it's a very good fit actually
yeah but on the other side
that's actually quite awesomely cool for
this particular topic
yeah we are we are recording
all right
all right i'm going to introduce stephen
cobb um i've been wanting to get stephen
cobb ever since we started corncon in
2015.
um with a name like steven cobb he's
made for corncon aren't you stephen um
i'm going to stop sharing and i'm going
to let you uh put your slides up
thank you so much for joining us from uh
i'm glad to finally be here at corncon
even though i'm not in iowa
okay well unless somebody through some
other
means of communication tells me this is
not working
um i'm going to assume it's working
looks great
okay cool um
right so uh good morning
uh everyone and welcome to the first
talk of the second day of corncon 2020.
um it's actually afternoon where i am
which is not in iowa but
in england and uh
i'd really rather be in iowa right now
the weather here is kind of wet and
miserable but this talk is about
how hackers save humanity something i
would call a cautionary tale of
existential risk
as i said i am stephen cobb this view
here
is the view of our earth from
the moon but let's imagine for a moment
that that's not the moon it's a huge
asteroid headed towards
planet earth so
that could end badly um
this is actually a screenshot from a
movie
greenland which is going to come out
later this year
and it's about a large heavenly body
striking the
earth and it looks actually pretty good
in the trailer
i just captured this from youtube but we
know
from pre history from our historic
research
that this can happen right 66 million
years ago there was something called the
cretaceous paleogene extinction event
and i believe every tetrapod above the
weight of 50 pounds
went extinct as a result of that
which is not a happy thing to think
about and and this
isn't perhaps a happy talk maybe it's
best it's in the morning so we can get
over it
for the rest of the day but um let me
just tell you quickly about myself
my name is stephen cobb i wrote a
security book back in 1991
and i like corn um this is shaykh my
partner
she actually grows corn even in england
and it grew
pretty well this year she also wrote
network security for dummies and knows
just as much about security as i do if
not more
she also inspired my research into
existential risk
shay's long toyed with various uh
apocalyptic scenarios in which uh people
are sent back to a situation in in our
existence where we have to for example
grow our own corn and we actually grew
our own corn this year because
of something that happened which was not
i don't think an existential
uh event but the covert 19 pandemic
which reminded us all that there's
always a risk
for humans here on earth that things can
go wrong
sometimes very wrong sometimes very
quickly
sometimes fatally sometimes at scale
and oddly enough i was actually thinking
about
this problem at the end of last year
and before the the pandemic hit and then
we started to see these terrible numbers
and i i really hate to show these
numbers but
you know they remind us that things can
go very wrong very quickly
you know the world has now passed one
million deaths from covert 19
and this pandemic has
i think exposed the world's lack of
preparedness to deal with things on a
global scale
particularly when those things are
happening
badly at scale we've also seen
weaknesses in things like
our technology several countries have
tried
track and trace applications that
haven't worked uh
countries have found that large or too
many people
uh within their population can't work
from home because they don't have decent
internet or any internet at all
um and we found out a lot of things
which hopefully
uh as the situation improves hopefully
next year
we can improve but if these things go
much much worse if a risk becomes more
than a catastrophe it turns into
what is potentially an existential risk
so there's risk and then there's
existential risk
and this is just a loose definition of
an existential risk
something that could end life as we know
it for us
and our survivors and not in a good way
i guess it stands to reason that if um
there was an event which took out all
humans
today there would be no more humans but
it's a little bit more
complicated than that as hopefully i
will be able to explain
and also able to explain why
this relates to hackers and how our
hacking relates to this
so just to give some examples risk would
be for example
you're trying to get a bootleg version
of green dark land downloaded to watch
it
but it contains malware there is a risk
of that there's a risk that a comet
fragment
might devastate central florida as we
can see from the wgvo
traffic helicopter that's a screenshot
from the movie
and that sort of happens in the movie
but
existential risk would be the rest of
the comet
kills all humans another existential
risk would be that a novel virus
kills 90 percent of all humans
and this is one of the important
distinctions about existential risks
they're not always
totally 100 immediately fatal for
everything in the future of humanity
it's possible that some people could
survive
and in fact there are studies of prior
catastrophes which show that
it's actually quite likely that some
people would somewhere survive
after all humans are spread all around
the globe now
but it might not be enough people left
to ever recover the way things were and
of course
for some of us who grew up in the 60s uh
nuclear war ending all human life is
kind of the mother of all
existential risks because that one could
still take us out uh in a big way
so risk would be for example the office
coffee maker getting hit with ransomware
and uh a hat tip to avast for
