*36c3 preroll music*
Herald Angel: OK. So our next speakers are going to talk about the charges against
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, which is a topic that's very close to our hearts. I
guess, most our hearts at least. And it's also something that's incredibly important
for us as a community and it's a threat against the entire tech community,
minorities, human rights advocates, activists. So a lot of people you
should really care about. And the speakers are Renata Avila, who's the executive
director of Fundación Ciudadanía Inteligente. Yay!
*applause*
Renata Avila: Well done. Herald Angel: Naomi Colvin, who is the UK
program director at Blueprint for Free Speech - which is much easier to
pronounce, thank you so much - *supporting applause and speakers laughing*
Herald Angel: And Angel Richter, who's a director and writer and artist and a lot
of things, and she specializes on whistleblowing and digital dissidents, and
one of the plays, which is transmedia play. You might know, it's called Super
Nerds. So a round of applause for our amazing speakers. And let's begin the talk.
*applause and cheering*
Angela Richter: Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for
coming here tonight. And thank you also for our introduction by the moderator, a
very charming guy, as I thought. And also good to give a little bit lightness to
this - for me very serious issue actually - that we are here. Like you said, I am
an artist. And for me, WikiLeaks was very important. And also Julian Assange,
because somehow they were the entrance for me as an artist to this community that
became very dear to me in the last 10 years. And I attended some of the
Congresses in the last 10 years and learned a lot about things that I never
knew before. So I owe a lot, actually, to WikiLeaks and also to this community,
because it opened so many things for me up. So, yeah, this I wanted to say first
and then I will also show a little piece of a recent play I did in Zagreb. It's by
Slavoj Žižek, who is also supported by Julian. And it is not so much... It is
related to our topic. It's a little bit like a mood board that we want to show
before we start.
Richter: And like he said, this will be about how we can support WikiLeaks. And of
course, Julian Assange, which is also a very personal matter for me, because he
became a very close friend in the last 10 years who I also owe a lot. And on the
other hand, I think it's not only about him and his life, which is serious enough,
but I think that this thing that is happening to him, that he's being charged
with the Espionage Act - this is the first time that something like this happens to a
publisher - is a threat to free speech to all of our freedom. And it means that
actually everyone who speaks truth to power can be kidnapped, extradited to the
US and then end up in prison for the rest of his life. And I think that this is -
for this community also - a threat, especially because we all know that we are
trying to be secure. Secure free speech is very important issue here. So, yeah. We
will go into the details in the course of this week. Thank you very much.
*video with soft, slow, but deep orchestra music*
*music gets more, dramatic and continues*
*voices of the speakers are not heard, music continues*
*applause followed by short silence*
Renata Avila: We will try to be brief to leave enough time for questions, because
we think that you have a lot of questions on this case and so we will alternate and
discuss different issues, starting with: What are we at now?
Richter: Yes. On the left side, you see Belmarsh Prison. This is the high security
prison that Julian is housed at the moment. And what I find very chilling
about it,is that it's actually a place where usually you find terrorists,
murderers and mafia people and so on. So, high criminals. And he is only at the
moment being held there for extradition reasons, which is also extreme, because he
is 23 hours a day alone in his cell, which is actually isolation. And then the next
picture shows a typical room in a prison in Virginia, where Chelsea Manning is held
at the moment, again. And I think, it must be something like 10 months in the
meantime, that she is again in prison, because she is not willing to testify
against Julian Assange in front of a grand jury.
Avila: So raise your hand if you have less than 30 years. So -
Richter: OK. Thank you. Avila: - that says a lot, because it means
that probably your first encounter with WikiLeaks was just only 5 years ago. And
you were a teen, when many things were happening. And we know that today is Young
Hackers Day, so it was important for us to quickly go through the important
publications that WikiLeaks published in the last decade. Why? Because there are
many misconceptions since 2016 and a lot of misinformation followed the election of
Donald Trump. And so we want to show here and it is, of course, not a detailed list.
You can find a detailed list on WikiLeaks, on Wikipedia - two concepts at the
beginning were all of them mixed, actually. And the same principles followed,
I would say. But what I want to show here is the most impactful publications by
WikiLeaks, that changed the course of history in many places and also -
highlighted in green - their political persecution moments. Not only against
Julian Assange, but against other people that were closely connected to these
developments in the last decade. So 2008 was a very exciting year for WikiLeaks
because I think that - even if it was created before - was the year that it got
mainstream. Why? Because it changed elections in Kenya by exposing
extrajudicial killings. And it really changed the outcome of the election. Like
people realized that one of the candidates was involved in these extrajudicial
killings of young people. And that really impacted deeply the African nation. Not
only that, you may have forgotten about that, but he was the first publication of
the batch of emails from Sarah Palin. And also, there were lots of publications in
Latin America. That's how I became familiar with WikiLeaks and very excited
about that. Petrol Gate, the biggest scandal of corruption in Peru. And so,
publications involving Guerillas and False Positives in the Colombian war. It has
started, like, from the places from Africa, from Latin America and also the
US. On 2009, I will say that the highlight and why WikiLeaks became very busy, well,
it exposed a lot of the censorship lists out of China and Iran and other countries.
