36C3 - Human Rights at a Global Crossroads

36C3 preroll music

Robert Tibbo: Thank you for your patience
tonight. It was a little bit hectic in my

getting here on time. So I do apologize.
But thank you for all being here tonight.

Myself and the Snowden refugees, Mr.
Snowden, we really appreciate your

attendance here. The people watching the
livestream and the support for my

clients. And just very briefly, in case
there are a few people out there, I met

Mr. Snowden in 2013, June in Hong Kong.
And that's when he made the globally

significant disclosures of the Five Eyes
electronic mass surveillance program. And

it was at that time that I represented Mr.
Snowden in Hong Kong. And thereafter. And

it was also at that time that I asked for
brave adults, incredibly courageous adults

who exercised decisions of conscience to
provide Mr. Snowden with a refuge, with

shelter, humanity, compassion and caring.
And to introduce them again. Briefly,

Vanessa, on the left, if you're facing the
screen from the Philippines to her right.

To her left. A military deserter from Sri
Lanka. Nadeka from Sri Lanka. And on the

far, far left supporting from Sri Lanka.
And these are the three children. On the

bottom left is Keana, and beside her is
her stepsister, Satyamdi. And support is

holding a little boy Dinath.
Applause

What what I'm gonna do this evening before
providing a brief update on the Snowden

refugee status. I'm gonna go through a bit
of law, I think, at this stage. There's

been such marginalization, demonization,
confusion about what refugees are and

what, you know, what is required to
qualify as a refugee. I'm gonna go through

a number of international law and at the
same time. Beyond that, I'm gonna go

through what's happening globally and in
my view, where we're really at a crisis in

terms of authoritarian leaders
democratically elected and ignoring their

constitutions, violating them, blatantly
ignoring international law. So very

briefly, I've just listed some of the most
crucial or core conventions that protect

human rights from the U.N. Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to the UN

Convention Against Torture. And of course,
the UN Convention relating to the Status

of Refugees and its protocol. I'm also
mentioning the Rome Statute of the

International Criminal Court, because this
is a court where this court itself is now

being attacked by states around the world,
nations around the world. I'm also

mentioning customary international law,
which is an international norm, where due

to practice, the practice becomes so
pervasive that countries no need, no

longer need to sign up to an international
treaty. That treaty becomes part of

customary law. It doesn't have to be
written anywhere. Now, the core document

I'm going to discuss is the Refugee
Convention and Article 33 and some are sub

paragraph one is the core. It's the core
part of refugee protection and that is no

state shall expel return. And the legal
word is refoul means to return. So no

state is going to should return any
refugee. And that also includes any

refugee claimant out of their jurisdiction
where their life or freedom are at risk,

and that the life and freedom also
includes any serious harm. And there

are five fundamental grounds to secure
refugee status, race, religion,

nationality and political opinion. These
are the classical four. There's a fifth

called social group. And it's not a
closed end category. It's actually open

ended because as you know, over time, we
recognize that different human rights

abuses occur affecting different social
groups that don't fall into the four

classic categories. So just a review
just to interpret Article 33. As I

mentioned, liberty and life also includes
serious harm. It's a forward looking test.

So if an asylum seeker or refugee crosses
a border into another country, they don't

need to prove that they actually suffered
any harm or any threats or any risks or

any threats or harms or loss of liberty or
serious harm before they leave their

jurisdiction into another jurisdiction.
That person has to show they're unable or

unwilling to seek help from the police or
the state. And that's quite often the case

because of corruption or the state itself
is the persecutor. And there must be a

nexus to one of the five grounds. I'm
going to focus on political opinion and

political opinion can be expressed by an
individual verbally through their physical

actions. The presence with others and
political opinion is connected to the

right of freedom of expression. And one
thing I would stress is that freedom of

expression under the law is not just your
right to say something. It's also your

right to receive information, to be
present, to be able to hear and listen or

record. And the freedom of expression
connects fundamentally to freedom of

association, assembly and mobility. Lot of
people misunderstand that persecution for

political opinion is the persecutor. Is
that the opinion comes from the persecuted

person. In fact. The Refugee Convention
clearly states, it is the opinion of the

persecutor that counts. So, for example,
I've had clients from South Asia. One case

was of a farmer who just had no political
opinion, but was at a rally in a public

place and just was standing on a corner
and was unaware there was a political

opponent standing near him. Those in power
saw my client. Inferred that my client

must be supporting the opposition. And
from that day onward, persecuted him,

burned down his house, destroyed his farm
and he fled for his life. So the legal

test is the opinion or the perception of
the persecutory. Now, I'd like to go to

the social group category. This is really
important, because this relates to some of

my clients and in particular the Snowden
refugees. And a social group is a

particular group of people that are
connected or linked through a shared

characteristic or there's a perception by
society that they, you know, having

certain characteristics that they form a
group. These characteristics are typically

historical and relate fundamentally to an
individual's identity and conscience.