um having one of their researchers look
into that and finding out you can
actually run ransomware on a coffee
maker
and malicious code is a theme which um
i think is important in the context of
existential risk
for example the artificial intelligence
unit of your self-driving car gets hit
with jack wear
jack wears a term i came up with a few
years ago to describe the intersection
of things like
ransomware with self-driving vehicles
and that could be a very bad risk
existential risk though would be an
artificial intelligence that was
tasked with something like ending world
hunger deciding to
kill humans which would end
world hunger but i think they made a
movie about that again it's things going
very badly wrong
like an attempt to reverse global
warming and i think global warming
has the potential to be an existential
risk but
people have looked at the possibility of
tinkering with
the world's atmosphere intentionally to
slow down the process of global warming
so that we can
have more time to clean up our act since
we're kind of behind schedule
in dealing with climate change and
global warming
another existential risk is apocalyptic
terrorists
creating and spreading a deadly
bioengineered virus
and i'll be coming back to apocalyptic
terrorists
later even though it's a bit of a tongue
twister
and how about this a rogue artificial
general intelligence
traps humans on earth in a state of
slavery
now i should mention and give a shout
out to dwight schwarthau
who will be talking more about
artificial intelligence
in the next presentation not necessarily
in this context
but artificial intelligence figures
heavily in the
existential risk literature as i will
explain
so what's existential risk got to do
with hacking and cyber security
uh well hackers and infosec people
are typically very good at what could
possibly go wrong
right we tend to look at each new
development in technology
we could get excited about it a lot of
us like technology in a way but
we tend to think about what could go
wrong
recently there was an update to ios on
on the uh
the iphone so he could use your iphone
to open
your car to unlock your car and
shay and i immediately saw that when
what could possibly go wrong
yeah we have car themes already using
electronic overrides and so on
what could possibly go wrong uh with
that
and so i think that existential risk you
could say is the ultimate
what could possibly go wrong
the hacker mentality is to poke and prod
and explore and extrapolate
with technology it really helps to get
into
looking at what could possibly go wrong
and then explaining it to other people
so i'm not sure if this is a bumper
sticker yet but
um hackers don't break your things we
stop
things breaking you and
i'm going to talk about some really big
things that we could maybe stop breaking
us
in our existential risk primer we're
going to talk about
definitions of existential risk topics
of morality and statistics which come
into play here
um one of the exciting things to me
about being in security has been
since the early days the diversity
of direction from which people came to
computer security all right so it it
wasn't like we all went to school and
got a degree in this and then went to
work in it
uh we came at it before degrees some of
us in the early days
from different directions and yet that
still happens there are people who get
into
cyber security and hacking from
different directions
and yeah i have a i have degrees in
english
and religion and risk management and
religion actually comes into the
existential risk
uh conversation very quickly morality
becomes big
if you're into mathematics statistics
are big in existential risk
and so this is a topic which i think is
rising
up the public agenda and for which
people from various directions within
hacking and information security can get
involved agents of the apocalypse
are actually a thing in existential risk
we'll talk about the story of how
hackers save humanity and then i'll
provide some opportunities
and resources for getting further
involved in this or exploring this
further
so oh it also includes the vulnerable
world hypothesis
this is an interesting not not a tangent
really but an aspect of existential risk
and technology
we'll talk about that so if you're
still not convinced what's existential
risk got to do with hacking and cyber
security
i can't do a show of hands here but i
would if i was there in person say how
many people
saw this presentation at defcon 25
where john sotos who is the chief
medical officer of
intel not speaking as an intel employee
at this event
but talked about how genetic diseases
could act as a guide to digital hacks of
the human genome
as with many con presentations it's
online you can google it and
go through it i'd i'd sort of you know
maybe have a friend
with you because this this presentation
had
slide after slide of horrible things you
could do messing about with jeans if you
were malicious
and his call at that time was for
the hacking community to start looking
into this
because the world is going to need help
preventing this
happen down the road so let's look at
the definition of existential risk from
a more formal point of view
bostrom nick bostrom is really the
person who who brought
existential risk to the public attention
in the early part of the 2000s
and he used this definition a risk that
threatens
the premature extinction of all human
life
or the permanent and drastic reduction
of its potential
for desirable future development so this
captures the idea that
it's not just oh we all die and there
aren't any more humans
but also the possibility that most of us
die and our future generations don't
have a very good time