The Internet was not what it used ... it is not what it is today. Censorship was
tangible. You will see a blocked website. And now, as we will discuss later, now
it's a different form of censorship. And so WikiLeaks at the moment was the
guardian of this free internet and also it was their big moment in Iceland. And the
big opportunity for WikiLeaks as well. In a jurisdiction to become not only a
publisher, but a designer of a new ecosystem of freedom of information. So it
exposed the corrupt involving the financial scandal there. And it got
really, really exciting there. Things, like the EME initiative and all the things
that are now part of our history. Then 2010 and then 2010 was the year when
things started to get really complicated. Why? Because instead of torching countries
in the periphery or torching developing countries. So it's OK. It's always cool to
expose there by human rights violations of an African or Latin American person in
power. But when you torch the center of power, when you torch the most powerful
military in the world, you get into trouble. So on 2010, Collateral Murder
video was published, The Afghan War Diaries, Iraq War Logs and cable gate. And
that was the moment when Julian Assange was arrested. It was not arrested because
of the publications. It was just a few days after the publication started that he
was arrested on behalf of Sweden. And no charges, it was not because of charges. It
was because of ongoing investigation. 2011, the Gitmo files, spy files, the spy
files. The first batch of publication, 160 companies involved in mass surveillance,
private mass surveillance. That was Pre- Snowden, remember that. And that, at that
moment Julian only spent a little in the same prison that he is now, only a few days.
Then he was released on bail. But from that moment, from the moment that he put,
he presented himself - he surrendered himself to the police, he never hide -
he voluntarily went there when he was requested. From that moment, his life
became a hell of surveillance. He was, not only, had a tag on his ankle following him
everywhere, but he had the most strict bail conditions that you can imagine. He
could not even give a talk in London because he will have to go back. He had
ridiculous hours to report himself to the police. He was watched all the time. He
had to report to the police on a daily basis. Someone suspected of terrorism was
enjoying more relaxed conditions than someone who wasn't charged. And that's a
constant. In this case and other politically motivated cases, you are not
the rule, you are the exception. And exceptionally harsh the system treats you.
In 2012 struck for e-mails and also the Syria files. Syria files is a publication
that is not often mentioned, but it was very relevant. Exposing all the dealings
of the Syrian elites. And Julian is granted political asylum in Ecuador. He
could have requested political asylum much earlier, but he wanted to go through all
the legal process in the UK and all their appeals. And it was his last chance to
exercise that right. Then 2013, the TPP text and Spy Files 2. And that was the
moment when Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. As Snowden is granted
asylum in Moscow as well. And Jeremy Hammond is convicted and sentenced to 10
years in prison. Jeremy Hammond is the alleged source of the Stratford, the
Global Intelligence Files. Then 2014 TISA, Spy Files 3 and the updated TPP text, then
2015, the Sony archives, the Saudi cables. Actually, that Saudi cable publication was
one of the most dangerous ones. You saw what happened to journalist Jamal
Khashoggi. I mean, it is very, very dangerous publication and hacking team
searchable database and the TPP final texts. This is very important because it
really changed the life for better of loads of people. I personally work on
global trade issues and the negotiators of developing countries or representing
under-represented communities, like, they are so thankful to WikiLeaks for releasing
and publishing the TPP/IP chapter because it means better access to medicine. It got
the people with better conditions for negotiations in key issues such as access
to medicines. Then 2016, I would say that I will compare to 2010. And then you,
again, torch the center of power. WikiLeaks torch again the center of power
by publishing the Clinton, Podesta and DNC emails. And that change allowed the
narrative and changed a lot the narrative in a very different world because it was
not any more tangible censorship on deck or the clear publication. But our
information ecosystem, as we know, had been modified by social networks, by
different forms of distributing and accessing content. 2017, Obama leaves the
administration by commuting Chelsea Manning sentence and she's later release
that year. And WikiLeaks publishes NSA spying on French Election. Vault 7, which
is their tool kit of spying of the CIA and the spy files of Russia. 2018, Amazon
Atlas, US embassy shopping list and their weapon dealers details. Here is very
important that the conditions of Julian changed radically after 2016 at the
Ecuadorian embassy and the pressure of the US increased terribly. And he was not
allowed anymore to do his job as a journalist. He spent most of the year
gagged, and he could not participate activel, directly on his role
as editor. And 2019, you saw in the video. Assange is arrested. Manning is arrested
again. But in spite of that, in spite of all the pressure, WikiLeaks refuses to
shut down and continues publishing. The Pope orders, the Douma Chemical Attack and
Fishrot. So as you can see, Julian has upset and WikiLeaks has upset enough
people from the most powerful army in the world to the most powerful governments to