Usually they're unchangeable. And if
they're not unchangeable, that person

should not have to change those character
characteristics, because they are

fundamental to their identity or
conscience. If they can be changed, they

still should not be changed because
they're linked to that person's

fundamental exercise of human rights. The
Snowden refugees fall into the social

group category. Aside from having claims
with Hong Kong and the Canadian government

under political opinion for supporting
helping Mr. Snowden, they form the unique

social group that I think everyone in the
world recognizes. They are the Snowden

refugees and the social group are
individuals that protect whistleblowers.

That's the social category.
Applause

One thing I'll stress is that we hear
about whistleblowers and public support

for whistleblowers, not protection. Public
support for journalists to carry out their

duties. Quite often working or reporting,
what whistleblowers want to disclose. But

there is not enough in, in terms of legal
applications, there's not enough in terms

of public awareness, the importance of the
average individual on the street, anybody

on the street who may one day be faced
with, what the Snowden refugees were faced

with and make extraordinary decisions of
conscience to help a whistleblower. I'm

mentioning the CAT Convention, the United
Nations Convention of Torture. Torture is

a non-derogable right. It's not to be
tortured is a non-derogable right. There

is no circumstances that exist that can
justify any state or private party

torturing an individual. And I also
mentioned the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights and 3, 3 core
rights here are the right to life and that

it should not be arbitrarily taken.
Tortures repeated here, but also cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. And this is a a non-derogable

right. No one should ever be subjected to
this. And then the last one I'm going to

mention, I apologize, is liberty and
security in particular, arbitrary arrest

and arbitrary detention. And as we see
globally today, countries around the world

where there's mass protests against
government corruption, government abuses,

a lack of freedoms. Governments are
arbitrarily using arbitrary arrest and

detention to make people disappear. To
shut them up. No need to mention or point

to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. And in there, as well as Article

31 of the Refugee Convention, that every
refugee claimant has an absolute right to

cross a border if they're at risk of
losing their liberty, their life or

serious harm. And unfortunately, we're
living in a world today where countries

and around the world are putting up walls
that are real, walls that are virtual.

Because they do not want to address or
comply with their international

obligations to help the most vulnerable.
And what nation states are doing is

they're using propaganda, inaccurate
information, false information to

criminalize legitimate asylum seekers and
refugees, to try to categorize them as

illegal immigrants, economic migrants. And
with all of this, we're seeing an erosion

of international law and constitutional
law. And one area where nations have been

very clever is they've been using the
strategy of constructive refoulement. Now

refoulement means to return. And in Hong
Kong, for example, the government achieves

constructive refoulement, which basically
means, they create an environment that

makes it intolerable for an individual to
remain in that jurisdiction. And that in

the end, that person's mental and physical
integrity is so compromised, they make a

decision to return their home country to
take a risk. So whether they're going to

live or die or lose their liberty or not.
So in Hong Kong, for example, the

government does not provide full
humanitarian assistance. They criminalize

work. There's no education allowed for
adults. And employment is prohibited so

that there's no way for the individual to
be making money or participating in a

meaningful way in society. And in the end,
that person becomes so compromised, they

decide to leave. The governments create
these circumstances to violate their

constitutional rights, international equal
rights, by making them leave, by making

the circumstances intolerable. You're
seeing a global trend of criminalization

and ill treatment of asylum seekers.
You've seen similar legislative and policy

and propaganda frameworks in Austria,
Denmark and Hungary. We've all seen the

asylum seekers who've lost their lives
crossing the Mediterranean. In the United

States we've seen separation of children
separated from families, a tactic used by

the US government. The children held in
detention centers, deprived of blankets,

soap, toothpaste, a lack of monitoring and
care for the welfare and health of these

children. Some have died and more
recently. And this is a tactic also used

by the Hong Kong government, but in a
different way. Asylum seekers who are

outside the U.S. jurisdiction, the
immigration officers put incorrect

addresses recorded in the system, so that
they cannot receive legal notifications

from the U.S. government. You've seen the
same thing in Hong Kong. I know firsthand.