his original definition i think used the
phrase
instead of all human life all earth
originating intelligent life
and this is because the direction that
bostrom came from
getting into existential risk was
transhumanism
and transhumanism is the idea that
technology can transform humans
uh can extend our lives can extend our
capabilities
and make the world a much much better
place
and maybe move us beyond the world
into outer space into maybe computer
networks so that we can live on
virtually now
i'll give a lot of credit for bostrom to
boston because
as he looked at this and got very
excited about the
possibilities of transhumanism he also
realized things could go very very wrong
and
so he started to look at its essential
risk and really dove into that
you know i actually do think things
could go very very wrong with
transhumanism
and um i tend to diverge from him on
some of these uh
some of these finer points but he
clearly established that you know an
existential risk need not actually kill
everyone
um if we were unable to rebuild society
and and this is
the position from a paper called the
global priorities project
uh that i'll talk about more uh then
yeah it would still qualify as an
existential catastrophe
and yeah something that ends life as we
know it for us and our survivors and
not in a good way
obviously there are different kinds of
existential risks so some
some of them can be categorized like
this so we have natural
existential risks the classic asteroid
impact
um this is some sometimes also a comet
impact
i think they tend to use comets more in
movies because
they're easier for people to understand
um super volcanoes
that could happen huge eruption uh
blocks the sun plants can't process so
on and so forth
natural diseases i mean we're seeing you
know i
tend to be in the covid19 is a naturally
occurring disease camp
that can have tremendous negative
effects and has the potential to
kill everybody anthropogenic
is us all right so human
sourced risk and and these this
is something which makes this very
modern topic it wasn't really until 1950
that people realized oh my gosh you know
after
we saw the end of world war ii in
nuclear
explosions we could destroy
everything that we could destroy the
planet
there already was a rising sense before
that
that humans were having a negative
effect on the world
uh and in fact uh some philosophers who
lived through world war one world war ii
were developing thoughts along these
lines one of my favorite philosophers
hans jonas was one of the first to come
up with
the idea that humans had a
responsibility to not destroy the planet
to not uh as gentlemen said at the
beginning of the day
f it up right we'd have a responsibility
not just to humans
but to the whole thing because for the
first time ever humans could destroy
everything
and the nuclear holocaust is is the big
one
uh the first that really focused
attention on
existential risk and this possibility
that we could end it
all but engineered pandemic
uh close second there in the you know
world war one world war ii there was use
of
um chemical weapons some biological
weapons
and we haven't stopped by the way
developing
nuclear weapons biological weapons or
chemical weapons there are a few
treaties around
but they're not working that well then
we have genetics
and i referenced that earlier with
sotos's talk
um doesn't necessarily have to be this
existential risk
something that somebody bad did you
could be well intentioned and get it
wrong
could be accidental misuse of
nanotechnology
and this is another example of how
people come at existential risks from
different directions
so when nanotechnology was making
headlines
people started to think oh my gosh how
could that possibly go wrong
grey goo is something you may want to
google the
scariest talk that i can't talk about
was one that involved a combination of
genetic meddling
and nanotechnology intentional misuse
of nanotechnology thanks for that win
that was very frightening um
geoengineering
could prove fatal we could try to save
the planet
and fail badly
but also humans themselves could be the
problem
imagine a dictatorship armed with
tremendous amounts of
technology just taking over the whole
world and making life miserable for all
future humans
this is interesting the pandemic
arguably sits in the middle
you may have seen a book reviewed called
the precipice by toby ord
so this is a big thick book which came
out this year talk about great timing
uh as covid was blowing up so to speak
this book about existential risks by a
philosopher toby ward came out
and it's still a costly hardback at the
moment but you can find
a lot of his writing and in fact
bostrom's stuff and a lot of this
material
uh is downloadable free online the
papers that they have written
he's got a great youtube um
lecture in which he describes why
pandemic sits in the middle because
coronavirus shows us how the way we've
shaped our world
so far has in fact
exacerbated the problem you know jet
travel
global travel that spread this thing
faster than
any previous thing has ever spread
arguably
and there are of course unknown unknowns
and we'll get to those in the vulnerable
world hypothesis another way of
categorizing things and i won't go
through all of these in detail
is that it's not just a big bang bostrom
had these four categories bangs crunches
shrieks and whimpers
so we may not necessarily realize as an
existential risk
unfolds that that is what it is it may
not just happen suddenly
and it may not ever come to an end
for visual learners like myself it may
be helps to graph things out this was a
simple
early graph by bostrom
where you have a choice between