the most powerful corporations. And so their plans, frustrated with the TPP
collapse, and the TTAP collapse, and TISA collapse to even the Pope. So if you
upset, if you expose so many people, you have very few allies left. You have
basically the people as your allies. So that's why this talk is really, really,
really important. And you have also the media, because over the 10 years WikiLeaks
has worked closely with most of the news outlets all over the world. If you checked
your newspaper tomorrow morning, it's highly likely that it was one of the
WikiLeaks media partners. This is just a small sample of over 125
media organizations all over the world that had collaborated closely with
WikiLeaks. Richter: And I just want to add a very
interesting little detail that John Goetz told me, who was at that time - He's a
journalist. He now works for Süddeutsche and ARD - and at that time, he was working
for Der Spiegel, who also worked closely with WikiLeaks at that time, 2010. And
they published Cable Gate. And it's interesting to know that due to a
technical glitch, because the deal was that WikiLeaks publishes first and after
that, the newspapers follow. Spiegel, New York Times, Guardian and so on. And due to
this glitch, WikiLeaks was not able to publish in time. So they were too late
with the publishing and all the newspapers came out already. So technically they
published first, which is very important for the case in a way, because he's
charged because he published it first, the Cable Gate. And it would be interesting
because what does it mean? It means that actually the journalists from Spiegel and
New York Times and Guardian could face the same penalties. And when you imagin that,
then I think the impact it has on publishing becomes even more chilling and
clear, you know. So I thought to tell you this little detail about the publishing of
Cable Gate. Avila: So what happened on
April 11 when he was expelled from the embassy and dragged out is something that
goes beyond just Julian Assange. As a human rights lawyer, do you know when I
see political unrest, when I see people, dissidents at risk, I always tell them
have a good relationship with a friendly embassy, that defends human rights and in
case of trouble, get there, get inside an
embassy. It is happening now with dissidents in Bolivia, for example, who
are like right now at the embassy, in the embassy in Mexico. And we advise any of
you do that. But now with caution, because now, since the violation and since this
really brutal way that asylum was taken away from an illegal way, that asylum was
taken away from Julian and the way that police from a different country enters an
embassy, asylum has been weakened forever until we reverse this. That's why this is
yet another reason why this case is very important. Right now, you know, even the
government of Bolivia is threatening the Mexican embassy to get inside and take out
the dissidents seeking asylum inside the embassy. It is really upsetting to see how
an institution has over 400 years that was designed to protect dissidents is being
dismantled by this scandalous case. And well, when he was out, it happened what we
had predicted for years. For years we have been saying at the moment when his arrest
that they will unseal an indictment for espionage. And everyone will look at us
like back in 2010 and 2011, say, look, you're paranoid. There is no way that the
US is going to prosecute Julian. He's just hiding from Swedish charges that were
saying. Always charges, even there were never charges. And he is a coward and he's
a paranoid. And this is not going to happen. It happened immediately, and it
happened immediately. And just as predicted, it was so upsetting to see the
result of the Swedish investigation, because not only, over there, I mean,
there was a good journalist doing her job and she discovered over the years
different irregularities. Sweden wanted to shut down the case back in 2013, after the
asylum was granted. An obstacle... it was a collusion. And it's really good... if
you like documents and you like deep research, get into the documents that are
already available and see how the UK system put a lot of pressure on Sweden,
not to prosecute this case as they usually prosecute any case. Things as simple as a
videoconference could have been taking place back in 2010, back on August,
September 2010. And it didn't happen because of a lot of political pressure.
So, now the charges. There are 18 charges against Julian Assange and they might be
charges against more people who were mentioned in the indictment. The charges,
that he's facing for publishing, amount to 175 years in prison. And to make your
life simpler, basically the charges are: online publishing, protecting
sources and doing journalism. If you read what it is about, it's really chilling and
is especially chilling because look at who's in charge now. Right now all over
the world. And it is the first time that the Justice Department gets away with it.
It is using that very anachronic law to obtain an indictment from a grand jury,
that is from a group of people who thinks that it is okay to prosecute under
Espionage Act charges, online publication. If you get a takeaway from tonight: This
is the takeaway. This is the serious thing that we are discussing right now. And the
thing is, this is important, because at the center of this is our right to know.
The right to publish it on our site, is our right to know. Three relevant aspects
of the charges. You will read a lot of: "Oooh, but WikiLeaks and Julian had blood
on his hands." "It risked informants and put at risk." These charges have
nothing to do with this risk assessment. That will not be even known by the court.