I've seen asylum seekers go to the
immigration and removal assessment

section, try to hand in a document stating
that they're raising a claim as a

protection claimant for refugee status or
torture. And there are security guards at

the door that basic that tell them go
away. It's not acceptable. Not immigration

officers. And if they do manage to submit
raising their refugee asylum claims, I've

I've had too many clients, who've been
told you're not using the right words to

raise a claim that you're afraid you're
gonna die or you're afraid you're going to

be hurt. So these are tactics that deny,
what I would describe, the due process

rights of these votes, this vulnerable
groups. And I do want to mention Thailand

in terms of the treatment of asylum
seekers. And that they have found mass

graves in Thailand has been complicit in
human trafficking of the Rohingya. Now,

there's a few quotes I'd like to to read,
and this is from the former U.N. high

commissioner for Human Rights. And it was
right for us -not just to have remembered

Mandela's greatness, but to have almost
unconsciously contrasted it with all the

narrow politicians, who continue to
proliferate across the face of the world.

Authoritarian in nature, many of them are
wily political in-fighters, but most are

of the thin mind and faint humanity, prone
to fan division and intolerance. And just

for the sake of securing their political
ambition, while some do this more openly

than others, all are well aware what they
practice comes at the expense of

vulnerable humans. And the U.N. high
commissioner goes on to state to them, I

say you may seize power or stubbornly hold
onto it, by playing on and stoking the

fears of your followers. You may
congratulate yourselves for this and you

may think yourself so clever for it. But
we know all you've done is to copy the

behavior of previous generations of once
strong but ultimately catastrophic,

leaders and politicians. Yours will, in
the end, become a mouse like global

reputation, never the fine example of the
leader you think you are, and never even

close to a Mandela.
Applause

To deserve global respect, you must begin
to follow his example---committing to the

spirit and letter of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Hong Kong

does not recognize the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Hong Kong

doesn't recognize the UN convention
relating to the Status of Refugees.

Michelle Bachelet, the current U.N. high
commissioner, she stated early this year

"the report outlines our efforts to assist
States to uphold all human rights, at a

time when humanity faces many serious
challenges. These include the existential

threat of climate change; technological
developments: unbearable civilian

suffering in multiple armed conflicts,
displacement, youth unemployment,

structural economic injustices, xenophobia
and hate speech, and -- a focus on my

statement today --- gross inequalities".
Me specially continues focusing on these

inequalities and I'm just going to read at
the bottom. Yet in several cases they are

being met with violent and excessive use
of force, arbitrary detentions, torture,

even alleged summary extrajudicial
killings. People are protesting. People

are protesting at the behavior of
government and authoritarian leaders. And

I put my mind to how to describe what's
going on. And in the best way I've been

able to describe it is, that these
authoritarian leaders, democratic,

elected, have become unhinged,
disconnected from from the populace. And

most recently, especially as talked about
global protests, and she stated just a few

months ago, I fear that we are moving
farther away, further away from the global

solutions to the global problems due to
two clear trends that are taking us in the

opposite directions. Today, in places with
very different circumstances, level of

development and political situations,
we're seeing an outpouring of popular

discontent and mass protests or their
suppression with the firm hand of the

state in every region. And Hong Kong is
included in here and I'll just part move

forward. We see the desperate need for
dialog. The use of unnecessary and

disproportionate force
against people holding dissenting views

and arrests of individuals exercising
their rights to freedom of expression and

peaceful assembly can only exacerbate
tensions, seriously undermining the space

for dialog. In my view, we are in crisis.
There is a global crisis. What I thought I

would do is to give some tangible examples
through the casework I do. Narendra Modi.

His platform has been Hindu nationalism,
and that's been at the expense of

religious minorities and ethnic minorities
in India. In particular, the Muslim

population. And what Modi has done and
this is this is a thread that runs through

what happens in other jurisdictions,
including Hong Kong, is when you have

nationalism and minorities are targeted by
the government or they're discriminated

against. Third parties in the private
sector or related to politicians act on

their own. And when the state allows that
to happen, we call that state

acquiescence. And in India, that's what
we're seeing. Back here. Recently, there

was a deprivation of citizenship of 1.9
million people in Assam state, an

arbitrary act by Modi's government. And as
of last week, there was a new bill enacted

into law, granting citizenship to Hindus,
Buddhists and Christians from certain

Southeast Asian countries. But it excludes
Muslims and it also excludes the Sri

Lankan Tamils, for which there is a huge
number of refugees, who had fled from Sri

Lanka. And what Modi has done is all
contrary to Article 15 up to 28, and

that's prohibition of
discrimination based on religion, race and

place of birth. The tactics used by
governments today in doing what Modi has

done, it's being used all over the world.
The executive branch for the legislator

legislature passes legislation that's
unconstitutional and it may take a year or

two or three years before a court strikes
it down. But during that gap period, those

people who are discriminated against or
persecuted suffer. Often they have to flee

their homes. They had to flee their
country or they're hurt or they're killed.

