • 54:18 - 54:25
    so on. How much now the UK government will
    listen to it after the Brexit, and so one
  • 54:25 - 54:31
    is its end due to political atmospheric
    reasons. That's a little tricky. The
  • 54:31 - 54:36
    European Court of Human Rights is not part
    of the EU agreement, so it doesn't matter
  • 54:36 - 54:43
    that the UK stepped out of the EU, but it
    is still an instrument of Europe and not
  • 54:43 - 54:53
    of the friendship between the United
    States and Great Britain. So. The
  • 54:53 - 55:00
    atmosphere of the British government does
    not suggest at this moment to be overly
  • 55:00 - 55:07
    sensitive to anything coming from
    continental Europe to say it carefully.
  • 55:07 - 55:15
    And that's pretty bad. All right, so,
    yeah. Thank you, Andy, for your for your
  • 55:15 - 55:21
    talk. For everyone who's interested in to
    form a discussion with you, please go over
  • 55:21 - 55:27
    to the whistleblower. Talk on this channel
    at cos it's on the stage. The next talk
  • 55:27 - 55:35
    will be reproducible building network
    infrastructure by Astro, which will start
  • 55:35 - 55:45
    at 9:30 p.m.. So tune in for the next
    course on a talk as well. And that's it
  • 55:45 - 55:51
    for now. Thank you.
  • 55:51 - 55:53
    rc3 postroll music
  • 55:53 - 56:00
    Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
    in the year 2022. Join, and help us!
Title:
When Wikileaks bumped into the CIA: Operation Kudo exposed
Description:

more » « less
Video Language:
English
Duration:
55:58

English subtitles

Incomplete

Revisions Compare revisions