These redactions and these measures of protection, that, over another in media,
not relevant for their espionage charges. And it is also important to notice, that
it mentions constantly over the indictment, WikiLeaks as an intelligence agency of the
people. And that mirrors the language of Pompeo, the current secretary of state,
who is trying to frame WikiLeaks as a non- state terrorist actor. Like the equivalent
of al-Qaeda. And that has huge, horrible implications, not only on the core
WikiLeaks organization, but on supporters even wearing a T-shirt, reading a book
about it. It can place you in a not so nice place. The important thing, that is
very worrying is, that more people may be detained and charged, before or after the
extradition takes place. Colvin: And we don't have to speculate
about this dragnet, of course, because it is already here. Already here in its
pattern of intimidation and petty and vindictiveness. Chelsea Manning, one of
the great heroes of our time, one month before Julian was expelled from the
Ecuadorian embassy and arrested on U.S. charges, just like it always said would
happen. One month before, Chelsea Manning received a subpoena to testify before a
grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. She refused to testify and was
imprisoned for contempt. She is currently... she's served 10 months. Back
in prison, she is currently being fined a thousand dollars for every day she spends
in prison, not testifying. This is what Chelsea said about what is happening, in a
statement in May: "I believe this grand jury seeks to undermine the integrity of
public discourse with the aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing and
systematic abuses of power. The idea I hold the keys to my own cell is an absurd
one. As I face the prospect of suffering either way, due to this unnecessary and
punitive subpoena: I can either go to jail or betray my principles. The latter exists
as a much worse prison than the government can construct." In September, Jeremy
Hammond, coming to the end of a long prison sentence for his role in the
publication of the Go Global intelligence files. He received a, he was called,
against his will, to testify before a grand jury, again, in the Eastern District
of Virginia. Again, he refused to testify. Again, he's been jailed for a possible 18
months on contempt. Because this is what he had to say about it in October: "After
seven and a half years of paying my debt to society, the government seeks to punish
me further with its vindictive, politically motivated legal maneuver to
delay my release. I am opposed to all grand juries, but I am opposed to this one
in particular because it is a part of the government's ongoing war on free speech
journalists and whistleblowers." If this hadn't happened to Jeremy, he would be in
a halfway house by now. He would've been released from prison. He might have been
participating in this Congress. On the 11th of April this year, the same day that
Julian was expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy and arrested and indicted by the
United States, just like he always said would happen, his friend Ola Bini was
arrested in Ecuador. Ola spent two months in an Ecuadorian prison in absolutely
disgusting conditions, until he was released by a writ of habeas corpus. Ola
has now been charged with charges that suggest that the prosecutors in Ecuador
don't really understand what it is, that security researchers do every day. Senior
Ecuadorian politicians, the most senior Ecuadorian politicians, have been on
television in Ecuador, saying that Ola is guilty before any trial date has been set.
Organizations like Amnesty and EFF have said, that Ola's prosecution is political.
And of course, they are quite correct. It's all political. Extradition is
political. Don't let anyone tell you differently. Extradition is an
institution, developed as a deal behind closed doors, done between sovereign
powers. It's only in the past hundred years or so, the parts that have been
transferred into courtrooms. But politicians still have an active role in
extradition proceedings, and sometimes extradition is used for political
purposes. Extradition in the UK is also very political. What is it that every taxi
driver in London could tell you about extradition? if you don't believe me,
you're welcome to test this out empirically, next time you're in town.
What is it they'll tell you? They will tell you that the UK has an unfair,
unequal, unbalanced, inequitable extradition treaty with the United States. This treaty
dates from 2002, when Tony Blair was keen to give the United States everything it
could possibly want and more. One of the gentlemen pictured in this slide is Gary
McKinnon. Very shortly after the 2002 extradition treaty came into force, Gary
McKinnon started a 10 year battle not to be extradited to the United States on
hacking charges. He prevailed, in the end, but only after he'd been through the
entire legal process twice. And he was rescued, eventually, by the say so of a UK
home secretary. The other gentleman on that slide is Lowry Love. In February last
year, Larry won his battle against extradition to the United States, again on
hacking charges, at appeal in the high court. I was involved in that campaign.
I'm glad he won. I'm glad he won, because it means we have a hope of saving Julian.