So this is another way that democratically
elected leaders are utilizing the

government and the legal system to strip
away constitutional rights and rights

under international law. Sri Lanka,
extraordinarily good by Rajapaksa, accused

of war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide, was elected as Sri Lanka's new

president just a month ago. In 1987 to
1988, 1990, he was the commanding officer

in charge of the Mottola district, where
about eight years ago they found mass

graves. In 2009, he was accused of war
crimes, crimes against humanity and

genocide. At the end of the war bombing,
hospitals, civilian hospitals where they

were Tamils, actually judicial killings,
summary executions. And the

platform of Rutter Rajapaksa was based on
ethnicity and nationalism. And the

Philippines. Duterte came to power in
2016. It was on the platform that he would

carry out mass extrajudicial killings
against drug addicts and drug traffickers.

He had done that when he was mayor of
Davao City in southern Philippines. And in

June 2016, when he took power as president
of the country, he did exactly that to

over 20.000 Philipinos executed. The
president, the Philippines, the government

have threatened NGO, human rights
activists, ethnic minorities, Catholic

Church and even U.N. special rapporteurs.
And stunningly Duterte was actually

filmed. This was televised, where he in
his campaign and basically committing

crimes against humanity. He said "If
Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would

have. He said, pausing and pointing to
himself. Hitler massacred three million

Jews. There's three million drug addicts,
there are. I'd be happy to slaughter them.

And a year later, Donald Trump
congratulated Duterte on his war on drugs.

U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of
indigenous people, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz.

She fled the jurisdiction because the tar
tape put her on a her name on a terrorist

list. This is about state acquiescence to
human rights violations when a government

puts an individual's name on a list. And
what happened in the Philippines? Private

parties took the law into their own hands
and executed a number of people,

assassinated them. So that was the fear
for the UN special rapporteur, and she

fled the jurisdiction. Complaints were
filed with the International Criminal

Court for crimes against humanity against
Duterte. And also this UN special

rapporteur, Agnes Kellerman on summary and
extradition killings. Both the

International Criminal Court prosecutor
was threatened by Duterte and also the UN

Special Rapporteur. Most significantly,
the ICC prosecutor was threatened with

arrest, if she came to the Philippines to
investigate. She'd be assaulted and she'd

be killed. She'd be fed to the crocodiles.
Philippines officially withdrew from the

International Criminal Court, but that
still does not protect President Duterte.

Duterte may have committed possible war
crimes. I've mentioned a few here,

particularly calling for horrific crimes
to be committed against women. And the

People's Republic of China has been a
great supporter of Duterte today, and it's

understood that, because of the provisions
under the Rome Statute for the

International Criminal Court, that Duterte
would not be prosecuted. China would use

its veto power in the International
Criminal Court to prevent any prosecution

of him. Again, this is an example of how
states are interfering with violating or

making international law useless. The
People's Republic of China, the most

pressing example are the current
concentration or detention camps in China.

Of the Uighur Muslims, and despite the
China cable, satellite images and

witnesses, China denies that they've
arbitrarily arrested, arbitrarily detained

and disappeared over a million from
[unaudible] Xinjiang provice.

I'd like to mention Hong Kong
very briefly, and Hong Kong has had a

history of violating its own constitution
and international law. From the Sami al-

Saadi extraordinary rendition, where Hong
Kong deprived Mr. Saudi of all his due

process rights and its protections under
international law and handed him over the

UK and U.S. government on a rendition
flight in 2004. And that was the incident

that put fear that made, that gave me
great concern when Mr. Snowden was in Hong

Kong, that the Hong Kong government could
not be trusted to uphold its constitution,

to uphold international law. 2014 Occupy
protests, Ken Tsang, a politician. He was

hold tied, hands tied behind his back and
his legs and tortured by the police, and

it was caught on video and these officers
were convicted, but then they compared

them, the police compared themselves to
being persecuted as the Jewish people had

during the Holocaust. And that's on video
that's been publicly recorded. And 2018

Allen Lee and Ray Wong fled Hong Kong in
fear for their liberty and their and their

safety, and they were granted refugee
status by the German government, which was

the right thing to do. And this caused a
lot of outrage of the Hong Kong government

and Beijing. And right now we have the
Hong Kong protests, including arbitrary

arrest, arbitrary detention, cruel and
inhuman or degrading treatment and

punishment, torture, enforced
disappearances, cases of rape by the

police and actual extrajudicial killings.
I'm going to skip this. I still have

clients, my clients in Hong Kong, Snowden
refugees, and fortunately this March,

March of this year, Vanessa O'Dell and her
daughter Keana safely arrived in Canada,

having been granted refugee status.
Applause

This was a seven and a half year battle,
seven and a half years, and one thing I'll

say is that so many people gave up, so
many people said to me, you're not going

to win. It's taken too long. What? Why
don't you just move on with other cases?