endurable and terminal scope
and three levels of intensity so your
car is stolen
that's a risk it's an endurable risk
a fatal car crash obviously terminal but
it's only affecting one person in this
case
you could have a recession in a country
which was an endurable problem not a
nice problem to have an endural problem
but there have been genocides which
have right wiped out entire populations
within
a local context you could have global
issues like thinning of the ozone layer
and existential risks
sit in the top right hand corner because
they are both global
and in one way or another terminal
some existential risks will start off as
catastrophes
an existential catastrophe will then
lead to
so if the catastrophe turns existential
that will mean it's
either extinction or failed continuation
we can't carry on as we did
either through an unrecoverable collapse
or an unrecoverable dystopia
the authoritarian regime which rules the
planet makes us miserable
ward created this uh chart on the right
another chart which i won't go through
in great detail has more categories
in the severity scale damaging
catastrophic and fatal
and this comes from the existential risk
diplomacy and governance
report which was something which came
out actually uh
talks around the paris agreement on uh
climate change and global warming
when talk of gene geo engineering was
big
and uh some of the things like aerosol
spraying in the atmosphere
uh were put forward as the potential way
to
to help and then people realized that
could be very risky
and so that is addressed in this report
this report is also very good if you're
kind of a policy one can you want to
look at an initial view of how we might
address existential risk from a world
governance perspective
i said earlier there was math and morals
um
is future life worth saving is
uh a moral question how many people will
there be in the future is kind of a
scientific mathematical problem um
you know if we save x billion people
today the
current world population
we don't just save them we save their
future generations
um calculating future generation numbers
is interesting
because you want to do that if you're
going to argue
i'd like some money to research a
reduction of existential risk
how many lives could you save and it
turns out it could be hundreds
or even thousands of billions if you
saved
people going extinct um but what is the
value
of a reduction in existential risk
relative to the value
of future lives relative to present
lives
so you know we have this thing
uh where we try to figure out how to
spend our money globally uh
what causes to support and how about
asteroid deflection
you know we know asteroids have caused
serious problems in the past they're
still around
um in fact the world is investing in
asteroid defense i'll talk about that
more later but
it's costing billions and billions of
dollars would it be better
and this argument happens around all
kinds of space related things
is it better to do it in do this stuff
in space or
here on earth make life better for the
people who are alive at the moment
and potentially their future generations
raising people out of poverty and so on
should we
should we do that first before we build
the asteroid defense system
and of course there's the other point of
view which we're all supposed to die
anyway this is the aspect of religion
called eschatology the end times
and that can play into the existential
risk discussion
the statistics are are interesting i'm
not a statistician but uh toby ward in
his book looks at this in
in great detail and and he came up with
this
this is directly from his book the
precipice
uh calculating what's the chance of this
happening in the next 100 years
and you know fortunately the whole
asteroid thing that's one in a million
you get down to engineered pandemics
that's one in 30.
unaligned artificial intelligence sorry
one in ten and so
you know i have serious doubts about
some of these calculations
and to give ward his due he puts in lots
of caveats with these but
it's an interesting area to go if you're
interested uh in that sort of thing
and you may want to use this in your
arguments around
existential risk so
we're all going to die anyway brings us
to agents of apocalypse
and phil torres is the go-to person on
this
his book the end what science and
religion tell us about the apocalypse
very good to read on this because he
came at existential risk
and he's written a lot about many
aspects of the problem
from a religious perspective he uh he
became an atheist
and he began looking in critical detail
and apocalyptic beliefs
the idea that some people are not just
motivated to kill themselves for their
religious police but to kill everybody
um you know there are a lot of
uh debates around the morality of
suicide bombing and
and and the idea that that's using
somebody to make your point because
you're
if you organize somebody to commit to
kill themselves in your cause
you're still around so
a true apocalyptic terrorist would be
one it's
both suicidal and omnicidal and wants to
kill not them just themselves but
everybody else
idiosic so so taurus breaks this down
into the agents right so these are
different agents not all religious but
idiosyncratic actors are people who are
just
out there in terms of their beliefs and
attitudes eco-terrorists
many many fine eco-terrorists i'm sure
but
there is a school of thought in
eco-terrorism that we really should just
kill ourselves
because we're killing the planet so it
would be better
to kill off all humans so that the
planet could thrive
i have sort of issues with that but um
that's out there rogue states
you would not necessarily think of them
as an agent of killing everybody