He'd be in trouble if he hadn't. Larry won on two different bases. One of them is
very relevant. One of the reasons why Lowry won his battle against extradition
is, because judges in the high court, including the most senior judge in England
and Wales, ruled that U.S. prisons are so bad, the conditions are so barbaric, so
medieval, that somebody with preexisting health conditions like Lowry, there was no
guarantee he'd stay alive in a US prison. You might be hearing more about that in
February next year. But there are other big, big issues involved in Julian
Assange's extradition case. Big, big issues that don't necessarily involve him
that much at all. The first clip on that slide is a part of Jon Stewart Mill's
autobiography. John Stuart Mill, liberal philosopher, and also a British politician,
for a bit. And in this extract, he's talking about how he battled to change an
earlier incarnation of a UK extradition treaty because he didn't want the British
government to become, quote, "an accomplice in the vengeance of foreign
despotisms". Extradition should not be used as a political tool for foreign
governments to pursue and punish people it doesn't like. People who are guilty of
political offenses. It's a fundamental question of sovereignty. If you were at
Andy Müller-Maguhn's excellent talk yesterday morning, you will have heard
about the pervasive, thoroughgoing and quite frightening surveillance that was
happening at the at Ecuadorian embassy for the seven years that Julian Assange was
living there. This raises a fundamental issue: If your every legal conference, all
of your discussions with your lawyers are being surveilled and allegedly passed
straight to the power that's trying to prosecute you, if all of your legal
documents are handed over, allegedly - well, actually, we know that - to the
power that's trying to prosecute you. What does that mean for your chances of a fair
trial? If you care about surveillance at all, we're going to have to make a stand
in this very extreme case, because if we don't, how are we ever going to stand up
for fair trial rights for anyone? Richter: Yes. And before I go further in
our topic, I just want to say that I have personal experience with the surveillance
happening in the embassy, because I used to visit Julian many, many times, maybe 30
times from the moment he entered the embassy till the last time I saw him is
nearly exactly a year ago. It was around Christmas last year. And at that point, I
mean, I really could see the eroding conditions that he lived in. I mean, just
to see a person that didn't see the sunlight for 7 years or something was
terrible enough. But then the last year when he lived quasi in isolation, had no
access to phone or to internet, nothing, because that was the way that he had
contact with the world and had no visitors anymore for nearly a year, I think,
because we the people that visited him, we were kind of his door to the world. And it
was for me, very, very, very weird to be surveilled all the time when I was there.
Sometimes I spend five hours at least there. And after a while, you just feel
very uncomfortable. I was so happy when I could leave that building, actually.
Especially in the last two years. And then I could not imagine staying there like him
having no private moment. I mean, in the end, they even put cameras in the
bathrooms and and the toilets and so on. I know there was this tiny kitchen,
sometimes we used to hide from the cameras to just have a moment of just talking
without feeling surveilled. And then he had also this little apparatus, I think
Andy was talking about it yesterday in his talk, that was causing white noise. And I
was really annoyed, to be honest, by this little thing. And I was always, I was also
thinking about, my God, maybe he is too paranoid, you know. Because the weird
thing is you get used to everything, and somehow, like us now being surveilled all
the time through our phones and laptops and so on, and we get used to it. But he
always insisted, even when we were talking like banal stuff about, I don't know, a
soccer game or something, the little sound machine was on causing white noise. And
not only it caused disturbance for the surveillors, it also caused headaches in
my head. And so, yeah, it's actually a very sad story. And for me, it was to see
the process, when especially after the government, the conservative government
came into power in Ecuador, his status very much changed. And so he became more
and more something I would describe as a prisoner and not someone who has asylum.
Okay. This is on my personal note, how I experienced it. And the other thing is, on
this picture you see one of the first protests that we did in Berlin, it was
this year in May. It was a little after he was dragged out of the embassy. And we
were there with some people, including Srećko Horvat, Croatian philosopher. And
as you see on the picture also Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist and human rights
advocate, who also openly supported Assange always, and also not afraid of
consequences, actually. And he also visited him in prison. And what is
also an interesting fact, that Ai Weiwei also made the connection between the
protests against the extradition law in Hong Kong. And he connected with this very
controversial extradition case of Julian in the UK at the moment. So for me, it's
sometimes something I could never believe in, former times that I will be in a
situation where we in the West, who are the good ones and the free West, the so-
called free West is somehow actually in the top 10 of having dissidents in
prisons, including the ones that we just named, and that no human rights seem to be
valuable anymore. And I find this very concerning, I must say, also on a private
level. Yes. And I was there, too, as you see in the photograph. And before I went
to the protest I was in Moscow, and I visited Edward Snowden, because I also
worked with him together. He helped me a lot on the place I did. And this was the
third time, actually, that I visited him. And we also talked about Julian's case,
and he gave me a letter of support that I was reading out loud on this protest. And
I will just read a little bit of it, that you can see now: "By the government's own
admission, Assange has been charged for his role in bringing to light true
information. Information that exposed war crimes and wrongdoing perpetrated by the
most powerful military in the history of the world. It is not just a man who stands
in jeopardy, but the future of the free press." Yes, and I think that he is very
much right in this case, because what does it mean? I mean, for me, I'm also in the
meantime, working as a journalist for Der Freitag, I published a few of the articles
about him and Snowden, and basically about whistleblowing and these things. And if he
can - if publishing becomes a crime, telling the truth becomes a crime. And if
you are not able to work with sources, to protect sources and to actively also try
to obtain material about truth. And because we live in a democracy where the
powers have to be shared and to have a balance of power, because as we know, when
power gets into a monopoly, it will always be abused. And so...