Anyways, I believed that we'd be
successful. And we have.

Applause
Keana, in this photo, this is Keana on her

father's lap. And her father is still in
Hong Kong with her brother and sister.

Satyam de and Denath, and we would like to
see this family being reunited in Canada

and we're asking Canada to act fast, as
fast as possible. She has a sister who

only thinks about in Hong Kong something,
who only thinks about being reunited with

Keana in Montreal. And at this time, with
the with the police abuses, the government

abuses in Hong Kong Sethumdi she has been
traumatized and she suffered permanent

damage. The whole family is afraid. They
live in fear and they are at heightened

risk with the lawlessness in Hong Kong.
The lawlessness by the Hong Kong police. I

just want to share this picture, which was
taken by Jane Russell in August this year.

This is the Hong Kong Police Tactical Unit
in Fanling. And you'll notice that there's

no Hong Kong flag. And Jane Russell,
photojournalist, pointed this out. And it

was at that point we all realized that the
hand of Beijing was apparently acting

directly inside Hong Kong. Directing the
Hong Kong police. What's happened in Hong

Kong, is the same thing that you see in
Sri Lanka, in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India,

where the government allows the police to
commit abuses state sanctioned or the

police commit abuses and the government
turns a blind eye. And that amounts to

state acquiescence. And what's happened in
Hong Kong is, what you see classically in

Sri Lanka or the Philippines, where third
private parties take the law into their

own hands and go after innocent civilians
or peaceful protesters. Hong Kong has

become a very dangerous place today. And
my clients lives are at risk, at a

heightened risk. I thought I would share
this image taken by Keana's father of

[inaudible] during the protests.
And this is what these children are

growing up in this kind of environment
right now. Where really where they should

be, is in this environment. And this is
Vanessa and Keana in Montreal, Quebec, not

just earlier this month. Now, what I'd
like to do in saying that is I'd like to

invite Mr. Snowden to join us. Dom. Check.
Edward Snowden: Can anyone hear me? Thank

you.
Applause

We have very little time. So let me first
give thanks to Robert Tibbo. I know it's

not always fun for Rudy to sit through,
what is effectively a long lecture about

what's wrong with the world. But these
things matter and it's important that we

remember how they get better. I've been
thinking a lot this year and writing my

book, Permanent Record and after about the
state of the world and the direction of

our future.
laughing

I trust that each of you will understand
that in 2019 this was not an especially

enjoyable activity, but it's necessary.
And one of the bright spots for me in this

increasingly dark world has been the fact
that people like you, that CCC has

supported these families over the last few
years. They made a difference for me.

Think think about, what would have
happened if I wouldn't have been able to

get off the street. Think about what might
have happened to me. I think about the

fact that I wouldn't be able to talk to
you today and all these years since the

book that I wrote would not exist. It
might seem like a small thing, you know,

to you, to it to give a donation to help
out. But I believe that it really has

genuinely changed the future of these
brave families in a positive way. And so

when I'm thinking about everything that's
broken in the world. It got me thinking

about the lessons that can be taken from
them and how they fit into a larger

framework. We have pretty limited time
here. So I'm going to do something a

little bit unusual to try to summarize and
read a little passage from the book. What

makes a life? It's more than what we say.
More even than what we do. A life is also

about what we love and what we believe in.
For me, what I love and believe in the

most is connection, human connection and
the technologies by which that's achieved.

Those technologies include books, of
course. But for my generation, connection

has largely met the Internet. Now, before
a lot of you recoil, knowing how broken

the Internet, the toxic madness that's all
over it. I understand that for me, as it

was for, I believe many of you, when I
came to know it. The Internet was a very

different thing. It was a friend and a
parent. It was a community without borders

or limit. One voice and millions, a common
frontier that had been settled, but not

exploited by diverse tribes living
amicably enough side by side. Each member

which was free to choose their own name
and history and culture. Everyone wore

masks. And yet this culture of anonymity
through polyanomy produced more truth and

falsehood, because it was creative and
cooperative rather than commercial and

competitive. Certainly there was conflict,
but it was outweighed by goodwill and good

feelings. The true pioneering spirit.
You'll understand why I say, that the

internet today is in many ways
unrecognizable. It's worth noting that

this change has been a conscious choice,
the result of a systematic effort on the

part of a privileged few. The early rush
to turn commerce into e-commerce quickly

led to a bubble and then, just after the
term of the millennium, to a collapse.