but they might want to kill a lot of
people and may not be able to stop
themselves once they get started
also though super intelligence that sort
of
advanced general intelligence on
steroids
if that happened if we got into a race
condition where artificial intelligence
just
got smarter and smarter it might get so
smart it decided it didn't need us
anymore um
i won't go into depth here about the the
discussion of risk versus resilience
but i wanted to put that there because
it does ground us a little bit
in cyber security we work very much
in the area risk assessment risk
management risk analysis
and in recent years the idea of
resilience has been
um very strongly
advocated as this idea that we prepare
and plan
for bad things so that we can recover
them from them and and go better in the
future
and they're acknowledging we don't know
what's coming
so you know we don't know what the next
malware is going to be like what the
next strain of ransomware is going to do
uh you know or is it going to be brought
into work by an employee who's been
bribed by a criminal
you know we don't know what's going to
happen next so if we develop resilience
we can respond to anything
there are some good debates about which
perspective is best here
risk or resilience at facing existential
risk
one of the issues is that probabilities
um
are difficult to assess in this whole
thing
and um do you remember the probability
tests that or
the probability examples you would have
in statistics where you're supposed to
build
uh pull a colored ball out of an urn of
colored balls
that's where we get to boston's
vulnerable world hypothesis
and the black ball um
i was somewhat tempted to use black
balls in the title of this talk but i
thought that was kind of in bad taste
and uh could be a misconception of years
ago
about future inventions
so if we think of an urn containing
balls each of which
represents a new piece of technology
there are yellow balls red balls green
balls
green ball you reach in you can't see
through
it's a it's an opaque urn
so you reach in you pull out a ball it's
a green ball that's
technology that's really good no
downsides great
you pull out a red one that's clearly
bad so you deal with it
a black ball is one that is invariably
or by default going to destroy the
civilization that invents it
right so it's really really bad stuff
and he argues we haven't actually
pulled a black ball out of the urn yet
why will it destroy things though this
is due to the semi-anarchic default
condition
again a term that boston's put out there
that's very handy it describes
today right limited capacity for
preventive policing
limited capacity for global governance
diverse motivations
throughout the world's population so
if you look at the pandemic current
pandemic um
we've had difficulty controlling this we
would certainly have difficulty
controlling
for a situation where somebody finds
and he uses this example the cheap nuke
suppose somebody
pulls a ball out of the urn a technology
which enables nuclear detonations
using a commonly available substance
right
if it was suddenly very easy and cheap
to make nukes
somebody might try to do that and we'd
have a hard time policing that
we have a limited capacity for global
governance
look at what's happened with kobe um
america left
who china got blamed
um other people got blamed and the
ability to control things really
has been shown to be weak and everybody
or not everybody but there are many
different diverse motivations
uh out there want an autocracy some
people
want a dictatorship some people want to
rule the world uh
others don't some people have religious
beliefs which conflict with
non-religious beliefs and so on
so he calls this the semi-anarchic
default condition into which a piece of
deadly technology
arrives in the form of a black ball and
we're in tough shape
what do we do to prevent this global
surveillance and policing you might be
able to get on top of this
but the challenge there is so great that
you end up going well
maybe we could use an advanced uh sorry
an artificial in
general intelligence for this a super
intelligence could be used to do this
real-time global
surveillance and policing of emerging
technologies
so that they don't go badly wrong which
that
brings us right back to the control
problem for artificial intelligence
and we're left trying to figure out
what's next
i'll leave this here the authoritarian
term
as this temptation to think that you
know really just a
the only way we move forward is a
powerful centralized system of control
that's the only way of dealing with
these big problems
hopefully that is not the case
so let's talk about how hackers save
humanity
this is one of many stories that could
easily be written
and i'm thinking we might have um the x
files as in x risk files
uh could be a graphic novel series of
comics or short stories
here's an example so
the world's governments in order to slow
global warming have created the
stratospheric aerosol injection system
so this has been tested in the labs to
reduce
solar radiation it's called says and it
uses an ai to decide when where and how
much air or soul should be released
in order to create this gradual effect
by which the world's
cooling takes place to give us more time
to develop our solutions get rid of
fossil fuels and so on
however days before sas goes live a
hacker finds a zero day
vulnerability in the operating system
that this ai
is rumored to run on uh
as far as i can tell most ais are
running on linux now but
correct me if i'm wrong but anyway the
hacker finds a zero day in the operating
system
she reaches out to hackers in other
countries to confirm
yes this vulnerability does have the