*mumbling* I will cut it short. It has bad
implications for journalists. And if this happens to Julian, it is a threat not only
to journalism, but to democracy itself. Avila: So we will accelerate, because all
the what comes next is very, very important. And yes, we saw immediately
after the arrest of Julian the situation going really badly in Australia. But what
I wanted to discuss, we wanted to discuss with you tonight, this is about you, about
someone just like you. You can see, I mean, I guess I can see you there. I can
see you in these pictures and I can see lots of similarities. You belong to the
same species, basically. He was a single father. He was prosecuted at a very, very
young age. Spent five years of his 20s fighting a legal process. But he was all
the time with his computer. I cannot, I really cannot imagine how his life was
since April, away from his computer. Can you imagine your life away from your
computer even for one day? Imagine since April, he has been away from his computer
and only having one hour a day outside a prison cell. And so while he was raising
up a kid as a single parent, and while he was dealing with a hacking legal process,
he also was actively working for our communities. He was co-running one of the
first public access Internet providers in Australia. He was always involved and
dedicated thousands of hours to the free software movement. His code was even used
by Apple and other operating system. So chances are that today, even today, our
computers, our Apple devices - for the bad people who uses Apple like me - Ironic
part of his code. He was also from very early time trying to find ways for
vulnerable groups such as human rights defenders, ways to encrypt their devices.
And so he was very active before WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks just was an upgrade,
kind of, on his plans. And I also want to mention that the CCC is mentioned,
expressly mentioned, in that part of the indictment against Julian. So what happens
here, you know, it matters there. I think that the sole fact that the community is
mentioned on an indictment against a journalist is enough reason to stand up
and say something about it and organize around it. But it is not only the
community name on the indictment, and the criminal complaint is also our
communication practices. Raise your hand if you have a Jabber account. So, yes, the
Jabber server, the CCC server, is mentioned in the criminal complaint
against Julian. Colvin: Well, yeah, I mean, but what's
even more worrying is - oh, the microphone - What's there is worrying, but what's
even more worrying is that it's a moving target. Things are still continuing. This
is part of a submission the US government made in Chelsea Manning's ongoing
procedures talk about an ongoing investigation. There's more to come. And
it's even more bad omens. *microphone noise* Like that one. Even more bad omens from from across the
water in unrelated cases and will prosecutorial series that are being put
together, which are very disturbing and augur for very bad things to come. I can't
talk about that now, but it's an excellent issue for the Q and A. What happens next?
Well, immediately what's going to happen next is that on the 24th of February, for
three or four weeks, Julian Assange will have his extradition hearing. To give you
an indication of the size and scale of this case, Larry loves extradition
hearing, which was quite a big deal and quite big. Took two and a half days.
Julian's is going to be three or four weeks. It will take place in Belmarsh
Magistrates Court in a horrible part of south east London, near the prison. It
will probably take place in the courthouse next door. They've got bigger courts, but
it will be in that place in London. Richter: So what can you do? OK. Do not be
afraid to speak up, speak with people and so on. And don't be afraid. We still live
in a free country. Immunize yourself against propaganda, which is really
something that you should be beware. That happened massively in the case of Julian.
I think you know what I mean. And understand what is at stake. This is a
political persecution and it's about everyone. And I want to quote Nils Melzer,
the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, who I met recently and this is a very
famous quote of him, that he was continuously actually saying to people in
power. "Assange has been systematically slandered to divert attention, attention
from the crimes, crimes he exposed once he had been dehumanized through isolation,
ridicule and shame. Just like the witches we used to burn at the stake. It was easy
to deprive him of his most fundamental rights and without provoking public
outrage worldwide." And I think this is exactly what happened to him.
Avila: And this is a picture of really courageous journalists from all over the
world who stand up and say, like, stop this prosecution. And they are a community
Julian belongs to. But I have seen very few real statements from this community.
So our request tonight will be like, please try to organize and try to do a
similar effort that matters a lot. Now, we will explain why.
Colvin: It's really important, because no man is an island and the UK is not an
island. Even after Brexit, right? The UK government does care about its
international reputation, maybe unlike the US. And the UK government needs to know
that the world is watching. The world is watching, they are hosting entirely
unnecessarily, the most ridiculous, the most important press freedom truck case of
a generation, completely unnecessarily. They need to know that we're keeping a
careful eye on it. Over the past few months, we've been putting a lot of effort
into ensuring that the extradition hearing, the trial, if you like, in
February is properly monitored. We have 25 elected parliamentarians and 12 European
countries who have committed to be being part of those monitoring efforts.
Reporters sans Frontières are going to are going to monitor. We have a whole group of
medics who are going to monitor the extradition proceedings. And I think it
would be good to have a similar effort from this community, too, frankly.