After that, companies realized that people
who went online were far less interested

in spending than in sharing, and that the human
connection, the internet made possible,

could be monetized. If most of what people
wanted to do online, was to be able to

tell their family and their friends and
strangers what they were up to and to be

told what their family, friends and
strangers were up to in return, then all

companies had to do to figure out how to
put them was figure out how to put

themselves in the middle of those social
exchanges and turn them into profit. This

was the beginning of surveying capitalism
and the end of the Internet, as I know it

now. It was the creative web that
collapsed as countless beautiful,

difficult, individualized web sites were
shuttered. The promise of convenience led

people to exchange their personal sites,
which demanded constant and laborious

upkeep. As you are known for a Facebook
page and a Gmail account, the appearance

of ownership was easy to mistake for the
reality of it. But few of us understood it

at the time. None of the things that we go
on to share would belong to us anymore.

The successors to the emerge commerce
companies that had failed because they

couldn't find anything to sell, that we
were interested in. They now had a new

product to sell, and that product was us,
our attention, our activities, our

locations, our desires, everything about
us, that we revealed knowingly or

unknowingly, with or without consent, was
being surveilled and sold in secret so as

to delay the inevitable feeling violation
that is for most of us arriving now. And

this surveillance would go on to be
actively encouraged and even funded by an

army of governments greedy for the vast
volume of intelligence that they would

gain from these practices. Aside from logins
and financial transactions, hardly any

communications were encrypted in the early
twenty aughts, which meant that in many

cases governments didn't need to even
bother approaching the companies that were

running these platforms in order to know
what their customers were doing. They

could just spy on the world without
telling a soul. And now I ask you, is this

what the world should look like and how
did this come to be? We were there. We

were watching, and we thought we
controlled the system. We thought we ran

the system. We thought it was our
Internet. But here we are. Surveillance,

after all, is less about safety than it is
about control. And when you look around at

the union of technical and political
systems today, it seems that they intend

less to serve us than for us to serve
them. And it's funny talking about this at

CCC, because to me it it feels like a
hack. You know what is hacking, I'm sure,

all you guys have different definitions.
But in my definition, it's not just

programing. Of course, we wouldn't see
terms like bio hacking. Hacking is about

rules and the distance between how they
are believed to operate and how they

operate in fact. Hacking for me means,
coming to understand a system better than

its creators or its operators and using
that understanding to produce impossible

results, unexpected behavior. Thanks so
much. Now we'd like to think about hacks

in a positive light, but in the case of
these last few decades, it's our society

that was hacked. It is the whole of our
network. It is the Internet itself, that

they exploit. And you see that. That's the
thing. The choices that we make and the

things that you do. They have power and
doing nothing, that that's a choice. Now,

a lot of us like to think it's a willing
choice. We'd like to think that we're the

sole captains of our own destiny. And
that's the way it's supposed to be. That's

the way it was intended. That's the way we
designed the system. And yet the system

today. Somehow the actors within it spend
an enormous amount of energy trying to

make you forget, that the things you do
affect the outcome. They'll tell you not

to worry about it. That that it's not so
bad after all. You know, it could be

worse. But I say to you, it could be
better. And every time we hear those

words, that's what we need to say. Every
system in history, even the most powerful,

has been subject to change. And every hack
that is performed against us, can face a

patch and more in all of the trouble to
which these people have gone, to to make

the people broadly forget their own power,
they have forgotten something that I think

is fundamental. We can hack back. They run
the system. They may have won today. But

I've been thinking about this, look, we
all know the history and it has been a

dark time. But I'm here today in front of
you to say that tomorrow will be ours.

Change is coming and it is coming from
people who pay attention. People who care.

It will come from people like you, who
took the time out of the day, out of their

lives. The money out of their pocket to
travel. The time, the minutes of your life

to be here today, standing in solidarity,
talking, learning, sharing to show that

this broken world could very well be
better. We can change it. We can change

everything. One system, one rule at a
time. Thank you.

Applause
I just hope it's not kind of I no longer

have audio, so I'm afraid I won't be able
to.

Robert Tibbo: Ed, we've got Vanessa on the
screen, half the screen with you right

now. And she's, uh, she's on video live
from Montreal. And can you...