potential to enable
a faulty cess aerosol release order
so this could lead to things going very
very badly wrong
this group of hackers then takes this to
the stace executives
they don't respond to the hacker's
concerns so the hackers go public with a
dramatic proof of concept
just in time to prevent a potentially
catastrophic launch
so by poking and prodding by not taking
at their word people who make assurances
about the safety and security of things
hackers save humanity
so i'm getting close to the end of time
here so
the end of my time sorry at the end of
time
uh just some pointers here
become a public intest technologist
particularly i think people who've been
in cyber security for a while
may want to think about this and kudos
to bruce schneier who a few years ago
put together this public interest
technology resource page and started
talking about this
the need for governments to
get input in to this problem
of um
technology that goes wrong and
research it educate people engage people
and enlighten people so that the people
who make polity
decisions and decide where to spend
money
better understand how much things could
possibly
go wrong um public interest tech
dot org and uh these resources
um again thanks bruce
you can google and find this resources
on existential risk it's 170 pages
of great content that bruce has pulled
together he pulled this
together back in 2015 on this topic
not included in there because they are
more recent is bostrom's super
intelligence
phil torres on morality and this recent
book by toby award
with that one more thing do not fear
aida's here uh to reassure people who
are worried about the asteroid in the
beginning
there is the international asteroid
impact and deflection
assessment collaboration ada which next
year will launch this spacecraft
dart to test a system of diverting
asteroids
so uh with that i'd like to say
thank you corncon 2020 i am uh stephen
cobb you can reach out to me in lots of
different ways
um and a huge thanks to uh shay cobb for
her wisdom advice and sanity checks on
this presentation
and everything else that i do
so now i'm in an interesting situation
because i'm not quite sure
what i do next but i've got some chat
it says thank you stephen and um let me
check my watch here yes 321
um i'm not sure if we're taking
questions of where we take them
um i'd certainly take any questions you
have about this offline
usually most active on twitter that's
the cob
and uh let me stop sharing now
are you able back to the screen where
we've got some chat going on
uh hold on yes can i hear you yeah this
is john
um yeah so you see the q a window as
well
um i've got the chat window
oh a window
[Laughter]
first question in the q a window is how
many beers did you spill on your first
aeroflot flight to moscow the correct
answer is zero
i do know a gentleman on that flight who
who did spill some beer but i won't name
names so
yes and christopher here great question
um how do you prevent genetic hacking
without having a police state with no
privacy
and i mean that really gets to the heart
of a lot of this
which is that existential risks
are difficult
in in many ways and and i you know
sotos in his talk uh def con a few years
ago
uh i think made that clear as well how
does a democratic
open society share new technology
and research which we don't want to stop
sharing because the benefits could be
huge
the losses could be huge so there's a
like if we stopped
research or controlled research
and kept it to just a few people and
kept it monitored
we might miss great opportunities
because we all know that
things come out of left field because so
many people are poking around in
technology
um i i sadly don't have then the answer
to that question
i do think we really have to get a move
on
lobbying and pushing as citizens
in every country to get our governments
to work together
and this is where i'd bring it back to
malware
and i would say this if if we can't stop
as a planet malware particularly
ransomware well let's just take
ransomware
if we can't stop ransomware
through intergovernmental uh
international cooperation
then we're not really going to do much
of a good job with existential risk
that ada program to deflect asteroids or
test deflecting asteroids
uh that was the united states and the
european union
that nearly broke apart it's come back
together
so we can see there are problems
of democratic countries with an open
society
and respect for privacy policing
themselves
um we need to to work on that and we we
do need to push i think
first and foremost for international
cooperation even though we might not
like people
we did it perhaps a hopeful sign is the
fact we did have
you know non-proliferation treaties uh
around nuclear weapons
we did agree to stop the mass production
of nuclear weapons
by agreeing and making agreements with
people that we were
at war within a cold war so we have to
do more in that space
so that's sort of my non-answer sorry
okay
uh hearing no more questions i i think i
would i would
you know call my uh my presentation over
i really appreciate this opportunity
uh very impressed with the technology
here uh hopefully it will be used for
good and not
ill wish everybody a good day for the
rest of the day
all right thanks steven it was great to
have you here
um i'm glad we were able to finally get
you uh
as a speaker and an attendee there are
more discussions going on
in uh the discord for the
tracks one two and three track three is
about to start up
with uh phil polstra talking about
forensics
track two we have george simmons uh
starting up the new cyber engineer
and in this track we will have wynn
schwartau
in about five minutes thank you