Avila: Especially because there are many technical issues being discussed. Your
opinion really matters for this trial, you know. And he can't do it. He cannot do it
from prison. He counts on you to help lawyers, to help the press, to help
everyone understand what is and what isn't online publishing and online
journalism. 21st Century journalism is at stake on this case.
Colvin: And your voice really matters here. It really does. Yes.
Avila: And, you know, he's our friend. And it's not only someone we support, but he's
our friend. And he likes to have the final word, always. So we can now bring,
bringing him back from the - eleven years ago from a Congress like this one, to have
the final word. *video sound fails*
Voice from the off: Oh, oh, oh. Hey, CIA? Yeah. No, it's only a glitch. He's going
to be frustrated, really angry. *laughs* Richter: Try again?
Avila: Is it ok? Richter: Should we try?
Avila: If not, we can... In the meantime, we can read it out, we can read it out,
so... Colvin: "Justice doesn't just happen.
Justice is forced by people coming together and exercising strength, unity
and intelligence." That's Julian at 25C3.
*applause*
Avila: Shall we try? Richter: Should we try?
Avila: Let's try one last time. No. Oh, my God, silence.
Colvin: He'll be annoyed by that. He would be very annoyed. He's going to be really
angry about that. All right. Avila: Please do not tell him.
Colvin: Yeah. Yeah, don't tell him. If you don't tell him, he won't know.
Avila: Yeah. So we are ready for some questions. I think that we have very
little time, but if we don't have enough time, we will be hanging out that the
teahouse and you can come to us and ask questions and how to help.
Herald Angel: Thank you so much.
*applause*
It was very insightful, moving and incredibly important. So I remind everyone
that we have six microphones. If you have questions, line up behind them. And also
our wonderful signal angels are going to take some questions from the internet, one
of which we're going to answer right now. Signal Angel: Ok, there was the question
that: Which reasons could there be to explain the lack of fair and well balanced
media reports in the Assange case? Colvin: What are the reasons for the lack
of support of media coverage? OK. Avila: You want to answer that?
Richter: You start and I will also help. *Mumbling*
Avila: Very quickly I will say that, going back to this slide on who he
exposed: the most powerful people. If you have the most powerful people, like,
in the world, private sector, public sector, even hidden sector against you and
with unlimited resources to take you down, it's quite easy to kill positive stories. It
is really hard in times that journalism is on the resource and that the courageous
journalists are not, like, really rewarded. It is really difficult
to navigate that ecosystem. Richter: Yes. And I want to add that also
there is a reason. I think if journalism today would be - do a proper job of
investigating and exposing the powerful, that it would not be necessary that
WikiLeaks even exists. I think if they would do their job as the fourth, so-
called fourth estate in democracy, then something like WikiLeaks wouldn't even be
there. And I think that might be a reason that I think that the - he not only
exposed the powerful, but he also a little bit exposed, of course, his
colleagues at the so-called established press. And I think that every
reason that he gave, and there were some because he's not perfect, Julian Assange
is only human, and he did make mistakes like everybody of us. And I could say, OK,
take the first stone and throw it. But I think that, of course, bad news is always
good news. And let's say many people who knew him said, let's say, negative things
that the press picked up. But, like, when I would say to press - or I also know
him, I think he's a decent guy. Nobody wants to report that because it's boring
and not interesting. So, yeah. There are many reasons for that, I think.
Colvin: I'm going to add that, I mean, the fact that there are 10 years of history
here definitely makes a difference. But look, I speak to a lot of journalists and
I speak to a lot of journalists about this case in the UK and particularly as it's
become more obvious that Julian is not doing very well, that he's very unwell. I
think people are shocked. And I can you know. People are frightened about it. They
might not be talking about it very much at the moment, but they will. It is what is
changing around for sure. Richter: Yes. And then, speaking of being
frightened, also, don't underestimate that people might be afraid.
Avila: And also, I know that there are many journalists here tonight. This is
your opportunity to change the narrative because you are next if you stay silent.
Herald: Thank you. We're going to take the next question from a man who's wearing a
Julian Assange mask. Gathering worth the effort and microphone 2 please.
M2: Oh, hi. I want to thank you so much for your talk. When we are all facing
this situation of asking ourselves what we can do, we should take inspiration from
what you just said and what you just did. It is not just about Julian. It is about
every one of us here. Herald: This is wonderful, but that is not
a question. M2: No, but I'm getting there.
Herald: Can you get there faster? M2: It's about historical perspective on
all these aspects about war, about power, about what we can do, about what the
internet is about to question power. It is about also maybe admitting -
Herald: Maybe much faster? M2: much faster. It is not perfect. You may
have said stupid things on Twitter like we all did. And like anyone would do after
seven years in detention. Yet he's one of us. So when asking
ourselves what to do. It's a modest contribution from the internet. There is a
wiki that is online for a few days now on these stickers that you
Herald: okay. We're going to take an actual question. I am really sorry, but.