ES: Just if it's not clear I can't do
anything even so, I'm a bystander now. I'm

going to go to the stream and hopefully
Robert and Vanessa can help us for the Q&A

RT: Ed, do you want to do a Q&A right now
or do you want to. They've lost that. All

right, so, yeah. So Vanessa's in Montreal
and I've invited here her here today. And

so why don't we just start with a Q and A?
This is this is really it's Vanessa's

first year after a decade and a half of
being under very difficult circumstances.

Applause
Herald: Also, you know the drill. We have

microphones in the halls. Please line up
behind them. If you have question for a

Robert Tibbo or Vanessa and hopefully Mr.
Snowden will join us again, I think we're

working out the background. Do we have
questions from the Internet so far? Yes,

that is the case. So, Signal-Engel, please
give us a question.

Signal-Angel: Do you think that
whistleblowing could have prevented

fascist received regimes in the past and
that it will be more important in the near

future for the same reason?
RT: Questions for me, I'm assuming.

Whistleblowing has always occurred in the
past and it has brought about change.

Historically there, you know, there are
recorded cases, but the difficulties in

the past were the lack of protections.
Quite often in whistleblowers had to leave

the jurisdiction. They would end up being
killed. And and really, it's only in

recent history and in particular with with
Edward Snowden's whistleblowing, that

governments around the world, including
the European Union as a whole, recognize

that there needs to be change. There needs
to be more protections. But we're also

seeing that nations are providing enhanced
whistleblower protections. But on the

commercial civil side and they're still
lagging significantly, where there's

whistleblowing outing governments that
behave egregiously or criminally, as in

Mr. Snowden's case. So more than ever,
whistleblowing will remain and will

continue to be a crucial part of ensuring
government accountability and

transparency. But for whistleblowers to
step forward, a couple of things have to

happen. Society needs to be stepping up
and demanding government that there be

protections for whistleblowers,
particularly like Mr. Snowden. And

secondly, we've seen the government go
after with the Snowden refugees and made

their lives intolerable. There exists in
existence intolerable in Hong Kong and the

delay of so many years to get Vanessa and
Keana on the screen now into Canada and

the other families here in Hong Kong, who
are suffering right now, was the the

global leadership saying, don't protect a
whistleblower, because this is what's

gonna happen to you. So I hope that
Vanessa and Keana's arrivaled refuge in

Canada to safety and security, is an
example for the whole world that there

will be more whistleblowers. But there
also needs to be people in the general

population who say, look, we need to
support them and to take steps to make

whistle, make sure whistleblowers can
remain safe, but also when democratic

systems to put pressure on government, to
make changes and whistleblower

protections.
Signal-Angel: Thank you a lot for the

detailed answer. We have some more
questions. But before we continue with

them, I would like to ask all of you to
stay seated and stay quiet. Some people

are leaving already the hall. Please
don't. And please stay quiet so we can

enjoy the last minutes of this lovely Q
and A. You can also ask questions to

Vanessa, who played a crucial role in
sheltering Mr. Snowden back in Hong Kong.

And for now, I would like to hear a
question from microphone number three.

Mic 3: Hi. I'm [inaudible] Hi, I'm a Pakistani
journalist in exile. So thank you for the

talk. It's been super inspiring. My
question to Vanessa is that looking back

now that you everything that you suffer.
Would you say that if you were given a

choice, that you could do this all over
again and not do this at all? Would you?

Which one would you choose?
Vanessa: If I had the chance again [inaudible]

Applause
Herald: Can we have another question from

the Internet?
Signal-Angel: It's a question for Vanessa.

How are you settling down in Montreal and
has the community received you well?

Vanessa: inaudible
Herald: Thank you for this answer. Do we

have more questions in the hall? I sat at
a microphone and I can't see you right

now. Please wink if you do. I think that's
not the case. Signal-Angel. Do we have one

more question from you? Or wait?
Microphone number two, please go ahead.

Mic. 2: I don't know which one of you can
answer that, but what's causing the delay?

Why is the families still separated? Is
there any indication why Canada doesn't

process the search for asylum?
RT: *To an Angel: I want to put this on

last. OK?
RT: The Snowden refugee cases, it has been

a long delay and it's been too long. And
at this stage, the Canadian government is

is progressing with the cases and these
are complex cases. At this stage, that's

all I can really say. We all want the
other families supporting the DEKA, the

two children, Kiena's brother and sister.
And we want to treat this, the former

soldier, and we want them in Canada. We
want them in at the earliest time. And

this is really the only solution. It's the
right solution for the these extraordinary

people. Applaus
Mic 2: Thank You.

Applause
So apparently we have Edward Snowden

back.The connection is established again.
There is a question for him, then he's run

to a microphone because that's your only
chance. That's probably the last question

of this session. Microphone number four,
what's your question? Qualified?

Mic. 4: Yes, I think so. What an aura.
Thought. Thank you, everybody. My question

quick. So, Mr. Snowden, you said we should
put pressure and make change. And do you

think we should pressure our own
government locally or that we pressure our

government to pressure other governments?
So, for example, which sanctions through

these countries that Mr. Tibbo mentioned?
That's a quick.

ES: Yes. I think we need to look at where
can we be the most effective. This is a

difficult question, I think, for people
who are in advanced democracies. And

because you see all the terrible things
that are happening all over the world, you

see the situation in Russia, you see the
situation in China, you see the Russia

situation in Iran and North Korea. And of
course, where you can make a difference, I

think you always should act. Even in my
case, there have been things where I have

been criticizing, of course, the Russian
government, even though I live here, even

though it's dangerous to do. I don't think
there's much likelihood that the Russian

government is likely to listen to me. I
don't think there's much likelihood that

the Russian people will listen to me in
that circumstance, because I'm not

Russian. I don't speak the language. I
can't persuade them. But you can persuade

the people that you're around. You can
persuade the community. And that's really

when we talk about hacking, when we talk
about systems. Right. The whole thing that

they used against us was, that they
thought, we thought, you know, the system,

our democracy, our methods of voting, our
methods of policing the Internet, of

managing and sharing our communications
worked in a certain way. And how they were

actually being used, how they were
actually being implemented, how they were

actually being operated in many cases
against us. That was not clear in secrecy.

In many cases was responsible for this.
But when you talk about where you can make

the most difference, it's in this room.
It's the friendships you make that you

take with you. It's the networks of
solidarity and influence that you build,

the sharing of skill sets and cooperation
that will allow you to influence people

even outside your areas of expertise,
going to politics, going to local

officials, using the local officials to
get the state officials, using the state

officials to get to national, using the
national to get to the international. What

we have to do is we have to take a hard
look at how the world actually operates

today. Not how we wanted to operate, not
how we think it operates, but to measure

it, to see how it's actually function and
to see where the money goes, to see who's

using it, to see where the influence is.
And in many cases, to seize control of

that via whatever means that we have
available to us. This is where we get the

technical systems that, the people in this
room have an extraordinary amount of

influence over that. We may not have in
the political realm. If you make a phone

call and that gets used around the world,
you can provide the same guarantees, the

same protection to someone in China, to
someone in Russia that they have in

Germany, because technology can be
agnostic to its use. And if we make these

carve outs, if we make these sort of
emissions, if we make concessions to

power, to system, to government, to
institutions, we have to think about how

they will be used. The more rules in the
system, the more lines of complexity there

are, the greater the unseen attack surface
that can be used against us. We need to

design for tomorrow. But there is no time
to wait. We need to be working today.

Applause.
And if I could just say one thing. Thank

you, everyone, for your patience and for
bearing with us through all of this. I'm

gonna shut up and give this back to
Robert, but everybody asks, you know, how

can I make a difference? This is all very
good. It's very abstract. Again, be

opportunistic. Look at where you can make
a difference right now. In the case of

these families, we are almost across the
finish line. We had been in this fight for

years and we are about to win. We can do
it with your help. So please, if you can

support them, do. Thank you.
Applause

Herald: I have to extend a huge thanks to
you, Mr. Robert, to go to you. Edward

Snowden, thank you for coming on our
stream and thank you, Vanessa, for coming

to us as well. This is, this was a lovely
event and Mr. Snowden asked you to help.

And this is how, this is how, Robert, if
you like to say some last words?

RT: I would. This has been a long fight.
It's we're in the eighth year now, and

there's no way that we're gonna get to the
finish line unless donations are made.

Whatever you can help with, if it's if
it's a small amount of change, that's

fine. If you can donate something more
significantly. Of course, that's going to

help. But it's all about food, rent,
utilities, and also for Vanessa and Keana

and Montreal. We, the NGO, is under a
legal obligation to continue to support

them financially for the first full year,
that they're there in Montreal and they do

need that support. The one thing all
stresses the climate has been a big shock

for Vanessa and Keana, and it costs a lot
of money to get winter jackets or, you

know, jackets for autumn shoes, boots. So
it's been at times it's been rough for

them. But one solution is the donations
that make sure they have warm clothes and

food, etc.. And of course, the clients in
Hong Kong that they have almost no

government humanitarian support. So if you
can donate. We continue to donate. We all

appreciate this. And thank you so much.

Applause

36c3 postroll music

Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2020. Join, and help us!