Microphone 1, please. *applause* Richter: Okay, still thank you.
M1: I thank you for the inspiring talk, so I am a Pakistani journalist I now live in
exile in Berlin. But what the story of Assange and what we just saw this. You
know, everything that happened and the perpetrators that even put the
authoritarian regimes and their leaders in shame, especially how the system of asylum
has been breached. That also scares me. I have actually called because I'm scared.
But my question is, could you as journalists maybe shed some light on the
on the chilling effect for journalists? I mean, I can only imagine that there might
be more leaks in line that would have happened, but maybe has not happened
because the journalists are also now self censoring. So what would you advise to
such journalists? Thank you. Richter: Well, that is is really exactly a
very tough question. And this is exactly one of the dangers that we are pointing to
you know, that people might just not expose it. And like I said, people are
starting to get afraid. What can we say to them? Well, ...
Avila: I have something
and I think that Julian has something to say, this is endless with justice, with as
a community, with strength, unity and indulgence. I mean, look at the talent in
this room. Look, it's not necessarily just the brilliance of one whistleblower or one
person. It's the ecosystem that we need to create to create resilient media. And we
need a resilient media for democracy to work. And if it cannot happen, even here
in Germany, with all the resources and with all the brilliant minds, where is it
going to happen? So I think that we cannot stop innovating and we need to push for
the next wave of innovations for the journalism that we've served these needs
in our times. And that's why this case matters a lot, because it's punishing
these innovations that these two redistributed power among people. Yeah.
There also needs to be a recognition. A bit of solidarity is necessary here,
because this isn't just about Julian. As Renata mentioned briefly, things in
Australia have gone to pop since Julian was arrested. And more than that, one of
the slides I flicked over was the indictment of a drone with alleged drone
whistleblower, Daniel Hale. In Daniel Hale the count - one of Daniel Hale's
indictment accuses him of unlawfully releasing information. About unlawfully
releasing information to a journalist who he knew would have used it unlawfully. So
this is like the second time in a US indictment we have an accusation of a
publisher, a journalist acting unlawfully by publishing true information in the
public interest. We need to be aware and we need to raise the alarm, because this
isn't just about Julian. The threat is very real and it's very broad.
Herald: Thank you. We have time for one last question and we're going to ask our
signal angels again. Signal Angel: So there was the question
how can we help and support Manning, Assange and Snowden?
Richter: Well, like we just said also, I think it's very important to show solidarity in
different ways by raising your voice. Well, even supporting with donation, it's
always good. It's good for Manning. It's good for everyone. I think Courage
Foundation is someone who's supporting everyone, including Jeremy Hammond and
Chelsea Manning, who are not so much in the focus maybe like Julian, but also for
Julian. I think that his trial will cost - - my God - hundreds of thousands of
pounds. Let's hope that the pound goes down after Brexit. But, OK. No. I
mean, and I think speaking up and like Renata also said, to have the feeling that
we are many and I think exactly this thing that he said. People coming together and
sharing and kind of be brave like "Courage is contagious." is one of my favorite quotes
of him. And so I think I take a stand. Have an attitude and do as much as you can
in your possibilities, which which are not so little, I think. And I think it is
for the good of everyone, not only the names, people who are in danger now, but
for all of our freedom. Colvin: Resist practically. There's a lot to do and
there's a lot of work to go round or as we've mentioned in the talk, organizing in
the communities you're part of. His work is very important here in Germany. To take
an example, we've had parliamentarians coming forward. We've also had the
journalists' union. We've also had collections of lawyers. All of this is
really important. And it makes a difference to the work that's being done
in the U.K. There are lots of different organizations and groups doing work on
this case and it's all really valuable. Contribute as you will, find a group that
you think is doing is doing good work. Either work that you think will make a
difference or that accords with your own ideological perspective and support them.
There's a lot of people doing good work here. I know one of the saving graces of
what has been quite a depressing year is meeting so many people who were doing
important work on this most dire of issues. Avila: And we have a lot of faith on you
as a community, to be honest. We count on you and this community do not leave behind
people belonging here. And I think that if we can see - I think that Julian will be
like incredibly thrilled and Chelsea will be like super happy to know that there's
organized efforts to follow this case closely and to have delegations present
during the hearings. And if they know that you are there, even symbolically there,
they will feel so much better because more and more to any community, Snowden,
Chelsea, Julian really love this. Love, admire and count on this community. So
please be there, and find us later, we will explain the more detailed ways to
help. And thank you so much for attending this talk. Like, really, it means a lot.
It means a lot to have a full room. And I know that there's many people watching as
well and will watch this again. Please continue following this case. We will
prepare all the information that you need. But what you - we need you to activate
it and to translate it into action. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.
*applause*
Herald: Thank you for this.
*postroll music*
Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de in the year 2020. Join, and help us!